1998-03-113816REPS92301998-03-11Mr SPEAKER (Rt Hon. Ian Sinclair) took the chair at 9.30 a.m., and read prayers.Bills923r455923Debate resumed from 9 March, on motion by Mr Williams:That the bill be now read a second time.09:31:00923Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—We did not need to be here today again talking about the Native Title Amendment Bill 1997 [No. 2] . We could probably have avoided much of this if this current government, when in opposition, had not taken an attitude of radical non-cooperation to the original Native Title Act. We could have avoided this if the government had been prepared to negotiate in good faith in producing the bill that we have before us. We could have avoided this if the government had been prepared to accept an outcome back in December last year which gave them 90 per cent of their bill.The fact that, despite all these opportunities to avoid this face-off, we are here today represents just about the second worst possible outcome for this debate. The worst outcome will occur if ever we have to confront this reprehensible piece of legislation in a joint sitting; then we will truly plumb the depths of the worst possible outcomes for this process. We will then set the stopwatch and wait for the first High Court challenge, the first adverse decision and the Native Title Amendment Bill Mark III. But all that avoids the fact that there are worst possible outcomes from this government's actions happening right now, every day of the week.Our second reading amendments cover some important themes, and today I want to go through some of those. Those themes focus—because someone has to—on the uncertainty that exists today; the uncertainty that has been created expressly by this government. I want to talk about three types of the worst possible outcomes which are happening already, happening right now, under this government's approach to native title. The first is that the government's refusal to accept the 90 per cent of its bill which passed through the Senate means that thousands of potentially invalid interests and rights granted after 1 January 1994 by state governments remain in question.This is just one of the areas of significant compromise—significant compromise for the Labor Party and very significant compromise for indigenous groups—which the government was prepared to ignore as it took its bat and ball and went home at the end of last year after rejecting the compromise bill. The government talks about creating certainty with its native title legislation. I can imagine that the several thousand holders of these potentially invalid interests and rights do not see it that way. That is the first worst possible outcome. The situation continues for all those people today as we again go around the block with this bill. It will persist for them until they have a piece of legislation that anybody can be confident can be legally upheld.The second one of those worst possible outcomes is that there is still no threshold test in operation for native title claims. I have said many times before that the most difficult thing with this government is to discern the balance between incompetence and malice in the things that it does, but both incompetence and malice are almost always there. This is another example. We now watch claims across the country rack up, many of which have no possible hope of success. But they serve the interests of a government that wishes to portray native title as a threat to property rights across the length and breadth of the nation.We could be forgiven for thinking that the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) desires this so he again can hold up his map with the spreading brown stain. We know from last night in the Senate how proud he is of that map. The Prime Minister turned himself into an advertising company, apparently, a few weeks ago. He decided, `Saatchi and Saatchi is not good enough for us. DDB Needham is not good enough for us.' No, the Prime Minister must expend public funds. What did he have out there? His little map. What was the result of him putting his little map into the public domain? It was tested amongst members of various groups who were previously National-Liberal Party voters, and they decided that, on this occasion, they would vote Labor. That was their response to the little map that the Prime Minister is so inordinately proud of. He seeks to put a notion in the public mind that people experiencing no threat to their backyards, their property rights or whatever are, nevertheless, under some form of threat.That map and that Prime Ministerial portrayal were sitting on television like the leaning tower of Pisa. The Prime Minister was desperate to show the map to Kerry O'Brien. While Kerry O'Brien was having a bit of backchat, the Prime Minister was leaning over, reaching for the map. That represents one of the most demeaning and reprehensible acts by a Prime Minister whose reputation diminishes daily, largely as a result of his own actions and inaction. That act will stay as a seminal memory for many of us in politics for a considerable period of time.The amended act, if passed by the Senate last year, would have put in place a threshold test, and with it a major contribution to moderation and sense in this debate. Thanks to this government, we do not have it. Senator Minchin keeps telling me how terrible our amendments would be for Western Australia. What Senator Minchin does not realise is that the greatest problem in WA is the spaghetti can of claims over the goldfields, most of which were in place before June 1996, and which are not swept up in this process we gather here to debate. The bill is irrelevant to them, except to the extent that the problem there requires a fair bit of goodwill for it to be resolved. There is no goodwill around as a result of this government's legislation.The solution to those claims resides in the goodwill of the parties and competent regional organisations more directly involved in claims management and evaluation to allow a significant reduction in the number of conflicting and overlapping claims, and claims with limited prospects of success, remaining within the tribunal system. The essence of this process is negotiation and consent rather than win-lose litigation.But since Senator Minchin mentions WA, let me say that one of the greatest obstacles to the reasonable resolution of native title claims in my home state is the Court government. From their hysterical reaction to the Mabo decision, through their ludicrous and expensive challenge to the Native Title Act, lost 7-0 in the High Court, to the glaringly obvious fingerprints they have put over all the most obnoxious aspects of this bill, the Court government has remained a part of the problem, not a part of the solution. While screaming about the unworkability of the act, Mr Court has never assigned more than five or six officers in his Department of Minerals and Energy to deal with mining tenures and has therefore in fact himself been the material cause of the very bottlenecks he blames on the current Native Title Act.The final worst possible outcome which people must live with every day is the increasing incidence—with the ongoing uncertainty of the government's legislative response—of claimants resorting to actions under common law, actions which will only bog native title claims further down in protracted and expensive legal argument, where only the lawyers are winners. Never let us forget that the Mabo case was a common law claim. With no mining interests, projects of national significance or other serious competing interests, it took 10 years to resolve. With no inhibitions, with nobody else's interests in it apart from the persons concerned with the claim, it took 10 years to resolve. Is that the process that we want for resolving native title claims across Australia? It is the process this government is increasingly forcing people into.As I have said, the worst possible outcome—this much the government at least claims to understand—is ongoing uncertainty: uncertainty of title, uncertainty of rights, uncertainty of laws, and uncertainty over business and livelihoods.I said in this place at the end of last year above the din of a government backbench whose troglodyte incomprehension is the intellectual force behind this bill we have before us that when you wish malevolence on people and you happen to be idiots you end up at the end of the day shooting your supporters in the foot. And that is precisely what the miners and pastoralists have to thank their government for. These are the people you claim to govern for in this debate, to the extent that you claim to govern for anyone. The Prime Minister said as much last year when we referred to his covenant with the miners and pastoralists. We think that wrong-headed. We think that approach ignorant, neglectful and inadequate. We think that a government must have a covenant with the Australian people. Nothing will avoid the fact that it is your view, but even if we accept that view you cannot deliver for your own people. That is the point—because the worst possible outcome of uncertainty with no end in sight is what this government is ladling out every day: every day that it refuses to negotiate, every day that it refuses to compromise, every day that it refuses finally to come down from its hobbyhorse and abstract from its political games to start governing on the matter.We have thought long and hard about these issues on our side of the chamber. We have some experience with them. We were out of the starting blocks on grappling with the import of the Mabo decision when it happened, unlike our political opponents, who had the luxury of three years of glorious ignorance and petulant inaction until they too had actually had to come to terms with the dimensions of a solution to it.We have thought about these issues and we took one sort of approach to them right from the start. We approached them fully apprised of their difficulty. We approached them with principles in mind, but also with flexibility. We approached them knowing that we were in new territory, that we would be likely to produce legislation which had parts of it flawed, and that there would be a requirement to revisit it. We knew, on the strength of that, that we had to put in place a process not invested with exclusive pride of ownership, that we could not stand on ceremony. We also knew that while we were not legislating in a complete vacuum we were legislating in an area with only a single High Court case for guidance on certain points of law.Well, fools rush in where angels—should I say `others'—fear to tread. This government, in all its finery of malign ignorance, scoffs at the rule book on the issue. It has decided for us in this debate that the political path, not the policy one, is the shortest distance between two points. It has decided it can cut a magnificent political swathe through the native title debate and that all parties to the proceedings, and the parliament, the opposition and the High Court will come to heel. They have ignored the advice of just about every independent legal voice in the country, advice that tells them that this bill is legally and constitutionally unsound. Law societies in various states, the Law Reform Commission, respected conservative barristers such as Alex Shand QC, and armies of academic lawyers have pointed out aspects of the bill that will provide walk-up starts for Federal and High Court challenges.In its inadequate notice provisions, in its capping of compensation and in its complete disregard of an expanding body of case law, this bill fails at many opportunities to provide compensation on just terms as required by the constitution. In its discriminatory approach it will destroy the beneficial character of the 1993 act that had it characterised by the High Court as a special measure, consistent with the Racial Discrimination Act. Despite the government's admission that the bill relies in part on the head of power provided by the Commonwealth's constitutional responsibility for external affairs, it proceeds to abrogate treaties such as the Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination that have been lawfully ratified.It is hard to know when you stand opposite that kind of approach—with the knowledge of the system that you have and your principles in the case and your beliefs about the political process—what to do in response to that kind of behaviour. We have had to ask ourselves what there is in our gift as an opposition to avoid ongoing uncertainty. The answer is that we have our good faith and our willingness to compromise. That willingness is not a matter of my word; it is a matter of apparent fact for anyone who cares to look at the Senate debate and the amended Native Title Amendment Bill 1997 [No. 2] passed by the Senate in December last year.We passed the bill even though it represented the defeat of more than 70 per cent of the amendments we had moved. We passed it because we felt we could have faith that we had made the legislation workable and that it had some chance of survival in the High Court. We had at least validated the position of people who were in the possession of possibly invalid leases and we had got up amendments on the Racial Discrimination Act on the right to negotiate. Let there be no doubt that we were not happy with the amended bill but we understood the need for compromise and negotiation. We knew that there could not be a successful compromise on this issue if one side felt it owned it.That was the bill this government rejected. Remember that we are here because of an act of rejection—not an act of rejection by the Senate of the government bill but an act of rejection by this House and this government of a bill which gave them 90 per cent of what they asked for passed through the Senate. That is the rejection we are dealing with here today. The bill we are looking at today is the same as the bill which was introduced in this place last year. That is the best indication of the amount of compromise this government has accepted on this issue—not a millimetre of compromise, not for a second.As far as party leaders are concerned, the Prime Minister and I do share some things. One of the things we have been forced to share over the last few months is the view into the abyss of a race based election over the legislation we gather here today to debate. I feel we have both looked into that abyss, but we have seen different things. I will not pretend to speak for the Prime Minister—I do not know what is in his heart—but I know my feelings on the election we will have if the Prime Minister chooses to set it up and to call it. I know that the eyes of millions of Australians are on this parliament as we decide these issues and that the eyes of the world are on this nation. I know, too, that the eyes of future generations of Australians will be on this parliament as we debate this bill. I know that in a sense we are all on trial and will attest to the fairness, justice and equity of our society today as surely as we decide the passage of this bill.I want to say to the Prime Minister that Labor was prepared to step back from the abyss last year when we passed the bill in its amended form. We stand prepared to step back from that abyss again, and the government knows it. We have stated repeatedly our willingness to continue to consult and negotiate with a view to refining further the legislation to produce an outcome acceptable to all, and we state it again in the amendments we will move here today. I have said before that, if an election is called on Wik, Australia will be five weeks away from a solution—a solution which I will broker as Prime Minister by calling all parties to this issue together, including my political opponents, and not leaving until we have a solution. It will be the first thing I do in government. It is what John Howard should be doing right now.But I must say that as I picked up the Financial Review this morning I thought there just might be a crack of light there through which the Prime Minister could march to an unaccustomed statesmanship, an opportunity for the Prime Minister to stand up now and say, `Okay, we know what we've all got behind us. We know what we have to do. We set this to one side. What I will now do is call together a no-holds-barred conference between all the parties to this and arrive at a conclusion which is acceptable to all sides and that all sides can live with.' That is absolutely required by our national interest. It will be what people have been looking for in this debate, what Sir Rupert Hamer called for in yesterday's Age, which I want to read into the Hansard. He said:If armed conflict in Iraq can be averted at the last minute by sensible negotiation, surely the Wik imbroglio calls aloud for a similar attempt at resolution.With so many conflicting views from responsible quarters about the meaning and effects of the Wik legislation, the public is thoroughly confused. John Howard would be showing leadership if, in the name of reconciliation, he called a summit of all the parties to seek an acceptable solution. The last thing we need is an election with racial overtones and rooted in prejudice or confusion.Rupert Hamer and so many of his fellow Liberals are absolutely right, because, if an election is called on Wik, we can hardly begin to imagine what will become of Australia's reputation, our hard-won reputation for decency, tolerance and mutual respect. I say that not only for this generation of Australians and for the standing of this country in the international community but also for the way our children will feel about us when the history of this period is written. Our amendments will not go on this Notice Paper for our own amusement; they will be there as a sign of good faith. The rest of it happens to be up to our opponents.I understand this about an election that is called as a result of a double dissolution based on Wik. I know that as that election proceeds we will talk about other things. We will talk about tax. We will talk about education. We will talk about health. I know, as do most of the people in this chamber, that the vast majority of Australians will make up their minds on that issue and return or defeat the government as they see fit. Not a single person outside this country will focus on that fact, not one single person. As far as they will be concerned, the outcome of this election will be determined as a result of what are perceived to be Australian attitudes on race.The Prime Minister has guaranteed that for us. He has guaranteed the Australian people something that they have never wanted—that is, to be tested on this issue. He stands a very material chance of turning this nation into a cause: not a proselytisation of the economic gains that we can offer the rest of the world, not a proselytisation of the multiplicity of talents of this nation such as our greatness on the sporting field and our greatness in the scientific community, or the way in which we want to convey ourselves in a region we must live with forever in good economic times and bad—but the portrayal of Australia as a little nation, a backward looking nation, a nation ill at ease with itself. This is not something this parliament should welcome. This is something this parliament should step back from the brink of in confronting, and we offer it the opportunity to do so.09:51:00927Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEYSJ4O'ConnorLP10—That was another speech of promises. Isn't it amazing how quickly the Labor Party is able to rewrite the history of last year? The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Beazley) promises Australia certainty by negotiation. When one considers the promises that he and his cohort, Keating, made in 1993 on tax and when one considers the advice he gave Australians in the last election about our fiscal situation, one might first ask: why would you believe one word of what he has just said? Let us test his guarantee of certainty through negotiation with the very things they did to this legislation in the Senate.The Leader of the Opposition wants to stand up and tell us we got 90 per cent of what we wanted—not with their goodwill. We got some of those things with the goodwill of Senator Harradine but, if the Australian people want to know what sort of a Native Title Act they would get after this apparent miraculous capacity of negotiation—and the Leader of the Opposition might think it a good idea to ring up a man whom I think he admired and supported, a retired Governor-General and leader of the Labor Party, called Bill Hayden and find out how all his great negotiating skills worked when he tried to mediate the Century Zinc proposal—let us look at the Labor Party's position, not the outcome of the Native Title Amendment Bill 1997 [No. 2] as it left the Senate.When we look at the voting, we find the Labor Party opposed schedule 4. Yet, of course, the Leader of the Opposition tells us that, if we got the legislation as they delivered it back to us, all those property owners who are mentioned in schedule 4—grossly neglected by the original perpetrators of the Native Title Act—should, as far as the Labor Party is concerned, go back to court. He tells us to avoid common law solutions, but his party refuses to endorse a schedule that instructs the courts as to what the parliament, the people's representatives, say about what is exclusive possession. Then, of course, he makes a plea for certainty, but it is their amendment that says the whole process should be second- guessed by reference to the Racial Discrimination Act—something that occurs in no other legislation and which their own parliamentary committee recommended against.That is the hypocrisy of that speech. He is going to be a pretty busy fellow. He is going to lock himself in a room until such time as he resolves this issue—and the country, when he is Prime Minister, will run itself. He does not have too many problems, I suppose. He has yet been unable to tell Australia of one thing they are going to do. So the reality is that he probably will have time to sit locked in a room for five or six weeks because he does not have a policy to do anything else—no tax policy or anything else. Every time we do something to try to bring the financial circumstances of Australia—BV5ADAMSMr Adams—Where's yours, Wilson?SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEY—Get in your seat if you want to talk to me.BV5ADAMSMr Adams—Where's your GST? Put it on the table.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I think it would be a good idea if the member for Lyons returned to his seat if he persists with his interjections.SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEY—The reality is that they are in a position to tell Australians what they might do about all those other issues that certainly will be part of the next election, but what do they do? Every time this government tries to do something of this nature to put the affairs of Australia in proper order, they run around and oppose it and then say, `We've got a solution: we'll borrow and spend some more money.'A recent report in the Sunday Times in Western Australia listed the sort of money their inadequacies have cost the Australian people already. For instance, native title has cost the Australian taxpayers more than $170 million over four years, but no claim has been fully resolved. Nationally, the Keating and Howard federal governments have spent at least $150 million on native title. The state government has spent $21.38 million, and a huge amount of that has been in advertising, which this law, as it exists, obliges them to spend. Departments such as the Department of Land Administration and the Planning Commission have needed to budget $12 million to comply with the Native Title Act requirements. The Federal Court has allocated $21.5 million for native title issues.I noted the Leader of the Opposition telling us that every lawyer in the country is telling us not to do it. That is not surprising. They all should sign a statement of pecuniary interests before they open their mouths. It is the legal profession that has been running this outfit. It is the legal profession that has taken most of the money. We are surprised that they do not want it fixed up, that they do not want the parliament to assert how things will go and, of course, give them a set of rules which means they do not have to debate every full stop and comma at $5,000 a day!The article says the Federal Court has budgeted $8.1 million this year, $6.75 million and so on. But this is the real downside: the effect on ordinary people. They talk about the effect on land prices where, of course, native title non-procedures, if you like, under the present Native Title Act are affecting the ability of local authorities and other people to provide working people, the Labor Party's voters, with land.Karratha, an industrial centre, is contributing hugely to Australia's economic performance and creating jobs for ordinary working people. Karratha real estate agent Roderick Cross says that the shortage of land means a housing block which a year ago sold for $25,000 now costs as much as $110,000. Why? Because the processes in your Native Title Act are non-existent and do not allow local authorities to subdivide land so working people can buy it at a fair price. Industrial land has risen from $45,000 for a 3,000-square metre block to $80,000. That is a real help to the development of our country! This is the sort of thing they stick their chests out and say they have a solution for. You had your chance. You prepared the original act and, of course, it is that act of parliament, not the rulings of the High Court, that is the problem.The problem to be addressed by this legislation arises not from a decision of the High Court but from the efforts of the Keating-Beazley Labor government to provide a suitable legal framework to administer this new and, unfortunately, obscure title right. Instead of filling the gaps of uncertainty, the Keating-Beazley Native Title Act has increased the uncertainty. It failed to identify property titles that the High Court said extinguished native title, as our amendments do and which they opposed. It is all right for them to say now that the Senate gave it to us, but it was not with the assistance of one vote from the Labor Party.Worse, it sought to create a form of freehold now called crown freehold which, through section 229 of the act, does not extinguish native title over all forms of freehold. This action has created grave uncertainty over a variety of property rights based simply upon any recent involvement of the crown or its statutory authorities such as state housing commissions or state housing authorities—whatever they are called today.Whilst the Keating-Beazley Native Title Act survives in its present form, all tenants of and/or purchasers of state housing are subject to native title claim. Any suggestion that that is altered by this 90 per cent gift from the Senate is put down by the amendment that we got at the last hour one night when the Leader of the Opposition sat up before the TV camera with Noel Pearson and someone else and said, `I have a solution to this.' What did he give us? He gave us an amendment that stated:11A Extinguishment of native title on freehold land . . . . . . . . .(2) The non-extinguishment principle applies to freehold land in the following cases—this is what the Labor Party was putting up in the Senate— (a) where a grant of land registered as freehold title is made by the Crown in any capacity to the Crown, or to a statutory authority of the Crown, in any capacity . . .You are starting to redefine freehold. What is more, both in section 229 of the act and by a printed amendment provided personally by the Leader of the Opposition, state housing land is subject to native title claim. Worse still, where, as is a frequent occurrence today, that land has been sold to ordinary citizens of Australia they too can be subject to native title claims unless they get the full balance of the amendments in this legislation we are returning to the Senate today.The Keating-Beazley Native Title Act became a recipe for confusion and corruption when it granted Aboriginal people the right to negotiate over third party property development simply by the act of lodging a claim for the land or for the native title rights associated with the land. That is another issue that has not been properly resolved. The reality is that the High Court said that native title is not an estate in land. Absolutely no other Australian has such a right. The justification presented to the parliament, when the original Native Title Bill was debated, for such a proposal for this right to negotiate was to give Aboriginal people an early opportunity to ensure the protection of areas of significance while they achieved formal native title. There is not too much wrong with that argument, but what is the reality?The reality is that the process has not been used in that fashion. Typically Aboriginal claimants have not appeared at subsequent mediation meetings—and I want to give the House clear evidence of that today which is two days old—they have not identified areas of significance and consequently the remaining areas available for developing Australia's resources, and they have not progressed their claims to the Federal Court notwithstanding that the opportunities have been there and formal native title rights might have been granted. They have resisted the attempts by developers to progress them to the court. They do not want to be there. They do not want to be in the Federal Court. They do not want to be granted native title; they just want to stick with the right to negotiate. These are matters of fact, these are matters of history—not the sort of rabbit talk that we just heard from the Leader of the Opposition about what he is going to do. With his history and his form who would believe anything he said about the future. When you get to putting things into l-a-w and then scrap them you have no credibility.Aboriginal people have simply used the right to negotiate process created by the Keating-Beazley Native Title Act, and the requirement upon respondents but not Aboriginal claimants to negotiate in good faith, to create unacceptable delays in the development process which they know will eventually be settled with money—and not with all the protection of the things they and Labor spokesmen tell us in the media they are concerned about. They have all taken the money. Do not tell me they have not, because they have. But, worse than that, most of them have demanded confidentiality agreements.If you have made an application in your name on behalf of the Namadgi people or the Nygina people, why do you need a confidentiality agreement? I can tell you why—so we cannot find out how much they got. The reality is that when they see you driving the new Toyota they think it is a pretty good trick and go through the same process. The company that thought they had settled the matter with the proper representative of the Aboriginal tribe or language group finds, as they did at Murrin Murrin, it has to deal with 18 or 20 individual claims—and I want to come back to that.Although concern has been expressed about several things, nothing has happened. They just want the money. The others who have been sharing in that are the lawyers who are in fact initiating and progressing the process with limited or no involvement from the Aboriginal claimant. I seek leave, according to the rules of the parliament, to have a photograph incorporated in Hansard.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Leave is granted subject to technical requirements.The photograph has not been reproduced as it is not of the technical quality required for printing.SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEY—I want to draw the attention of the parliament to this photo to simply point out that what is on the back of that truck cost $20 million. It is quite an amazing transport feat in itself. It was not made in Kalgoorlie; it was not made on the goldfields of Western Australia. It was made in Adelaide—a city we all know is very desperate for economic development. It was not a one-off. I think there were four, but there could have been six.The administration of Anaconda Nickel, having settled 18 Aboriginal land claims, has said enough is enough. They have discontinued their exploratory drilling program to establish further reserves with which they might have been able to justify the expenditure of another $40 million in Adelaide because they have had enough. They have enough to get going. The losses extend well beyond the goldfields and the remote areas of Australia. Workers in Adelaide have missed out on building more of those $20 million behemoths.I now want to touch on a matter of grave concern to me. It relates to some proceedings in the National Native Title Tribunal on 9 March. I was contacted last night by Max Edwards who, with his wife Rosemary, is a farmer in the West Beverley-Talbot Brook area in my electorate. Their property is subject to a native title registered claim WC 95/86 lodged by Christopher (Corrie) Robert Bodney and the Ballaruks, which I presume is the tribal name. The property title is either conditional purchase or perpetual lease, which is covered in my view by the High Court's exclusive possession description and is certainly included in schedule 4 of this act and would be given the appropriate protection.Mr Edwards was called to a mediation session at the National Native Title Tribunal on 9 March 1998 under the chairmanship of Justice French. Max took his wife and two daughters along to witness justice in this particular venue. The first thing he discovered was the claimant, Corrie Bodney, was not present. However, a lawyer, Alan Camp appeared to represent Corrie Bodney, which Justice French ruled was okay notwithstanding Mr Camp had no knowledge of the significance of Mr Edwards's property to presumably the Ballaruks culture. If there were certain secrets involved one would ask why he might do it, but Bodney, the claimant, was not even there, and this is common place. During the proceedings, Mr Edwards made the following remarks:I am speaking as one of four land owners in the West Beverley/Talbot Brook area affected by your native title claim.He said this to the lawyer because the judge said that he could address him as though he were Mr Bodney. He went on:Your claim is making it very difficult for us to continue our farming businesses. It has stopped the sale of one of my colleagues properties and our farm financing is affected by the uncertainty over OUR title security.Given the facts that our leasehold title grants exclusive possession and can be freeholded at any time (subject to a payment fee) and to my knowledge there has never been any aboriginal interest in this land.WILL YOU REMOVE YOUR CLAIM FROM OUR FARMS?What was the reaction to those remarks? The result was that he was verbally abused by a spectator, by one Robert Broffo, who is well known in Western Australia as an Aboriginal activist. But he was not the claimant. Then another unknown Aboriginal walked around behind Mr Edwards and, to quote Mr Edwards, was so threatening in his approach that he felt obliged to stand up and found himself in an eyeball to eyeball confrontation with this person and, to use his words, he thought he was going to be decked.That is the sort of mediation apparently the Leader of the Opposition says he can work through. But this is in a tribunal, the next best thing to a court, under Justice French, who knew this second individual because he referred to him by name. His response was to say to Mr Edwards that he should back off—back off from making a statement like that; a plea for certainty in his own property rights! And these people tell us what this issue is going to be about! I can tell you what it is about; it is certainty. (Time expired)10:11:00931Evans, Gareth, MPMr GARETH EVANSVD4HoltALP00—I move:That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:"whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House notes that the Government, in re-introducing the Bill with significant Senate amendments deleted, and in indicating that its position is immutable on a number of key issues, has: (1) rejected a legislative outcome that would substantially meet the need of all stakeholders—Indigenous Australians, miners, farmers and the community generally—for a Native Title Act that is certain, workable, and fair;(2) ignored the stated willingness of the Opposition to continue to consult and negotiate with a view to further refining the legislation to produce an outcome acceptable to all major stakeholders;(3) ensured that, in the absence of such an acceptable outcome, a wave of court challenges to the legislation will continue into the next century;(4) ensured that, with continuing doubts about the constitutional and legal validity of the Government's preferred legislative outcome, more and more claims will be pursued by protracted and expensive common law action rather than through statutory processes;(5) left in question thousands of potentially invalid interests and rights granted after 1 January 1994;(6) ensured that, in the continuing absence of an effective threshold test, native title processes will continue to be swamped with claims of variable quality;(7) ensured that, in the continuing absence of improved processes and procedures under the Act, the backlog of unresolved determinations, decisions and negotiations will continue to mount; and(8) by its intransigent and unaccommodating approach, set upon a course designed to commit our country to a general election focused divisively and destructively on race".4T4MELHAMMr Melham—I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.VD4Evans, Gareth, MPMr GARETH EVANS—Last month I and several of my senior shadow ministerial colleagues sat down in Townsville for half a day with state and national representatives of the mining industry. We were consulting. We were working to find common ground on the native title issue. We were working to remove and resolve a number of misunderstandings which existed. We were seriously addressing possible refinements to the legislation that we had all been grappling with in this parliament. It was a highly publicised meeting. It was a highly fruitful meeting.On the very same day, 24 February, that we were sitting down to do just that, Senator Minchin was making a speech on behalf of the government, on behalf of the Prime Minister (Mr Howard), saying in absolutely unequivocal language, `No compromise, no surrender. The bill that we introduced is where we stand. We cannot contemplate any possible change to our original best thoughts in four areas in particular—the right to negotiate, the threshold test, the Racial Discrimination Act and the sunset clause.'The sunset clause gives the game away. I do not think I am giving the game away if I say that all private conversations we have had with the government from day one have been to the effect that of all the things in their original bill probably the sunset clause is one of the least defensible, the one on which they would seek least to hold the ultimate ground because it was a colour and movement clause, not a clause of any substantive significance because on the government's own drafting of it it would not inhibit common law claims continuing to be made. It was a political clause. Here we have a government spokesman making it absolutely clear that there is to be no consultation, no deliberation and certainly no compromise not only on issues which do have some character of large legal principle about them and which may well be debatable but also on issues as essentially trivial and irrelevant to the substantive debate as the sunset clause. It was a very revealing day as a result, to have those two things happening simultaneously.It shows, as so many other things have, just how political the government is being in its approach to this whole legislation. It is not policy driven; it is politics driven. It is very hard to believe that the Prime Minister has ever been serious about finding common ground, despite the immense efforts that we, on our side of politics, have put in to achieving just that. My leader, Kim Beazley, referred a few moments ago to some of the demonstrations of that—none more graphic, none more compelling, none more alarming, none more demeaning to the reputation of this country than the Prime Minister's presentation on the 7.30 Report of that map with its spreading brown stain of purported Aboriginal claims or, as he then put it, veto rights—wrong in fact, wrong in law and certainly wrong in morality.Another demonstration of the way in which this Prime Minister and his government sought to politicise this was of course the attempts they went through to generate a new series of advertisements in the public domain on the native title issue, prepared, we had confirmed in the Senate last night, crafted and drafted in the Prime Minister's own office—those ads, which had as their centrepiece an Aboriginal humpy, superimposed with the expression `The Australian Dream'—deliberately cynical and certainly having the result, as they found out from their own preliminary polling, of hardening attitudes, not finding common ground. It was insensitive stuff. It was divisive stuff. It was politically driven stuff.The truth of the matter is that on native title issues, just as on race issues generally, this Prime Minister is not a healer; he is a harmer. He is not a healer; he is a hurter. Everything that he has done has demonstrated and reinforced that perception and that description. We saw in the Financial Review this morning, as again my leader said, what appeared on the face of it to be a glimmer of daylight. The heading said `PM ponders Wik compromise'. Would that that were so. Unfortunately, when you look at the fine print, you discover that that has to be a very exaggerated expectation. Gatjil Djerrkura is quoted as saying:I asked him—the Prime Minister—if he had any room to move on the right to negotiate and he said, "Well, Gatjil, if you can come up with a formula for compromise we'll take that on board and look at it.'That is, I am afraid, the best that is on offer from that particular exchange with the Prime Minister. The truth of the matter is that from day one the Prime Minister has simply not been serious about addressing any of these issues in a constructive, positive, accommodating way. If he is to move on this issue, or any of the other really central and substantive issues involved in this debate, I will be one of the most surprised people in this country. I wish otherwise, but I fear, as to the prospect of the Prime Minister moving on the right to negotiate, that there is about as much chance of that as there is of Saddam Hussein winning the Nobel Peace Prize.We should not be having this debate. The legislation which passed the Senate last December is, as our second reading amendment puts it—the one that I have just circulated—legislation that:. . . would substantially meet the need of all stakeholders—Indigenous Australians, miners, farmers and the community generally—for a Native Title Act that is certain, workable, and fair . . . The bill that emerged from that Senate process was certainly not perfect from the opposition's point of view. We moved, during the Senate debate, 359 separate amendments. We lost in the Senate more than two-thirds of those amendments. None of them were trivial. All of them were seriously intended. All of them went to basic issues that we regard as of real importance, either of principle or of process. Putting it another way, perhaps narrowing it a little, those 359 amendments represented amendments in 36 major issue areas. In relation to that, we succeeded in getting the bill amended in the Senate on precisely 10 of those 36 areas. On 26 others we were not able to produce a majority.From our point of view, the product of the Senate's deliberations was much less good than it could and should have been. But, nonetheless, we were prepared to take the view, and we are still prepared to take the view, that the product of those Senate deliberations represented a major step forward in producing a bill which, unlike the government's, is in fact certain and workable and fair. The failure of the government to accept the reality of that Senate outcome and to move on is one that is fraught with adverse consequences for a great many people. We spell some of those consequences out again in the language of the second reading amendment now before the Senate.The government's action in bringing forward this bill now again, as if the Senate debate had not happened, the government's action in indicating, as the Special Minister for State, Senator Minchin, has, that the government's position is immutable on a number of crucial issues, has ensured that, in the absence of an effective acceptable outcome, we are going to see a wave of court challenges to the legislation continuing into the next century. The government's action has, as we say again in this amendment, ensured that, with continuing doubts about the constitutional and legal validity of the government's preferred legislative outcome, more and more claims will be pursued by protracted and expensive common law action rather than through statutory processes. The government has, by its actions as I have described them, left in question literally thousands of potentially invalid interests and rights which were granted in that period after 1 January 1994 and which this legislation would have clarified and put beyond doubt.The government's action has ensured that in the continuing absence of an effective threshold test—and there is not one in existence so long as this legislation remains in abeyance—native title processes will continue to be swamped with claims of variable quality. We in the opposition certainly acknowledge that there is a need for a tougher threshold test to weed out those claims which do have a reasonable chance of success from those which do not. But that is not going to happen in the absence of legislation and with the kind of vacuum the government has now created. The government has ensured, again by its actions, that in the continuing absence of the improved processes and procedures under the act—improved processes that we stand squarely behind implementing—the backlog of unresolved determinations and decisions and negotiations will continue to mount.Above all, of course, and we keep on coming back to this, by its intransigent and unaccommodating approach, what the government has done is set this parliament upon a course which is designed to commit our country to a general election focused divisively and destructively on race. A race based double dissolution election is not what this country needs, unleashing as it will, as I have said on many previous occasions, all those horrible forces of fear and prejudice on one side of the community and the hurt and humiliation associated with that on the other side of the community. We do not need this. The Senate showed the way through the impasse. This could have been avoided if the government had been halfway serious and halfway decent.Since we are, however, having this debate, let us look again at the basic issues that are involved in this debate. What we have to start with is the necessity for all of us—not just on our side of politics but everyone—to be committed to ensuring the recognition, the protection and the enjoyment of the native title rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians as those rights were determined to exist, whether people like it or not, by the High Court in the Mabo and Wik cases. We all recognise that in the practical implementation of those rights, in the interests not only of indigenous Australians but of the other stakeholders I have mentioned—the community generally and, more specifically, the miners and the farmers—there has to be careful consideration given to a legislative package which ensures a number of things.The legislative package has to ensure the maximum possible coexistence of native title holders and others with title to, or interest in, land or waters. It has to ensure the maximum possible clarity and certainty of tenure for those with rights to exploit land or water resources. That is absolutely fair enough. That has to be an aspiration of all of us. The legislation has to ensure effective practical workability in these processes for determining native title and resolving differences between native title holders and others with competing interests. There has to be maximum encouragement for negotiated agreements between native title holders and others with competing interests.They are the basic principles about which we all ought to agree ought to be the foundation stone for any serious discussion of this. In order to implement those basic principles there do need to be a number of amendments to the legislation which the government has brought forward. The Labor Party has made it clear in the past, and I do so again now, that we will continue to push for and support amendments which address these issues in the way that we believe is both principled and correct and also practically workable.So we will be pushing amendments which do respect the basic principles of non-discrimination and do ensure that this legislation is subject to the Racial Discrimination Act of 1975. We will be pushing amendments which provide a process for the validation of those titles which are issued in the intermediate period where their validity is uncertain. We will push for amendments which improve the workability of the act by providing a more certain and substantial threshold test. We almost got there in the Senate in this respect. There are some further refinements of that which are possible, which we debated, among other things, with the miners in Queensland, and we will continue to be working hard to achieve that.We will be looking at a legislative package which genuinely respects the rights of pastoral leaseholders which existed at the time of the High Court's decision. We do want an appropriate mechanism in the legislation for access to traditional lands. We do want to preserve the rights of native title holders to negotiate over resource developments, including on land over which there are pastoral leases. We want that both as a way of delivering justice to Aboriginal people and also as a way of delivering legal certainty to a legislative package which, in the absence of a recognition of this right, might well come tumbling down for constitutional reasons. We do want to provide a statutory base for adequately resourced representative bodies that are subject to appropriate and transparent accountability procedures. We do want to promote an agreements based approach to native title issues with appropriate legislative recognition and safeguards.We do want, in order words, to translate the general principles that I have referred to through practical, workable, effective legislation into practical, workable, effective results. To achieve that we are committed—I make clear yet again—to an ongoing process of consultation with the government. However uncooperative the government has been and however uninterested the government has been in getting a policy outcome here as distinct from a politically advantageous outcome or what they perceive to be such, we are committed to pursuing that course of negotiation and discussion.As an example of what I have in mind, without going into great detail about it, I just mention quickly the outcome of the discussion with the mining industry, which I referred to at the outset. It was a very productive discussion because it focused on four particular concerns that the miners had. One of them was about the language and the substance of the threshold test as it appeared in the legislation. We acknowledged that there were some drafting weaknesses in the way that had finally emerged from the Senate processes and there were some procedural weaknesses and we were eminently prepared to address those in a further process of parliamentary consideration.We addressed together the issue of the renewal of mining leases, an issue about which the mining industry has had a grouch, understandably, for some time. We indicated that we saw it as being possible to address that concern so far as the renewal in question did not substantively either increase the legal interest involved or extend the geographical area. We took the view that, if those conditions could be satisfied and it could be properly drafted, then that was an issue that we were prepared to see embedded in the legislation without triggering the right to negotiate.We did look at the issue of public works infrastructure and in particular infrastructure projects that are only incidentally supporting private development projects and which have as their primary or dominant justification serving the public at large. We indicated a willingness to find a way of ensuring that the right to negotiate would not be triggered by infrastructure of that kind. We did look at the question of low-impact exploration activity and whether that should trigger the right to negotiate and whether it might not be possible to find some legislative language which clarified the situation and made that a little bit more practically workable.I will not go into any more detail about any of this. I just mention those points to indicate that we are approaching this whole enterprise, as we have from the outset, with absolute good faith. We are serious about finding a workable and acceptable solution. The government, unhappily, I am forced to conclude after months of trying to engage it in serious negotiation about these issues is not serious. I make it absolutely clear that, however much the government persists with that attitude, it is not going to deter us. It is certainly not going to deter us from pursuing sensible outcomes and it is not going to lead us in any way, whatever the political costs or consequences may prove to be for us, to abandon the basic principles for which we have stood so firm from the outset.We are not going to give up the fight for a decent recognition of native title in this country. We are not going to give up the fight for fairness. We are not going to give up the struggle to achieve acceptable workable outcomes which are in the interests of all Australians.10:29:00935Entsch, Warren, MPMr ENTSCH7K6LeichhardtLP10—I have to start by saying that I almost choked on some of the words of the honourable member for Holt (Mr Gareth Evans) when he suggested that the Labor Party is in no way involved in politicising this issue. He is a plausible gentleman and the commitments that he made sounded all very soft and fluffy and, of course, very reconciliatory. It is a pity that his actions and those of some of his colleagues did not reflect the same views. As I say, it is almost laughable. Since the introduction and rejection in the other place last December, I have had plenty of time to re-evaluate our position on this legislation and, quite frankly, I have found absolutely nothing to change my point of view. I took the opportunity to travel to a number of Cape York communities in my electorate, communities in the heart of Wik land. The current debate was hardly raised in these communities. In fact, it was not mentioned in most of them unless I raised it myself. When it was discussed, the focus of these communities was the real concerns of the impact on the communities, the divisiveness within those communities caused by the inequities and the ambiguousness of the current legislation, and all they wanted to do was to get us to fix the problem.The other very prominent concern was the criticism by all of the communities of some of the more prominent Aboriginal leaders. That criticism was the same in every community. There is a real concern in the communities that I visited that the views and aspirations of those communities and their leadership—I am talking about their elders, their traditional leadership—are being totally ignored. This comes as no revelation to me. It is something that is very well known to other members of this House, including the member for Kennedy (Mr Katter), the member for Northern Territory (Mr Dondas), the member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Campbell) and the member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey)—all of whom represent very large grassroots Aboriginal populations.A recent article in the Sydney Morning Herald only confirms what many of us already know and hopefully will help to highlight the depths to which the Labor Party will go to further their own political agendas. To hell with the Aboriginal people of this nation and to hell with Australia—let us only look after Labor's interests and maintain Labor's policy of `whatever it takes'. The article makes interesting reading and relates to the efforts of Labor Party henchmen and their Aboriginal supporters to gag the Jesuit activist priest Father Brennan because of his change of attitude towards one of the fundamentals of this whole legislation.The article on 28 February makes very interesting reading. I will just read an extract. After reference was made to a letter that was written by one Peter Yu from the National Indigenous Working Group to Father Brennan asking him to butt out, this comment was made:. . . and what do these Einsteins in Labor do? They get Peter Yu to tell him to shut up!"So who are "these Einsteins"? They include a small cross-factional group of the Left's Nick Bolkus, Daryl Melham, Warren Snowdon and Martin Ferguson, and the Right's Simon Crean and Laurie Brereton. This is the group which has largely orchestrated Labor's Wik policy from day one. It is the same group, in harness with what is known as the "A Team" in the NWIG, among them Yu, David Ross, "Tracker" Tilmouth, Mick Dodson and Noel Pearson, who insist Labor must die in a ditch for a policy which is doomed if Labor cannot win the next election.Their agenda has nothing to do with their resolution of the Wik impasse. It is about an agenda that ensures Labor maintains the one true faith, determined by them, and exploits what they believe is an electoral climate favourable to Labor to win an election . . . The Aboriginal leaders mentioned in this article are recognised as national leaders, but in reality they are more interested in pleasing their Labor puppeteers. As we are well aware, Tracker Tilmouth has been put up by the Einsteins as a Labor hopeful for a Senate seat in the Northern Territory; Noel Pearson has recently expressed interest in standing for a possible Labor seat in Melbourne. At the time I challenged him to stand in his home electorate of Leichhardt and be judged by his peers but, quite frankly, he is too smart for that. Warren Snowdon, as we all know, was the previous member for the Northern Territory. He is now trying to win back that seat.0V5SLIPPERMr Slipper—Not a very good member.7K6Entsch, Warren, MPMr ENTSCH—Not a very good one at all, but, surprise, surprise, he is also employed by the National Indigenous Working Group. The list goes on and on. It is little wonder that the Aboriginal people feel betrayed by sections of their own leadership. It is an absolute disgrace. If you wanted to dig a bit further, you only have to go into the dominant land councils that were established by the Labor Party to just see what influence the Labor Party has on those councils to the detriment of grassroots Aboriginal people. It is not hard to get the real picture of Aboriginal Australia. Our government is being continually accused of being inflexible on this issue, but in December the government, along with the opposition and Senator Harradine, was prepared to accept 217 amendments to the legislation—hardly what I would call inflexible. But there are some areas where we cannot move without destroying the whole integrity of the bill. These include that this bill should not be subject to the Racial Discrimination Act, and this is now even confirmed by one of our more vocal critics, Father Brennan. The existing Native Title Act includes a provision, section 7, which was accepted in 1993 as setting out the relationship between the Native Title Act and the Racial Discrimination Act. Before the passage of the act in 1993, there was a possibility that a provision might be included which subjected the Native Title Act to the Racial Discrimination Act. But, interestingly enough, the then Labor government's majority on the 1993 Senate Legal and Constitutional Committee recommended that the Native Title Act should not be subjected to the RDA because of the uncertainty that would be created. Father Brennan supports that view; so does this government. In sheer hypocrisy Labor now wants to overturn their own legislation—`whatever it takes'.The right to negotiate is also very fundamental to this whole bill. The existing Native Title Act and its right to negotiate reflect the assumption that the only interests involved would be the Crown and the native title holders. The act does not provide for coexisting non-government interests in the same land. The act simply has not worked.Far from delivering positive outcomes, particularly for indigenous people, the practical operation of the right to negotiate has meant confusion; lost or delayed jobs, investment and export income for Australia; unnecessary strain on community relations across the country; and, more importantly, very stretched and strained community relations within the Aboriginal communities themselves as they are trying to get a handle on something that they have great difficulty understanding. The conflict within those communities is very serious.The bill's changes to the right to negotiate make it fairer and more equitable in light of Wik, streamline its operation and relate it more closely to state and territory land management. The bill retains the right to negotiate over land where native title rights could be equivalent to full ownership, but where native title can only coexist with other interests—for example, with a pastoral lease, bearing in mind that the High Court has said that pastoralists' rights will prevail—we do not see it as fair or reasonable for native title claim ants to have greater rights than the leaseholder. The bill's provisions in this area are about equality. State based regimes can replace the right to negotiate over pastoral lease land and land subject to reservation, but only if native title holders have the same procedural rights as pastoral leaseholders, where relevant, or if they have at least the procedural rights set out in the bill. But as far as Labor is concerned, again, it is a matter of `whatever it takes'.Another very important component is the registration test. Many Aboriginal leaders—and even the opposition, heaven forbid—have conceded the need for changes in this area. In fact, ATSIC's Deputy Chairman, Ray Robinson, says it is fundamental to prevent frivolous and ambit claims.The existing Native Title Act, when passed in 1993, provided a screening test to be met by claimants seeking to gain the very significant procedural rights of registered claimants under the Native Title Act, including the right to negotiate. Successive court decisions have eroded this test to a point where it is no longer effective—in fact, it is absolutely and totally unworkable. So a claim can now be registered as soon as it is accepted, with no real test to establish that it is substantial and is likely to succeed.It is not surprising, Mr Deputy Speaker, that we now have substantial problems with overlapping and multiple claims. In some areas, we understand that there are dozens of overlapping claims on the one piece of land. While the land-holder is sitting there scratching his head, trying to find out where he has to go next, family groups of Aboriginal people are attempting to tear each other's throats out, trying to find some resolution. That has got nothing to do with trying to resolve the issues involved with the legislation that is before us. We must fix this problem. There are Aboriginal families that have vowed never to talk to each other again in their entire lives. This is the type of divisiveness to which we are subjecting people—both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people—at the moment.A fair and effective registration test must balance the rights of bona fide native title claimants to have a say in future dealings that affect them with the need for governments, the mining industry and developers to be sure that they are dealing with authorised, legitimate claimants.A good example of that was raised by the member for O'Connor. Those of us who represent electorates with large Aboriginal populations see it time and time again—people pop up, put their hand out and then walk away, or hold up the proceedings, while genuine, legitimate, traditional people are pushed to the back of the queue because of lack of representation by their leadership, so they miss out completely or are ostracised by the broader community as just being greedy Aboriginal people. It is a disgrace, and it is about time that we started to put those who have a legitimate right and entitlement to the front of the queue.The bill proposes a strengthening of the registration test so that only legitimate, bona fide claimants gain access to the right to negotiate over mining and other major developments involving compulsory acquisition. A fair and effective registration test must balance the rights of bona fide native title claimants to have a say in future dealings that affect them with the need for governments, the mining industry and developers to be sure that they are dealing with authorised, legitimate claimants. This is the approach taken by the government's Native Title Amendment Bill. It deserves support, and it will certainly get support from the legitimate native title claimants in my electorate, that is for sure. With regard to any losses suffered by Aboriginal people, at long last there will be the opportunity for compensation. As with the rest of this bill, Labor's attitude, as expected, is `whatever it takes'.We hear a lot about the sunset clause, but currently there is no limit on when a claim can be made under the Native Title Act. The government's proposed limit is not unreasonable or inequitable. It falls into line with the statutes of limitation laws with which all Australians are compelled to comply. It is intended to encourage claims to be brought forward for resolution in the interests of clear and stable national land management. Native title has already been claimed over 50 per cent of Australia's land area. Under the bill, any claims lodged within the six-year limit would continue in the Federal Court until they are resolved. Claims would not have to be resolved within six years. Common law native title claims dealt with in the courts after the six- year period has expired would be unaffected. They could still be brought by indigenous people forever and ever; no problems. But, of course, the Labor Party's policy is: `whatever it takes'.The Native Title Amendment Bill 1997 is about addressing the unworkabilities of the 1993 legislation. It is about introducing into legislation the outcomes of Wik. It is about fairness to both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Australians. It is about what is in the best interests of our nation. I believe the legislation addresses all of these issues. There are those who suggest that we should sit down and talk further. Unfortunately, the uncertainty created by the 1993 legislation and the current debate are putting enormous financial stress on farms and businesses. Time is very much of the essence. If it is not resolved quickly, many more Australians will be put off their land; many more Australians will face the prospect of bankruptcy and financial ruin. In the real world—and that is what we are dealing with here—banks and lending institutions will not tolerate continued delays and indecision when dealing with mortgages.The bill needs to be passed by this place now so that ordinary Australians can get on with their lives and, equally importantly, so that legitimate native title holders can access their native title rights. I commend the bill to the House and urge its very speedy and successful passage through the Senate.10:45:00938Melham, Daryl, MPMr MELHAM4T4BanksALP00—At the outset, let me say there is an informal arrangement that we will speak for 15 minutes. That is why I will not be using all of my time. But it will not take the full time to demolish the arguments that the government has put forward because there are a few myths and a rewriting of history occurring in this place which need to be corrected. The other caution I point out is that one of the minority justices in the Wik case, Justice McHugh, in the unreported judgment in the Waanyi case said at page 52:The community will quickly lose confidence in the courts of justice if a perception arises that the courts are ready to ignore the legal rights of individuals whenever intervening governments or litigants urge that public or private convenience requires such rights to be by-passed.This debate is about this government and this Prime Minister (Mr Howard) attacking indigenous rights when the Prime Minister says he wants to bring the pendulum back to the middle. The Native Title Amendment Bill 1997 [No. 2] is not a balanced bill; it is an imbalanced bill. It is aimed at paring back the common law rights of indigenous Australians; rights that were not given by this parliament but rights that were recognised by the High Court—our highest court in the land—in Mabo and Wik. We did not give indigenous Australians anything in Mabo and Wik. The High Court recognised their common law rights which already existed. We should respect the High Court's decisions in Mabo and Wik and the principles of the Native Title Act. This government does not do that. That is why they are in danger of turning this into a lawyers' picnic.The 1993 Native Title Act was a balanced act for all the stakeholders. That is not so with this legislation. We were confident that our act was constitutional. The purpose and intent in 1993, after some debate in the Labor Party, was not to technically suspend the Racial Discrimination Act. I was involved in that debate. I was involved in convincing my party at that time that it was not necessary, and we did not go down that course. If one looks at the preamble to the Native Title Act, it says at page 3:The Parliament of Australia intends that the following law will take effect according to its terms and be a special law for the descendants of the original inhabitants of Australia.The law, together with initiatives announced at the time of its introduction and others agreed on by the Parliament from time to time, is intended, for the purposes of paragraph 4 of Article 1 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination and the Racial Discrimination Act 1975, to be a special measure for the advancement and protection of Aboriginal peoples and Torres Strait Islanders, and is intended to further advance the process of reconciliation among all Australians.When we defended the Native Title Act in the High Court, the instructions to the then Solicitor-General were that this was a special measure under the Racial Discrimination Act which relies on the external affairs power of the constitution or, as an alternative, this was a beneficial piece of legislation under the races power—beneficial on balance—when you take the act as a whole. In Western Australia v. the Commonwealth, the High Court decided that it did not have to determine whether it was a special measure because it held that it was a valid law under the races power, and that is because it was a balanced act.We put in place a regime to protect native title, to respect the Racial Discrimination Act and to respect the High Court's decision in Mabo. On Monday, 18 October 1993, when the member for Flinders, Mr Reith, asked the then Prime Minister, Mr Keating, about what we were doing, this is what he said at page 1977:. . . the government is now looking at a procedure where its changes actually emanate and embrace the Racial Discrimination Act rather than override it. That is an important legal and social point.When the member for Tangney, Mr Williams, asked the Prime Minister a question on 19 October 1993, Prime Minister Keating said at page 2092:I made it very clear yesterday that the government's legislation will emanate from one of the provisions of the Racial Discrimination Act; that is, the legislation will not override the Racial Discrimination Act, it will arise from the Racial Discrimination Act. That is the point that I made yesterday. That is where its authority is coming from.I could not participate in the debate at that time because I was representing the parliament on a parliamentary delegation to the Middle East, but I did come back in time for the return of the amended bill from the Senate. On Wednesday, 22 December 1993, at page 4548, I said about the Racial Discrimination Act:To Michael Finnane QC and Greg James QC who made it possible not to suspend the Racial Discrimination Act, I say thank you . . . The Racial Discrimination Act involves everybody. We live in a pluralist society. It is our bill of rights. It keeps us equal. If we suspended the Racial Discrimination Act against the Aboriginals, who next—the Chinese, the Lebanese, the Vietnamese, the Jews?Mr Deputy Speaker, it is our bill of rights. The government is deliberately overriding the Racial Discrimination Act. That is why it will not accept the amendment by the Senate. That is why it is careful to say that it relies on the races power of the constitution, which is not yet determined and is a question currently reserved before the High Court in the Hindmarsh Island bridge case. But the government relies on weasel words. What did the Prime Minister say to me when I asked him on Monday, 6 May 1996, the following question:My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister give a commitment to this House that the government will not seek to repeal, suspend or override the Racial Discrimination Act of 1975?That was before the Wik judgment. The Prime Minister said:The government has no plans to introduce any amendments to the Racial Discrimination Act.When asked by the member for Grey, Mr Wakelin, on Tuesday, 21 May 1996, the Prime Minister had this to say at page 919:. . . we said that we would respect the principles of the Racial Discrimination Act, and we will.The Prime Minister, at a launch of Aboriginal Reconciliation Week on 27 May in the Great Hall, said:. . . we said that we would honour the principles of the Racial Discrimination Act.He repeated that in a subsequent speech to the minerals industry annual dinner in the Great Hall of Parliament House on 30 May 1996:. . . in making those changes, we would honour the principles of the Racial Discrimination Act.What does the coalition policy before the last election say? It has the fingerprints of the Prime Minister all over it:In government the coalition will . . . respect the provisions of the Racial Discrimination Act . . . This is the caveat: was it a core promise or a non-core promise? We intend to make it a core promise. Why? Because there is no native title without respect for the Racial Discrimination Act. If we override and suspend the Racial Discrimination Act then we give power to the states and territories to extinguish native title without compensation and without just terms. That is what this debate is about. And that is why the Labor Party will not walk away from the Racial Discrimination Act.The amendment we have moved is an amendment that we then deferred to Senator Harradine in the Senate. It is an amendment that arises out of what the High Court said in Western Australia v. the Commonwealth: the clause that is currently in the act is ambiguous. What we are doing is making our intention clear. That is the commitment of the government and it can be done. You can guarantee titles. You can improve the Native Title Act by procedures, by respecting the Racial Discrimination Act. We should be sending a message not only to our fellow Australians but also to the world that discrimination is at an end in 1998. But this government will not do that. This government quite deliberately does not want to respect the Racial Discrimination Act.Alec Shand QC had a letter published in the Australian on Tuesday, 31 December 1996 that is worth repeating. He is a senior respected QC who cannot be said to be in the Labor Party's pocket. This is what he has to say:The Weekend Australian reported "government sources" as saying that if John Howard received legal advice that amendments to the Racial Discrimination Act, in conjunction with changes to the Native Title Act, were necessary to overcome the effect of the High Court's Wik decision, he would consider the advice "sympathetically".Further down he says:If the Government pursues this proposal it will be the most dastardly racial discrimination imaginable, made possible only by an undeniably racist act—the amendment of the Racial Discrimination Act.Furthermore, this is proposed despite the emphases placed by the High Court on the rights of Aborigines and pastoralists to co-existence.If this Howard attitude persists, Australia will permanently and appropriately be regarded by our Asian neighbours as racist and the Hanson-Howard axis as performing a powerful function in government policy.Those are the words of Mr Alec Shand QC. We, on this side, say that we do not believe the parliament should act in a racist and discriminatory manner by overriding the Racial Discrimination Act. Firstly, it is not legally necessary to do so; but, secondly, even if you had the power you should not do it.What did Mabo and Wik do? Mabo and Wik recognised the truth of the matter; they guaranteed that every title in this country was secure. If native title survives then it is subservient to every valid title issued. In the vast majority of cases, if it is established then it is a residual title. It is access where you have always had access. Recent Federal Court decisions in Fourmile and in the Larrakia case confirm past extinguishment.But what the government wants to do with this legislation is to crush indigenous Australians and to continue to take from indigenous Australians. That is what the Prime Minister means when he says he wants to bring the pendulum back to the middle. It is unnecessary. We need an acceptable solution. We need a solution that will give certainty to the farmers, the pastoralists, the miners and the other stakeholders. It can be done.This government condemns the High Court for bringing down 4-3 decisions; yet it happens all the time. Newcrest Mining had our legislation in relation to Coronation Hill overturned, in part, on a 4-3 decision. The High Court protected the property rights of the miners by a one-vote majority—without any complaint from indigenous Australians. What does this government attempt to do? Continue a battle in the Senate which might go one vote either way—and which way it goes depends on Senator Harradine. Is that acceptable? No. It is not necessary. A one-vote majority, either way, is not necessary to improve the Native Title Act for all stakeholders.The Labor Party stand ready to join the government in improving the procedures of the Native Title Act for the benefit of all Australians and for the benefit of all stakeholders. We should be having a cross-party approach to this but we cannot. Why? It is not the Labor Party that want a Wik election, it is the government. The government think that there are votes in it. The Labor Party believe this is a principle for which we must stand and fight. We cannot walk away from it. If we walk away from this issue, we would not deserve to be seen as an alternative government. That is not because it is an election winner; it is because the time for taking is over.The High Court has been slandered. It has been scandalised by conservative politicians in this debate—unnecessarily so. This Prime Minister, who wraps himself in the flag, the constitution and the separation of powers, has, in the last 12 months, allowed the scandalising of the High Court. Its most recent appointment is now disqualified from sitting. I make no further comment in relation to that. From his own hand, it speaks for itself.We are heading down a very dangerous, unnecessary path. But let us make no mistake: we do not do this because we think there are votes in it. I take great offence at the suggestion that I am running a political campaign in relation to the Racial Discrimination Act. Anyone who has spoken to me in the last four to five years—both when we were in government and since I have had carriage of this case—will know my views on the Racial Discrimination Act.It transcends politics. That has to do with not only indigenous Australians but also new Australians. There is no way that we as a parliament should intentionally or unintentionally override the Racial Discrimination Act. Go to the original Mabo case, the Western Australian case and the Wik case and you will see what this debate is all about. It is not necessary. The Prime Minister should rethink this. There is a way through this that is acceptable to all stakeholders, and I commend him to start listening. He should listen, because what he is doing will impact on all of us and will diminish all of us.11:01:00941Cobb, Michael, MPMr COBBMF4ParkesNP10—Listening to the last speaker, the member for Banks (Mr Melham), one can only despair that he will put some time in in the real world. It is very disappointing that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Beazley) cannot pull the left wing into line. The Leader of the Opposition realises, I feel sure, that the 10-point plan is a very fair and sensible balance and that it should be allowed to go through the parlia ment. It is disappointing that the left wing seems to be dictating what he should do. I do not believe that the Leader of the Opposition's heart is in the stance that the Labor Party is taking on this.The fact of the matter is that the Native Title Act now is over four years old. There have been, by my last count, 773 claims in this country, taking in something like 50 per cent of the landmass of Australia, $210 million in legal fees has been wasted pursing native title and two claims have been resolved: one at Crescent Head—the ink was not dry before it was sold back—and the other one at Hope Vale, near Cairns in Far North Queensland. The Aboriginal people already resided on the land at Hope Vale and had control of it. The cost of project hold-ups in Australia is now running at hundreds of millions of dollars a year and several thousand jobs have been lost.Aboriginal children out there are going blind because of eye diseases and going deaf because of middle ear diseases; yet we have wasted $210 million chasing rainbows on native title claims. The whole thing is a criminal waste of money and is totally ridiculous. The present Native Title Act is totally unworkable. Just in the Western Division of New South Wales, which takes in my electorate, I know of 50 to 60 projects that are now held up. They involve many millions of dollars and several hundred jobs, many of which could be Aboriginal jobs.It is not just commercial projects; the most ridiculous things are being held up. A film company wanted to employ from 50 to 60 local people and film on a regular basis near Broken Hill, but it has been prevented by the state government which says that this involves a change of purpose of a grazing lease and that cannot be done. So what probably would have been $150,000 injected into the city of Broken Hill has been lost. That film company has walked away. It has had enough. This is crazy. It means, in effect, that a tourist cannot take a photograph in the Western Division of New South Wales because, if they have a grazing lease in the background, that would involve a change of purpose of a grazing lease. This is how stupid the present act has become.As if that is not bad enough, I have other examples which are even worse. The Field and Game Shooting Club at Broken Hill will have to give up its lease. They cannot renew their lease because it involves a change of purpose of a grazing lease. Cobar is a town that is going through some pain because an overseas mining company has walked away from it. The archery club have been on a grazing lease there for the last 14 years. Recently they went to renew it. What happened? Suddenly, the Native Title Act came into play. Not only were they told they could not renew their lease—and the landowner is perfectly happy for them to do so—they were also told that they would have to pack up all their belongings and get off. That means they will have to tear down sheds, many of which have steel poles going into concrete blocks in the ground. There are about 40 members of the archery club, most of them in the age group from eight to 16 years. The club keep kids in Cobar off the street, but they are being told that they cannot renew their lease and that they have to get off. This is how stupid the Native Title Act is.Commercial projects are also affected. Producers in Cobar want to build an emu abattoir next to the biggest emu farm in the world. They are not allowed to do so because that would involve a change of purpose of a grazing lease, perhaps exposing the state government to future compensation claims if a native title claim was put on, even though Aborigines were not in that area in the first place.The 10-point plan overcomes all this. It is an excellent compromise. We have had literally thousands of hours of negotiation with all the players: the miners, the Aborigines, the pastoralists, the residents of the towns—anybody who is interested in the Native Title Act and what native title is supposed to be about. We have come down with what we believe is a fair and balanced plan, but it is being knocked back for what I believe are base political reasons.One of the sticking points is the registration of claims. One of the things that we require is that claimants have to pass a few fair, prima facie tests, one of which is that at least one member of the claimant group must have some present or past physical connection with at least a portion of the land that is under claim. I would have thought that was a perfectly reasonable request but, no, the Labor Party is opposing that.As I say, they are blocking this for base political reasons only. Commonsense says that you have to have some sort of fair dinkum registration test and some fair dinkum right to negotiate tests which are no greater than are given to anyone else. Under the present system we have a ridiculous, chaotic situation in this country. An article on the front page of the Sunday Times of 22 February begins:A prominent Aborigine and self-confessed opportunist admits using native title to make "a quid" from mining companies.He aims to become a millionaire from four land claims and get a better life for himself and his extended family."Let's not beat about the bush. I am here to make a quid, he said. "I don't want one 4WD, I want a fleet of the bastards for all of us.But I am not a rip-off merchant, I am an opportunist.It goes on to say:His claims, lodged by himself but involving other extended family members, cover more than 200,000 sq km and affect more than 100 leases or tenements.That is the sort of thing that is going on in this country that no reasonable person on either side of the debate would want to put up with. That is what the 10-point plan can overcome. A briefing note arrived on my desk only this morning from the Association of Mining and Exploration Companies, AMEC. In the introduction it says:. . . the Act frustrates development by providing native title claimants with an ability, or more specifically, the leverage to extract considerable sums of money from developers as `compensation' for native title which, in every case presented in this briefing note, has not been determined by an Australian court of law and which may in fact never be awarded to the native title claimant seeking such payments.A number of cases are listed where people have been frustrated. Probably the most ridiculous is the most inconsequential of all. Case study No. 5 is an 83-year-old prospector who resides in Kalgoorlie, has been a prospector all his life and has worked a single prospecting licence in the Eastern Goldfields region of Western Australia. Between 1990 and 1994 he had cleaned out his shaft to a depth of 55 feet. He applied for a mining lease, which took in nine hectares of land—that is about 20 acres. He was going to undertake all his mining by hand.Suddenly he got two native title claims over the area and to date—to cut a long story short—he has had 500 pages of legal correspondence on this. He has been unemployed for the last three years trying to resolve this. The last document he got was a draft 88-page agreement. God knows what this is costing the taxpayer. The claim that is holding it all up, one of the native title claims over the area, covers an area of 2,108,200 hectares. That is in excess of five million acres of land, and he wants to put a hole in the ground 10 metres by 10 metres square and mine it by hand. His area represents 0.0000005 per cent of the native title claim. He wants to mine one-hundredth of one hectare out of a native title claim in excess of two million hectares, but he is not allowed to do so. I could quote more serious cases of much larger companies where in the order of 50 and 60 jobs are being lost in each area. But this is what we have to put up with.I have no joy from what I hear from the clerics of this country too. In my own electorate, the Anglican Bishop put out a press release the other day headed up:"Blood on the streets" Media Conference. 1300 February 19th 1998.Seventh Floor, Adelaide International Hotel . . . North Adelaide.This was where the General Synod of the Anglican Church of Australia was meeting. In the first sentence of the press release, Bishop Bruce Wilson, a bishop whom I highly respect and know fairly well, said:There will be "blood on the streets"—not `there could be blood on the streets', `there will be blood on the streets'—if there is a federal election based on race, a western New South Wales Anglican bishop said today.Then he goes on to describe rural New South Wales as being `under siege'. He has apparently driven his car around Bourke or Brewarrina or Wilcannia at night time and seen the shutters down and the steel bars everywhere. It has nothing to do with the land tenure debate on native title; it is all to do with law and order problems and vandalism—mainly by young teenagers—and substance abuse and alcoholism. That is what that is about. In the third sentence he goes further:. . . there is no doubt there will be blood on the streets of NSW.Really. What a pretentious, inflammatory comment. We could do without this sort of language from the bishops of this country. I doubt that he has ever read the legislation on what is proposed under the 10-point plan, and I am very disappointed indeed that Bruce Wilson has stooped to this.The 10-point plan expands in round figures the amount of land that is claimable under native title in Australia from something like 40 per cent under Keating's Native Title Act to almost 80 per cent under our act. How can you say it is taking away Aboriginal rights under native title? We are doubling the amount of land under claim.4T4MELHAMMr Melham—You will let them keep.MF4Cobb, Michael, MPMr COBB—And if that is not enough, because native title is a common-law right, you can still take a claim to the Federal Court anyhow. But all we are wanting to do is cut out these multiple overlapping claims, which are not only turning black against white but Aboriginal family against Aboriginal family in many areas of Australia. I hear the Labor Party interjecting here, but the Labor Party today federally in Australia represents only the city areas of Australia—one per cent of the landmass of Australia. That is all they represent. It is very easy for them to pontificate on what they think should be going on out in the bush areas of Australia.The 10-point plan, at the end of the day, reflects very closely, if not exactly, what the High Court decisions in Mabo and Wik said. It is not racist at all. The registration tests and the right to negotiate are very fair and very commonsensical. To apply the Racial Discrimination Act would be unworkable. That is what the previous government decided when they brought down the previous act. They even had to go to the extent of gagging Father Frank Brennan. They deny it, but then it was revealed that they had. Sensible people not on our side of politics can see why that would be unworkable.I say to the Labor Party that we do not want a double dissolution on this, but we have compromised and put down a fair plan, something that reflects the High Court decisions. We have drawn a line in the sand. We have said that we have gone far enough. We are not going to go any further—except there may be some marginal decision on the edge—we will turn it over to the Australian people and let them decide. If the Labor Party want a double dissolution on this, we will have to accommodate them. It is not something that we will want, but, regrettably, it is something that we will have to do if it is again blocked in the Senate. It is only being blocked for the basest political reasons of all, and that is a great shame.11:17:00944Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH5V5PerthALP00—I rise to support the amendment moved by the opposition and to associate myself with the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Beazley) and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Gareth Evans), both of whom I had the opportunity of listening to in the chamber. In this area it is always helpful in my view to go back to basics and to start at the starting point. The starting point in this debate is Mabo No. 2. What did Mabo No. 2 decide? Mabo No. 2 decided that native title was a common-law property right which needed to be treated as such. Because it is a common-law property right, it has protections under the constitution by way of fair and just terms compensation.So what we are dealing with here is a common-law property right. That common-law property right was recognised by the High Court in Mabo No. 2 a couple of hundred years after European settlement. One hundred years after, our land administration and property entitlements were settled and made secure via state and territory administrations. What problem was this parliament confronted with? This parliament was confronted with the problem of having to introduce into our land administration and property entitlements a High Court decision which required Commonwealth legislation and to do that when our land administration had effectively been settled through the states for 100 years or more.That was always going to cause difficulty and it was always going to cause problems, which was why at the outset we said, `You have one or two roads you can go down here. You can leave this alone and let the courts deal with it and have chaos forever or you can seek to craft Commonwealth legislation based on the parliament's legislative heads of power.' We acknowledged from the outset that, if you are doing this for the first time with all those difficulties, you are bound to make some mistakes. It did not help, in the course of the debate on the Native Title Bill 1993, when those on the other side walked away. That was not a helpful contribution in the national interest.It was recognised on our part that there were procedural and process problems in 1995 and amendments were put into this House which lapsed on the dissolution of the parliament for the 1996 election. Pre-Wik there was an acknowledgment that the processes and procedures had to be improved. This government intended to pick up the amendments that we put into the parliament in 1995. They were not dealt with in 1996. At the end of 1996, we saw the Wik judgment. What are we dealing with now? We are dealing with those problems which arise as a consequence of the Wik decision and the process and procedure problems that we have seen arise from the practical experience of the 1993 Native Title Act.How do we on this side of the House say you solve the problem? We say you solve the problem by adopting three approaches. Firstly, you have to run with the notion of native title. You cannot seek to do what very many of those on the other side—and I choose my words carefully; what very many but not all—do to seek to stop it, to seek to redress it. We say that there is a High Court recognised common-law property right. You have to run with that. If you run with that, you show respect for property law rights and you show decency and fairness to the Aboriginal people.Secondly, you have to have the wit to understand our nation's constitution and this parliament's legislative heads of power. You have to be very careful about the sort of legislation that you seek to put to this parliament and seek to enact. If you are not careful, you will find yourself with unconstitutional legislation because you will breach one or two of the heads of power on which this parliament has the capacity to legislate in respect of this matter. Thirdly, you have to have the wit to put into place an administrative system which will work.4T4MELHAMMr Melham—And which is accepted by everyone.5V5Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH—The honourable member for Banks interjects and says, `And which is accepted by everyone,' and that is crucial to my next point. I pride myself on being a lapsed lawyer. When I was a practising lawyer, one of the first and best pieces of advice I got from my principal when I was an articled clerk was that the best thing you can do for your client is to keep your client out of court. There is only one winner from clients going to court, and that is the lawyers.When you craft a system which seeks to respect individual common-law property rights, you have to have an administrative and legal process where those rights can be determined by an adversarial process if that is what is required but one that, in the main, enables people to come to agreement. If you want to get people sitting around the table coming to agreement, you have to instil into this debate goodwill and decency. It is goodwill and decency which are lacking from the man who sits in that chair at question time, the Prime Minister (Mr Howard).What approach have we adopted on this side of the House since this parliament resumed? When the government introduced its Native Title Amendment Bill No. 1 1997, we on this side of the House supported a second reading amendment. What did that second reading amendment contain? That second reading amendment said `native title rights are fundamental legal property rights and entitled to the same respect and protection as the property rights of non-indigenous Australians'. That respects Mabo No. 2, it respects Wik and it respects our constitutional right for fair and just term compensation if individual property rights are interfered with unlawfully.The second thing we said by way of our amendment was that you need to `balance and reconcile to the maximum possible extent the interests and reasonable expectations of all the major stakeholders'—farmers, miners, the Australian taxpayers and indigenous communities. That means you have to run with the notion of native title and you have to be smart enough to get the constitutional framework and an administrative process which will work.The third thing we said is that you have to have `maximum possible predictability and certainty'. Our greatest complaint about this legislation, as it was with the government's first bill of 1997, is that it will not solve the problem. It will not produce predictability and certainty. It will drive people off to the Federal Court and the High Court forever. The essential problem which the Native Title Act 1993 sought to address was precisely that point.Those members who come from Western Australia should not think that, if this bill which the government has put up is adopted by this parliament or subsequently adopted by a joint sitting of the House, the Western Australian problem is solved. It is not. This government's bill does not properly address the pre-June 1996 claims which are lodged in Western Australia, particularly in the goldfields and Kalgoorlie. If you go to a joint sitting on this bill, you will not solve the fundamental nature of the Western Australian problem, which is multiple and overlapping claims. You have to have more wit than this bill to do that.The fourth thing we said in our amendment was that there is `a need to guarantee constitutional validity of the legislation'. We have argued time and time again that this bill and its predecessor are not constitutionally valid. The best evidence to that point is the fact that this government sought to suppress the Australian Law Reform Commission's opinion which said precisely that. That is the best evidence. It is not our assertion; it is the assertion made by the government's primary law reform agency. The Australian Law Reform Commission, in an opinion which this government sought to suppress, said that the basis upon which this government's bill was flawed was its constitutional invalidity.The fifth thing we said in our amendment on the first run through of this was that we needed to ensure that `the registration and determination of claims be as effective and expeditious as possible' and that we wanted to `encourage and assist the entering into of agreements'. That is entirely consistent with what we adopted at our party's national conference in January this year in Hobart in our native title resolution. I make reference to our national conference because decisions made in national conferences are binding on future Labor governments. We had a debate on this matter which again showed, firstly, the consistency with which we have approached this since the Mabo No. 2 decision came out and, secondly, the legislative and procedural difficulties and deficiencies which this government's bill throws up.In our national conference resolution we again repeated the themes of affirming our commitment to ensuring the recognition and protection of native title rights and of wanting to ensure maximum possible coexistence of native title holders and others, maximum possible clarity and certainty of tenure, effective practical workability and maximum encouragement for negotiated agreements. We went on to expressly say:Labor will continue to support amendments which:. respect the basic principles of non-discrimination and ensure that the Act is subject to the provisions of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975;. provide a process for the validation of titles issued between the first of January 1994 and Wik judgement in December 1996;If the government had taken this bill on the floor of this House in December 1997, validation would have been secure. We went on to say: . recognise the principle of non-extinguishment of native title;. respect the rights of pastoral leaseholders existing at the time of the High Court's decision in Wik ;. provide an appropriate mechanism for access to traditional lands;. preserve the rights of native title holders to negotiate over resource developments on land on which they have claimed or have established native title, including land over which there are pastoral leases;. improve the workability of the Act by providing a more certain and substantial threshold test for claims, and procedures for minimising the possibility of overlapping claims and the removal of vexatious claims;. provide a statutory basis for adequately resourced representative bodies that are subject to appropriate and transparent accountability procedures; and. promote an agreements based approach to native title issues with appropriate legislative recognition and safeguards.That approach can solve this problem; the government's approach cannot. Those sentiments, which have been consistent with the way that we have approached this matter since the court's decision in Mabo No. 2 through to the debate on the Native Title Bill 1993 and on the government's Native Title Amendment Bill 1997 [No. 2], ring true with the amendment that we have put forward today.We reject the government's approach. We note that it has ignored our offer to consult and to negotiate. We underline again the point that the end result of this government's legislation will be a wave of court challenges. We again make the point about the continuing and ongoing and clear and certain doubts about the constitutional and legal validity of this government's approach.The point is that, if the government had accepted the bill which came out of the Senate in December last year, the validity of those leases, particularly in Queensland, which may be invalid, would have been secured. Note the point that, in the continuing absence of an effective threshold test, native title processes will continue to be swamped with claims of variable quality and, in the continuing absence of improved processes and procedures under the act, the backlog of unresolved determinations, decisions and negotiations will continue to mount.There is actually a way forward in this matter, and that is to adopt our approach. That is to say, we respect the High Court's decision in Mabo No. 2 and we conduct ourselves with decency and fairness. We also respect this country's constitution and the legislative power and the heads of power which this parliament has. We are smart enough to try to craft a legislative and administrative system which provides for the clear delineation and determination of individual property rights, if that is the road that people want to go down, but we throw out the much more sensible approach of saying, `The best way to resolve these problems is by way of agreement.' If you want to instil the essential ingredients for solving matters in this way, you have to instil goodwill and decency, which are lacking from the government's approach in this matter so far.I want to conclude by making some points with particular reference to Australia's minerals resources industries. I often see these claims made entirely without intellectual rigour or merit, that all of the problems of the minerals resources industries in Australia are as a result of access to land problems. They are not. Access to land is an issue and it cannot be ignored, but the suggestion that access to land is the beginning of all the problems the minerals resources industries have in this country is as lacking in intellectual rigour as the argument which says that access to land is not an issue.What are the problems facing our great minerals resources industries? It is a long-term decline in the commodity price cycle just about across-the-board running against Australia, a long-term decline in the profit dividend which minerals resources companies in Australia have made—20 per cent in 1990 and three per cent last year—and a long-term decline in interest in the investment community in Australia and internationally in minerals resources.There is a whole range of reasons why there are long-term problems for the minerals and resources industry. In short, if you are not making a profit for your shareholders capital funds will not come from the investment community. That is the long-term problem facing the Australian minerals resources industry.On the other hand, with our petroleum resources industry, oil and gas—other than the shock of the gas price yesterday—the investment cycle is running in its favour. Native title is not an issue for the offshore oil and gas industry because it has never been a practical problem. That view is also buttressed by the High Court's decision in the Western Mining Corporation compensation case.It is an issue for the petroleum resources industry onshore. Those issues go to validation, which we say we support, and renewal, which we say we are happy to look at again, as we did arising out of our Townsville meeting which the Deputy Leader of the Opposition went through. They have a problem with private versus public infrastructure which we say we are happy to look at again.So far as our minerals resources industry is concerned, what are the issues that confront them? They are: validation, renewal, the threshold test and whether you have an up-front right to negotiate or, at the back, a conjunctive or disjunctive approach, which we say we are happy to give a flexible one-off approach.All of these things were the subject of discussions that we had with the minerals resources industry in Townsville. We made it crystal clear to the community that we on this side have a commitment to solve the problem. I could not have found a better example of that than the remarks made by the Chief Executive Officer of the Queensland Minerals Council, Mr Michael Pinnock. In advance of the meeting that we had in Townsville Mr Pinnock spent a good proportion of his working days detailing the Labor Party's alleged crimes against humanity. After the meeting he came out and said, `That was a very productive meeting.' He said in the Townsville Bulletin, `The industry approached this matter with goodwill. We think the opposition approaches this matter with good will. If Mr Howard approached this matter with goodwill the problem could be solved.'There could be no more damning indictment of the approach that the Prime Minister has taken to this matter than the comments of Michael Pinnock, the Chief Executive Officer of the Queensland Minerals Council. After a meeting with me, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the shadow Attorney-General, Senator Bolkus, and the shadow minister for Aboriginal affairs, the member for Banks, who is in the chamber at the moment, Mr Pinnock said there is obviously a capacity on the part of the Labor Party to solve this problem but there is no capacity on the other side unless the Prime Minister shows goodwill. There are one of two ways of solving this problem: either the government instils some goodwill or, after the next election, the solution to this problem will be Kim Beazley, Prime Minister.11:33:00948Nugent, Peter, MPMr NUGENTUT4AstonLP10—When I spoke to the Native Title Amendment Bill 1997 [No. 2] on its first passage through the House on 21 October last year, I said, amongst other things:I do have my doubts about this bill. I do have concerns about the unedifying prospect of future litigation—thereby negating any claims of certainty. And I do have serious concerns about the impact of this legislation on the reconciliation process.Given the passage of time and the events that have occurred since then, I have to say that I have not changed my fundamental position. I still have serious reservations about aspects of this bill. However, I will support the government's position because to do otherwise frankly would be to give credence to some sections of the opposition who seek, in my view, to manipulate the indigenous community for political gain.I think that we all recognise in this chamber that there is a need to amend the native title legislation. It seems to me that there are three basic reasons for this. Firstly, there is the workability or, perhaps I should say, the unworkability of the present legislation. Quite clearly the present legislation has not delivered the outcomes that were expected of it in the first place. This applies to miners, to farmers and to pastoralists, but also, and in many ways more importantly, it has not delivered for indigenous people. There are all sorts of practical problems in the handling and processing of all claims under the present legislation. Frankly, the duplication and often nonsensical ambit claims by some indigenous groups have unfortunately brought discredit on the good intentions of this legislation when it was first introduced. Secondly, we need to change the legislation because of the legal ramifications of the Brandy case. This is largely mechanical; nevertheless, it is important. Thirdly, the Wik case has changed some of the fundamental assumptions underlying the original native title legislation.I believe that the Wik judgment made it very clear that leasehold title and native title can coexist and that leaseholders' interests would take priority over any native title interests where there was a conflict. Therefore, to some extent I think the changes generated in response to the Wik decision are probably overstated. However, given the levels of concern, emotion and misinformation in the community, it is probably prudent to clarify the situation.As I mentioned before, I am on record over a long time as having concerns about this legislation. Of course, I also support, though, many aspects of what is proposed in the legislation. It is not all bad. In regard to three key matters of difference between the government and the opposition—and they are the right to negotiate, the registration test and the sunset clause—I feel that this bill overcorrects to some extent, moving the pendulum back too far one way. Nonetheless, I accept the essential premise and thrust of what is proposed.I do have three major areas of concern however. Firstly, in respect of what I perceive as a back door mass extinguishment possibility via the upgrade provisions. As I understand the legislation, and in spite of lengthy discussions with the minister and with some of his staff, who are in the official's box today, I have not had my mind put to rest on this matter. As I understand the legislation, it will allow state governments to resume a lease and to reissue it as freehold for the payment of an as yet undefined improvement fee.Of course the legislation requires that appropriate compensation be paid to those entitled to native title in respect of that property. Some 75 per cent of that compensation will come from the federal government. I do not see any correlation between the improvement fee and the compensation and perhaps there should not be. But it does seem to me that the system is open to abuse.Whilst I further understand that to implement this provision some states will need to change their existing laws, I harbour a concern that history has taught us that there will be state regimes that will go down the path of property by property improvements or upgrades thereby effecting a gradual de facto mass extinguishment of native title. This has been characterised by some as `buckets of extinguishment'.I acknowledge that such action is not intended by the legislation, but nowhere have I been able to find where that will be prevented in the legislation or by statute. The states unfortunately have a history of not necessarily doing the right thing in regard to indigenous people. That is why the 1967 referendum passed control of indigenous matters to the federal government. I fear that this aspect of the legislation will be operated to the detriment of Aboriginal people.My second major concern is that I do not believe that even if this legislation is passed through the Senate in some form or another, either now or at a joint sitting following a double dissolution, it will achieve its prime stated objective of delivering certainty. Clearly, given the number of interested parties who have not signed up to the spirit of this legislation, we are going to see a return to the courts, probably for a decade to come. The only winners will be the lawyers. Not the farmers. Not the pastoralists. Not the miners. Not indigenous people. Not the community at large.It would seem to me that a better solution would have been to enter into a series of regional agreements with all of the key stakeholders. I say `regional agreements' rather than a national agreement because we need to recognise that in different parts of the country there are variations between state laws, there is uneven development of the land and a variety of indigenous cultural backgrounds and attitudes. It has been demonstrated that regional agreements are possible—for example, the Cape York agreement agreed between pastoralists, miners, state and local government and indigenous people more than a year ago.I accept that it will take some time to deliver agreements in all areas of Australia. But, surely, better a two- or three-year negotiating period which all parties can then subscribe to as a basis for agreed legislation than a series of court battles lasting a decade or more. Such a course of action may not get the matter off the current political agenda, but I suggest that it would deliver a greater certainty than the course on which we are currently embarked. Perhaps a less contentious tidy up bill could be passed now where we have a lot of common ground between the two sides, with the major areas of dispute then being resolved between the key stakeholders in those regional agreements.In spite of my own reservations about this legislation, let me make it clear to the House that I do not believe that the games being played with this bill by some in the opposition should be countenanced. I believe that suggested amendments to make every aspect of the native title legislation subject to the Racial Discrimination Act in the way that they are being proposed would clearly produce an unworkable farce as has been articulated very well by Father Frank Brennan—a well-known and knowledgeable friend of indigenous Australians. If the ALP believe that it is proper to include such a clause, one has to ask the question: why was it not included in their own original native title legislation? It seems to me that there are those in the opposition using this legislation, regrettably, for crass political purposes. Whilst I have suspected this for some time, I think the recent publication of an exchange of letters between Frank Brennan and the National Indigenous Working Group have more than confirmed my worst fears.Finally, my third concern is that I would suggest that the divisions generated by this legislation have already had a negative impact on the reconciliation process. Fortunately, that reconciliation process is now sufficiently established as a people's movement that it will survive. However, it was noteworthy that at the weekend, the new Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation—nominated by this government—advocated negotiated regional agreements as the way forward. We do have an arrangement for speaking times, so I will not go into a lot more detail.In conclusion, let me say that I accept the basic need for this legislation. I agree with much of what is in the bill, but I do have reservations particularly concerning the upgrade provisions and the potential for their misuse by state governments. But the bottom line is that I do not believe that this legislation will achieve as its outcome the certainty which is the fundamental basis for its introduction. I also believe that it is unhelpful to the reconciliation process.This is not one of the more enjoyable speeches that I have made in this parliament. I raise these matters with a deep and sincere concern that the legislation in its present form does not provide a certain and workable solution, particularly for Australia's indigenous community. We are a liberal democracy and we ought to be able to work out a better win-win compromise for all stakeholders and for the benefit of future generations of Australians.23:44:00950Holding, Clyde, MPMr HOLDINGCH4Melbourne PortsALP00—The Native Title Amendment Bill 1997 [No. 2] before the House today is an important issue. I would like to start by going back to the history of settlement of this nation. If there has been one group of people in the history of Australia who have been the subject of continual and historic discrimination and abuse it is the Aboriginal people. All that can be said for us as a result of our colonial history is that we were not as bad as some other colonial powers. But now we have arrived in 1998.I go to naturalisation ceremonies. I agree with my Liberal colleagues when they say that this is a community which abhors any form of discrimination, but I find it odd that the one group in society which is still, in many parts of Australia, the continuing object of discrimination in the daily routine of their lives—and I am speaking of our indigenous people, and my colleagues from both sides of the House know it—on an issue of great importance, namely, the future development of native title and how it will operate (and it will be complex and it will be difficult) is being told by this government and this Prime Minister that, if it is ever to emerge to exercise the kind of freedoms and rights which have become part of our community, in respect of this legislation it will be deprived of the benefits of the Racial Discrimination Act. I find that a major step backwards.I find it a step backwards from the history of the Liberal Party where, after all, the land rights act was a product of the Fraser government, implemented with the support of people like Bill Wentworth, Fred Chaney and Ian Viner—distinguished ministers. I am also bound to say, on the basis of my own experience in respect of state governments, one cannot trust state governments in this area. The Burke government introduced its own form of land rights legislation. As federal minister at that time in Aboriginal Affairs, I did not think it went far enough. But what happened? It was vetoed by the state Legislative Council. I have been to Tasmania where areas of Aboriginal land—Aboriginal cemeteries—are used as grazing paddocks for cows. This story can be repeated.I come to the principal point that I want to make: if there is one group of Australian citizens who need the protection of the Racial Discrimination Act, it is Aboriginal people. I am not going to deny, as no-one who has had any experience in Aboriginal affairs can deny, that when you come to deal with issues of native title there will be some try-ons and there will be some claims made by people. The legitimacy of those claims will be, in some cases, very doubtful. That is to be expected when you have had a group living outside the broad framework of Australian society and treated as a marginalised people. The temptation to make a claim of any sort, no matter how silly, might in many cases be overwhelming. We need a process to deal with that. In other areas of our law, there exist processes that can do that. I would not have any problem about that, nor would Aboriginal leadership.Then there is the question of the mining industry. They have a very chequered career in this area, but one is bound to say in fairness to that industry that in the course of the last 10 or 15 years there have been significant changes in the attitude of principal mining companies.I would like to quote some words of wisdom which seem to me to go to the heart of this debate. The first person I would like to quote is Pope John Paul II when I was privileged to welcome him at what then was the biggest and largest gathering of Aboriginal people in Australia at the time of his visit. This is what he said at Alice Springs on 29 November 1986:Let it not be said that fair and equitable recognition of Aboriginal rights to land is discrimination. To call for the acknowledgment of the land rights of people who have never surrendered those rights is not discrimination. Certainly what has been done cannot be undone. But what can now be done to remedy the deeds of yesterday must not be put off till tomorrow.The establishment of a new society for Aboriginal people cannot go forward without just and mutually recognised agreements with regard to these human problems, even though their causes lie in the past.They are the words of a great spiritual leader, in my view, which pinpoint the nature of the problem that today confronts Australian society.Let us turn to the mining industry. On 14 August 1996, Australia's most senior mining company executive, Mr Leon Davis, the Chief Operating Officer of RTZ-CRA, gave an address to the Australian Business in Europe group and he said:There is no doubt that our current Native Title legislation is complex and parts of it will need to be improved. But, as I have said before, the sentiments behind the Native Title Act are a credit to its architects and its core tenets deserve to stand, even though translating them into workable legislation has been difficult.RTZ-CRA's experience of negotiating with Aboriginal communities has taught us that Aboriginal leaders face a herculean task. It is very difficult to represent others in a society which has for thousands of years practised collective leadership. I understand this difficulty. It is the greatest challenge facing the current generation of Aboriginal leaders. I commend both those statements—one from one of the world's great spiritual leaders, the other from a practical leader of the mining industry.If we look at this legislation before the House and the attitudes that have been exposed in this House on a whole range of issues dealing with Aboriginal people, we see the Liberal Party, which has a very important history in this area, going backwards at a rate of knots. It is not living up to the promises of the Fraser government and some of his very excellent ministers.5M6DONDASMr Dondas—Where didn't they?CH4Holding, Clyde, MPMr HOLDING—First of all, in answer to the honourable member for the Northern Territory, in implementing the land rights legislation as the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs I cannot recall a single occasion, having gone through processes, where in the Northern Territory every grant of land that was made under that legislation was not the subject of legislative challenge. The honourable member knows I am right. It became an exercise. As night follows day, Aboriginal people went through the process, the minister acted in accordance with the law and the next thing you were in the High Court or in some other jurisdiction.I know the honourable member for the Northern Territory has some feeling and regard for Aboriginal people, but I also know that many of his colleagues, whenever an election is called, will have no problem calling out the racist card. That is the history not only of the Northern Territory government. It is much worse, I will say, in terms of Western Australia and Queensland. One should not approach this debate on the basis of forgetting our history.I suppose by my training and legal background before I came to this place I have always had high regard for our judicial authorities. I thought that was a view that was shared. That was until the High Court came down with its decisions in Mabo. We were in government and I watched members of the Liberal Party and National Party go feral. All you have to do is look at the Hansard reports of that time. After Wik, it was not just an ignorant backbench applying itself: you had no less a person than the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Tim Fischer) talking about political adventurism.We have in this situation a political leadership who say they support law and order. They support the judicial system of this country so long as the decisions go the way they want. No apology; it is accepted. The Deputy Prime Minister talks about political conformity in relation to judges. In other words, he wants a politically conservative judge on the High Court. We do not want political conservatives or political radicals on the High Court; we need the best judicial brains we can get.CF4CAMPBELLMr Campbell—We certainly haven't got it.CH4Holding, Clyde, MPMr HOLDING—I would not want to rely on the legal judgment of the honourable member for Kalgoorlie. He has got enough problems of his own.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. N.B. Reid)—Order! The honourable member shall address his remarks through the chair.CH4Holding, Clyde, MPMr HOLDING—In looking at this legislation, in dealing with the important issues of native title, this government is saying, `We are going to abandon the RDA for that one group in Australian society for whom racial discrimination has been part of their lot from the day that many Aboriginal children were born.' You can talk about health, housing and education. They are all very important. I do not discount them. But this government needs to recognise that just because you do something about health, education and housing, which is the right of every Australian citizen, that is not going to make them think like a dominant white community. They are proud of their heritage. They are proud of their culture. You now have a level of leadership which has been produced over a period of time within their own communities, and on this issue of native title it ought to be the subject of compromise.I do not have any problem with Aboriginal communities getting the same legal assistance as any pastoralist or farmer who finds himself with a claim that he needs to dispute and does not have the finances. I do not have any problem with him having access to the same legal rights and the same legal funding. Let there be equality of treatment. We need to approach this thing in the spirit of reconciliation because, if reconciliation means anything, it does not mean and cannot mean that you remove the provisions of the Racial Discrimination Act from the one group of Australian citizens who need it more than any other group in this community.If this were the Liberal Party that they were once, who had a sense of justice and a sense of compassion—and many Liberal Party members here still do—they would say to the Prime Minister, `Forget this approach. The only way you are going to solve these long-term problems for all the people who are important players is to negotiate and produce a result which produces fairness and equity for all.'11:57:00953Dondas, Nick, MPMr DONDAS5M6Northern TerritoryCLP10—First of all, I am sorry that I was not here earlier this morning to listen to the debate on the Native Title Amendment Bill 1997 [No. 2] . I would like to have heard what the honourable member for Banks (Mr Melham) had to say, but, unfortunately, other parliamentary commitments had me somewhere else.4T4MELHAMMr Melham—Read it in the Hansard .5M6Dondas, Nick, MPMr DONDAS—I will read it in the Hansard . It is probably just as well I was not here because I probably would have come out all guns blazing because, obviously, the member for Banks and I disagree on most of the things that he does.But I do not need a history lesson from the member for Melbourne Ports (Mr Holding). Because of the Northern Territory land rights act 1976, I have lived with Aboriginal land rights more than anybody else in this parliament since 1974. Obviously, there was the Woodward report. Mr Viner was the minister in those days. It would have taken him all of 1974 and 1975 to get it into the parliament because it was a very contentious issue in those days. So we are really talking about 25 years of discussion on Northern Territory land rights. The member for Banks does not say that almost 50 per cent of the Northern Territory today has been granted to Aboriginal communities. I do not have any problem with that because that was a Northern Territory land rights act. He does not say that that 50 per cent was granted even though the Northern Territory government of the day may have thought some areas may have had an impact on the future economic development of the Northern Territory. Land claims still have not been resolved and water rights at Crocker Island still have not been resolved, but the important thing is that the Aboriginal community of Northern Territory have accepted that they have had a good deal these last 25 years. That is something the Labor Party does not acknowledge. Our Aboriginal communities say that they have had a good deal. It is their land and now there is a review of the Northern Territory land rights act—4T4MELHAMMr Melham—Tell us about literacy, health and sewerage.5M6Dondas, Nick, MPMr DONDAS—That was your problem and I will talk about that in a moment. That is why it is lucky I was not here earlier. The important thing is there is a review of the Northern Territory land rights act. I am hoping that the recommendations from that review will give the Aboriginal communities a bit more economic development, because that is what we are all talking about.The debate on the Native Title Amendment Bill 1997 has been hijacked by the honourable member for Banks, by Senator Bolkus and also by a former member of the House of Representatives, one Warren Snowdon. After the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) made the announcement of the 10-point plan—having consulted with the pastoral industry, with the indigenous communities of Australia, with the mining industry and with other interested groups—that 10-point plan was hijacked by the honourable member for Banks and his cohorts. They were not interested in trying to come to a resolution which would have provided some certainty to the community. All they wanted to do was to cause trouble. They have caused so much trouble in this community on this topic. Their left-wing ideals really have done them no good, especially your former colleague.4T4MELHAMMr Melham—He's inciting me, Mr Deputy Speaker.5M6Dondas, Nick, MPMr DONDAS—I beg your pardon.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. N.B. Reid)—Order! Ignore the interjections. All interjections are disorderly. Address your remarks through the chair.5M6Dondas, Nick, MPMr DONDAS—The important thing is that the ALP heavies—we will call them heavies; they think they are heavies—are telling Father Frank Brennan to stop trying to broker a compromise. The ALP do not want a compromise. They want an election on native title and they want a double dissolution. The reason they want a double dissolution is that they do not want to sit here for another eight, nine, 10 or 11 months waiting for the Prime Minister to say, `We're going to go to a general election.' They have absolutely nothing to lose by the calling of an early election. But, if there were a double dissolution, I think the coalition government would be returned with increased numbers—that is what the ALP do not realise—because the Australian community is sick and tired of this particular debate going on with no resolution.Not only that, but the focus should be on the Australian economy and on trying to improve the employment rates in the community and to resolve some of the disasters that we inherited from the former Labor government—the $10 billion black hole, the unemployment rate at over 11 per cent and inflation at its highest for 30 years. What have the opposition done? They have now tried to sidetrack the Prime Minister and the coalition because they have an agenda which is purely a political agenda. The coalition does not want a double dissolution. The coalition wants the Senate to pass this legislation so that we can get on with the job of running the country and so that we can provide certainty to those people in remote areas—to the mining industry and to the pastoral industry. That is what it is all about: certainty.The 10-point plan was a fair plan. Even when it went to the Senate, the coalition picked up some minor amendments in trying to accommodate some of the amendments put forward by the other interested parties in the Senate. Even ATSIC are now worried about Labor stalling on native title. We heard through something that had fallen off the back of a truck onto a reporter's table—and I have not seen the document—that even ATSIC are now worried about certain provisions of the right to negotiate. Also, during the committee hearings, they were concerned about the threshold test.But the important thing is that the right to negotiate is not a common law right; it is a product of the 1993 Native Title Act. Let me turn to the 1993 act. In 1993, the former Prime Minister of Australia, Mr Keating, stood up in this parliament and said that they were introducing the legislation because of a previous court decision that pastoral leases extinguished native title. He unequivocally said that this is what was going to happen. But it did not happen. It went on from there and, in 1995-96, the coalition when in opposition made an election promise to fix that legislation.At the same time the quid pro quo was the Indigenous Land Corporation, the ILC, whereby some like $1 billion was set aside for an indigenous land fund. The honourable member for Banks does not talk about the Indigenous Land Fund by which $1 billion was put in to allow those Aboriginal communities which had missed out on a native title claim or had missed out on land that they may have had some right or title to, to purchase the land that they had missed out on. But you do not hear one word on the Indigenous Land Fund coming through from the member for Banks. I would be very happy to read his speech today to see if he does mention it.The other comment I wanted to make was that my speech during the second reading debate when this bill was first introduced was of a more technical nature. I do not intend spending my time going over the old legislation which should have been passed by the Senate. However, the mining industry represents 29 per cent of Australia's total export revenue and the mining industry spends $12 billion a year on goods and services in Aus tralia. Around 284,000 jobs in the mining industry are being put at risk by the heavyweights in the left wing of the Labor Party—the member for Banks, Senator Bolkus and the former member of the House of Representatives, Warren Snowdon—because the mining industry is out there making statements on a daily, or at least on a weekly, basis saying that their business is being held up.In 1993-94, 805 mining leases were granted in Western Australia; in 1996-97, 159 leases were granted. I note that the honourable member for Banks is interjecting by way of a signal which cannot be recorded in Hansard.4T4MELHAMMr Melham—I will send you smoke signals.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! Direct your remarks through the chair.5M6Dondas, Nick, MPMr DONDAS—That shows that he is not taking this matter seriously because they have an agenda, which is to disrupt the Australian community, especially in remote parts of Australia, with regard to the pastoral industry and the mining industry. It is all very well for the honourable member for Banks and Senator Bolkus to do that, but it is not good for the Australian community.The Prime Minister has worked very closely with those communities who have a vested interest in this legislation, to try to accommodate their feelings and desires. We are all aware of the Prime Minister's visit to the Northern Territory a couple of weeks ago when he visited north-east Arnhem Land. He had the opportunity of speaking to people in those communities. As was said earlier in the debate, Aboriginal communities in the Northern Territory have land rights, so native title does not really have a great effect on their desire for more land, because they have already had land granted to them under Aboriginal land rights legislation.During the Prime Minister's visit to the Northern Territory, I believe he was able to gain a better understanding of how the land is a part of the Aboriginal community and their culture. He was able to hear what they had to say. Obviously, he was very impressed with the dialogue and the manner in which these communities told him the history of the land and how it was created in terms of the indigenous Aboriginal culture.Even after that, the Prime Minister was firm in his resolve, having spent 24 hours in that region and having spoken to senior community elders and traditional owners, that the Wik legislation presented to this parliament was fair. He was not going to change it. There was no need to change it because he realised that the 10-point plan was fair and that it would provide certainty.I read in a newspaper today that Mr Gatjil Djerrkura, the Chairman of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission, thought the Prime Minister may be a bit more flexible on one or two points in this legislation. I am not aware, from any of the comments made by the Prime Minister, that he is likely to change dramatically the government's position on this process. But if it involves a minor matter and it assists the achievement of a compromise, obviously we should examine it.At the same time, I come back to the fact that left-wing members of the Labor Party have hijacked the debate because they are really not interested. I had the privilege of attending some hearings held in Canberra on the administration of native title and the proposed legislation. At a couple of those hearings, those opposite would have been embarrassed by the attitude of some of their colleagues. There were constant interjections by Senator Bolkus when the chair was trying to question the people giving evidence.I was of the opinion at that time that the opposition had decided their agenda, their strategy and their tactics, all for the wrong reasons. They were not there to try to learn about what members of the communities were saying when they gave evidence at these hearings. They had already made up their minds when this legislation was introduced in 1995. They had already made up their minds what their view would be. That is a shame, because there are some Aboriginal communities which need this legislation to be resolved.I can give the chamber examples relating to native title claims. An Aboriginal community in central Australia bought a station called Alcoota Station. They paid cash for it and planned to operate it as a station. But another group of Aboriginals have lodged a land claim over that pastoral property which is owned by an Aboriginal community.As I say, members opposite are determined not to be sympathetic towards the Prime Minister's 10-point plan. They are determined to derail it. They are determined to have a double dissolution on it. I say to the honourable member for Banks that he should have approached this whole legislative process in terms of amendments to fix the problems introduced by his party in 1993. He should have approached it with a lot more benevolence towards the Australian community.12:14:00956Campbell, Graeme, MPMr CAMPBELLCF4KalgoorlieIND00—I rise to speak as the parliamentary representative of a very large number of Aboriginal people. Certainly, the Aboriginals in my electorate have the power, if they so wish, to sweep me from office. At the outset, I must say that I do not think there is anything that can redeem the Labor Party's position on this legislation. It is an unprincipled position of absolute hypocrisy. There is absolutely no doubt that, in the Keating legislation, the firm belief was that pastoral leases extinguished native title. In fact, in the 1993 Native Title Act there is a clause which says that the act will, in fact, recognise those leases which would otherwise not be legal and grant them full legal status. That refers to those leases which were granted after the Racial Discrimination Act came into being. So they were quite happy to validate those leases which would otherwise have been invalid. They did not bother with the great bulk of the pastoral leases because they obviously thought they were invalid. There could be no other explanation for that. They obviously thought that all the other pastoral leases were valid.At that time, this was the view of people such as Noel Pearson and Peter Yu. They rushed off to do deals with the pastoral industry which, very foolishly, sold out. It is associated with the mining industry and they thought that they could protect themselves. It was a very foolish position and I said so at the time. The position now is that the Labor Party is simply trying to re-write history, and I do not think there is any excuse for that.I listened to the member for Melbourne Ports (Mr Holding) lamenting the problems that Aboriginal people have faced. The member for Melbourne Ports was Minister for Aboriginal Affairs for many years. He had the opportunity to do something about it but, of course, he never did. Nothing tangible was done in the time when Clyde Holding had the Aboriginal affairs portfolio. You might ask why. I put it to you that the reason is this: he, like the great bulk of this parliament, has no understanding of the philosophical concept of freedom.At the end of the day, there are only two sorts of freedom in the world; that is, economic freedom and political freedom. The difference is this. Economic freedom will buy political freedom but political freedom can never buy economic freedom. From 1967, we granted Aboriginals complete political freedom but without any economic base, and that is the great tragedy. People on this side of the House and on the other side are talking about the importance of land to Aboriginal people when all the indicators say that those Aboriginals who have been dissociated from their land for the longest period are, in all the measurable and quantifiable terms—length of life, health and wealth—better off. There is no doubt about that.I can remember when Utopia in the Northern Territory was one of the first places in Australia to be granted ownership of their land. If you go back to Utopia 30 years later, there is nothing there that we can be proud of. Ownership of land has done very little for them indeed. There are lots of Aboriginal people who understand this.Another myth: we have talked about reconciliation. I want to quote the words of Billy King, who is the central law figure and leader of the community at Mount Barnett. Mr King has a very interesting history. For many years he was head stockman at King Ranches where his work force was mainly white. When he retired, he decided he would get his own station going. He said to me, `Reconciliation stopped in 1942.' I said, `Why's that, Billy?' He said, `I think that was when Japan entered the war. We know what the Japanese would have done if they'd got here. They'd have killed us all. We know that from the documents we got 50 years after the war. The Japanese said Aboriginal people weren't even fit to be slaves. They'd have got rid of us all, just like they'd done in Asia. Who fought the Japanese? The guddia, the white fella. He fought that battle for us. All debts are paid.' That was the view espoused by Billy King.Concerning the hypocrisy of the Labor Party and the Aboriginal leadership, the member for Melbourne Ports and the member for Banks (Mr Melham) talk about Aboriginal leadership. What is this Aboriginal leadership? It is largely an overwhelmingly self-appointed leadership. The Kimberley Land Council is a closed club. It has about 120 members, many of them dead, and most of whom do not even know that they are members. Peter Yu is elected by a little coterie of his mates to a very expensive job. This government maintains him as deputy chairperson of the Indigenous Land Corporation. If they had any brains, they would sweep him away, along with Mr Ross, and put somebody in there who had a mind-set to do something to advance the welfare of Aboriginal people, instead of building up a vast ownership of land—an empire—out there. In the ILC, there is no consideration of economics. They buy stations to close them down. No matter what they say, the experience is exactly that.There is no doubting the veracity of Alan Ramsey and I think the country owes him a great debt for his article in the Sydney Morning Herald where he reported verbatim letters that he had. Father Frank Brennan was of the view that the Racial Discrimination Act could not be made paramount over the 10-point plan because it would lead to a hopeless mess and be simply unworkable. There is no doubt that this is the case because that is what these people want. Brennan knows that, if this act is made subject to the Racial Discrimination Act, it will be totally unworkable. So he published this view in the Jesuit paper Eureka Street and received a letter from Peter Yu saying, `Please don't mention this. We are doing quiet negotiations with the Labor Party and we don't want this mentioned.' So what did Brennan do, this man of integrity who knows, and has said in his reply, that it is a minefield fraught with great dangers? He said, `Okay, fellows, you don't want me to mention it. I will not say another word. I'll go on holiday.' What integrity is there in that? I think there has to be some re-evaluation of this whole argument.I was approached by Aboriginal people in my electorate who said that they wanted me to organise a meeting with Senator Harradine because they thought he was wrong and they wanted to put to him a view which he was not hearing from the Aboriginal industry, this self-appointed leadership. I said to them, `I cannot help you. If I organise a meeting with Harradine, he will say it is organised by me and that will downgrade you. The meeting will not be given any substance. You must do this yourselves.'They went away and I must say that I thought, `Well, that's the end of that.' But they did it themselves. They got together and agreed that one would write the letter which they would all agree on. That letter was written by Rodney Rivers. It was a very reasonable letter asking Senator Harradine to come across to Western Australia and discuss with them their views on native title; that the 10-point plan should go ahead.Harradine was too busy. He wrote back eventually and said, `No, I'm too busy to come and talk to you.' So then they started to ring him. I also got involved at that stage and provided some facilities to enable Aboriginals to go out and collect signatures. In one trip to the south-west of Western Australia, where I was hoping to get the Rodney Rivers letter signed, the Aboriginal people said, `No, we don't do that. We will sign it as family groups. We will consult amongst ourselves and the head of our group will sign it.' I have got these letters back now, representing probably 2,000 or 3,000 Aboriginal people; and that is on a very small sampling.It is nonsense for the Labor Party to come in here and maintain that they are supporting Aboriginal people. They are not. They are supporting the Aboriginal industry, and they are not the same. It is quite clear. Aboriginal people in my electorate say, `We're all Australians. We're going to go forward together.' They think reconciliation is a nonsense. As Dickie Cox said to me, `Reconciliation—that's about the past, isn't it?' I said, `Yes.' He said, `The past is gone.' It was very profound. He said, `We've got to think about the future. We're all Australians. We've got to go forward together.' That is the view of a lot of Aboriginal people and it is the one I support.We have come to an interesting scenario. Friar Brendan Walters, who is both a Catholic priest and a lawyer, recently published a paper, Catholic Church, Native Title versus Tribal Law. He pointed out that in Mabo 2 the courts found—and I must say they looked very hard, because I think Dawson was the only one who got it right—a reference to native law in the common law. He went on to say that native law was the law of Aboriginal people; that once you were diluted by interbreeding with whites, there was no native law for you.This is borne out in my electorate by the Ngaanyatjarra Council. The Ngaanyatjarra Council has put a land claim over its entire area, called the central reserve, for which they sought a 99-year lease with all the regulations and all the general conditions of a 99-year lease. That is all they wanted, but that got swept away with the advent of native title. So they put in a native title claim. The Native Title Tribunal has gone to them continually and said, `Look, we've got all these claims over the edges of your area by Aboriginals in Kalgoorlie. We would like you to incorporate these in your claim.' They say, `No way. They can't come in with us. They are outside the law.' If the native title law applies only to traditional Aboriginal people, there is no problem because these people are overwhelmingly cooperative and overwhelmingly they want advancement.That is what I want; I want for Aboriginal children what I want for my children, not the apartheid which is being forced on them by this parliament—principally, but not entirely, by the Labor Party. There are people in the Liberal Party going down this road. I recall that, when the Liberal Party first got into power, I went to see Howard and I said to the Prime Minister, `John, I think you should bring legislation into this parliament putting beyond doubt that pastoral leases extinguish native title.' He said, `I can't do that; it's too controversial.' Controversial to whom? It is controversial to the leafy suburbs of Sydney—not to the western suburbs, but the leafy suburbs of Sydney and Melbourne. That is where the principal problem lies. You see it here in this parliament. You see people like Simon Crean, who knows nothing about Aboriginal people at all. He is part of this unholy alliance with the member for Banks (Mr Melham) trying to ram this legislation through.These people said to me yesterday, `No, we don't want a double dissolution. But as a matter of principle there's a point beyond which we cannot go.' What a lot of nonsense! The thinking people in the Labor Party—and I believe there are some—know that a double dissolution will be a disaster for them, and I believe that to be the case. But they are still going down this road, being led down there by Hocus-Pocus in the Senate, Senator Bolkus, and the member for Banks. It is an absolute nonsense. It is a sham.Mr Deputy Speaker, you have seen articles in the papers where Noel Pearson makes the most outrageous, provocative statements. I have asked Noel Pearson to stand for preselection for the Labor Party and then stand against me. The Labor Party hasn't preselected anyone yet. He will not come there. The reason that he will not come to my electorate is that there are too many Aboriginals in it. And he knows that he has no respect from the great majority of those people.Noel Pearson has, in my view, an extraordinary conflict of interest. He works for the firm of Liebler & Bloch, which, for the last so many years, has been getting half a million dollars a year out of ATSIC and land rights associated funding. What a conflict of interest that is. He has a vested interest in perpetuating the problem. This is the man who signed off on the Keating legislation—the Keating legislation which believed absolutely that native title was eliminated on pastoral properties. I believe the Howard legislation is weak and wishy-washy for this reason. He does not extinguish native title and therefore he offers no protection to the mining industry. It is the mining industry that is the target, not the pastoral industry. These people—the Aboriginal industry—know that the pastoral industry is under enormous pressure. It is not viable, there is no money there. We will see in a very short time the new green agenda, supported by that side and this side of the parliament, which will seek to close down the pastoral industry. This is in line with the aspirations of the Indigenous Land Corporation. They do not want the land to be productive; they just want to control land. That is the agenda. They know that if they get at the pastoral industry, they would then want to be able to get at the mining industry, which is a source of so much wealth and employment in the cities of Australia.That brings me to a point that I have made many times in this House: the great Wik Stickers—so beautifully put by Peter Walsh in the Financial Review. He described accurately the sort of people that they are. You saw them prancing around this parliament. Conveniently, their numbers were reported as being up to 1,500. If you took the trouble to go and count them, it was barely six. The other thing you noticed was that there were very few Aboriginal people there. They were of the exact profile that Peter Walsh had identified as the Wik Stickers—people from `the leafy suburbs of the eastern states' who do not understand the problem because they do not have to live with it.I have said this before in this House and it is worth saying again. A woman came into my office when I was still in the Labor Party and said to me, `Mr Campbell, I feel so ashamed of myself, I've always loved our Aboriginal people but since I have been in Kalgoorlie I hate them.' I said, `Where do you come from?' She came from Applecross, a leafy suburb of Perth. I said, `But you never see any Aboriginals in Applecross.' She said, `No, we didn't see very many.' I said, `When you get accosted in the supermarket for money and get abused when you say no, and when you see people defecating and urinating in the street, that's a different picture.' That is not racist; their behaviour is socially unacceptable. That is understood by a great many Aboriginal people. When Aboriginal people in state houses trash them, making life intolerable for the neighbours, the people that come and complain to me are other Aboriginals. They say, `You've got to do something about that, because they're giving us a bad name.' That is exactly the case. Nowhere do we see any respect or any thought given to responsibilities.We are now faced with a document: the draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. It is a United Nations document. Australian Aboriginals—pseudo-Aboriginals, I might add—were, courtesy of the Australian taxpayer, able to go off to Geneva to provide input for that document. There is not one mention in any of the 49 articles of any responsibilities; it is all rights, no obligations. Until there is an acceptance of obligations in the Aboriginal community there will be no advancement for Aboriginal people, no matter what this parliament says or does. Until there is an economic base there will be no advancement.We are seeing education go backwards in Aboriginal areas. I went to the minister when the government changed. I said, `Minister, under Dawkins's very foolish policy in the previous government, we took Abstudy away from the schools and gave it to families. As a consequence, the schools no longer get the funding. The breakfast programs have collapsed. Aboriginals don't go to school because there is no financial incentive. I think you should replace this.' I got back the same letter I got from the Labor bureaucracy, suggesting that I was mildly racist. But I am bringing this forward because I have Aboriginal people coming to me saying, `You must do this because without education there is no future.' That is not recognised.There is a formula for advancement, and it goes like this: hygiene, housing, health, education, training and employment. But you cannot tackle them as individual items; they have to be tackled together. They have to be tackled at the same time because, if you leave one out, the wheel falls off the whole wagon. Until that is recognised, until this parliament is prepared to do something about it instead of grandstanding and playing in those leafy suburbs of the eastern seaboard, there is no future for Aboriginal people.12:33:00960Jeanes, Susan, MPMs JEANESEK6KingstonLP10—There is no direct electoral benefit for me in speaking on the Native Title Amendment Bill 1997 [No. 2] —0.7 per cent of Kingston's population identify themselves as Aboriginal. Throughout my life I have had little to do with Aboriginal people. In my primary school years, my parents used to invite Norman, a young Aboriginal boy from a mission near Batlow, to spend holidays with us. What I remember most about Norman is that he played cricket much better than I did. At university I was bored with Australian history until we were introduced to the historical relationship between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Australians. The relationship often was a brutal one. The fact is the land was claimed by European settlers at the expense of Aboriginal people who lived off its resources and built their religion and traditions around it.Now, as a legislator, I have to face the fact that today we have a problem in many parts of the country: we have more than one group of people with interests in the same areas of land. It is sad that this is seen as being a problem rather than being seen as an opportunity; and we the government must deal with it. Like the member for Aston (Mr Nugent), I would have preferred to have seen more of an emphasis on regional agreements right from the start of the native title debate.I do not really need to buy into this debate, but on behalf of my 890 Aboriginal constituents and because I know that it is a debate of national significance—indeed, it is a debate about the nation's soul—I have. Sadly, the debate has been corrupted by partisan politics. The government's attempts to address the problems in native title that the previous government left behind have been constantly thwarted by this disingenuous opposition. They are supposedly supportive of Aboriginal people, but their higher priority is to capitalise politically—whatever it takes.In December 1996, the High Court decided that native title could survive the granting of pastoral leases. The Wik people took their case to the court because there was a belief that this was so. This belief was expressed both before and after the Native Title Act was passed by this parliament in 1993. When the previous government was framing the act, the question of the extinguishment of native title over pastoral leases was the subject of considerable concern amongst the then opposition and the pastoral community. Coalition members, of course, represented many of the electorates likely to be affected by any conflict between native title holders and pastoral leaseholders. Now we represent even more.It is instructive to revisit some of the responses of the previous Prime Minister to those concerns. In this House on 18 October 1993, in response to a question from the now Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Tim Fischer) about the certainty of pastoral leases, Mr Keating said:A valid lease is a valid lease, not subject to claim. Any person can litigate on any matter in the country. But what in my view is the chance of any success of any litigant on a valid claim? That is zero; they have no chance.I hope the previous Prime Minister did not place any money on his prediction. The next day in the House he again stated his belief that the granting of pastoral leases extinguished native title. He said:After having made an agreement with the Aboriginal community, we will now be extinguishing any native title on pastoral leases because the Aborigines see that the benefits and balance of advantages are in the proposals outlined by the government to them.This government is now delivering those advantages through the social justice package and the Indigenous Land Fund.So the previous government thought that they were making bucket loads of extinguishment over all land alienated from the Crown, over freehold and leasehold land. Despite all the warnings that the Keating government had and the reassurances it made, later the following year the Wik people laid claim to 35,000 square kilometres of land in Cape York incorporating pastoral leases. Once again, we were reassured by the then government that this claim could never be successful. In November 1994, then Minister Tickner told us:It was the Government's clear advice from all the quarters that it sought legal advice, that the effect of the grant of a pastoral lease was to extinguish native title. This is still the Government's view.When pressed by Helen Dalley as to whether he would concede that the government could not guarantee pastoral leases extinguished native title, he said, `I wouldn't concede that.' It is, of course, a matter of historical fact that the previous Prime Minister, his Aboriginal affairs minister and his entire cabinet were wrong. The High Court found that native title could survive the granting of pastoral leases. I support that decision. The court also considered that, where any inconsistencies were found between the rights of the native title holders and the pastoralists, the rights of the pastoralists would prevail.So this government has to deal with the reality that the previous government refused to face. It has been a very difficult task for the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) to satisfy the interests and uphold the rights of the pastoralists and the mining industry, represented in this place by coalition members, and the Aboriginal people, also largely represented by coalition members.It is imperative to remember that the previous government promised again and again that Aboriginal people had no right to native title over the leases occupied by the pastoralists. This government's 10-point plan, whose ultimate legislative expression is found in the Native Title Amendment Bill 1997 [No. 2] , has been as widely criticised as it has been misunderstood. It is no wonder it has been misunderstood when the Leader of the Labor Party stands up in this House and guarantees the Australian people again and again that his government has gained the support of the Aboriginal people and extinguished native title over pastoral leases and then gets it so wrong. And then that very same party, after its leader's convincing demise, does a 180-degree turnaround. It is convenient for the Labor Party to evade its responsibilities in government and then refuse to deal with the mess it left behind when in opposition.The member for Banks (Mr Melham) told this House in September last year that the Native Title Act 1993 had set down a process for the expeditious and cost-effective handling of native title claims. I wonder which native title act he was talking about. It certainly was not the act that, after four years of operation, has seen over 718 claims lodged, over $210 million expended and only two claims determined. If that is the Labor Party's definition of expeditious and cost effective, then pity help the people of this country if they ever get their hands on the Treasury again.The member for Banks offered again this morning a cross-party approach, but what he really means is, `Accept the Labor Party's approach in opposition that is 180-degrees entirely different from when we were in government or we will go to war on race.'The four main sticking points between the government and the opponents of the 10-point plan centre on the registration test, the right to negotiate, the sunset clause and the subjection of the bill to the RDA. It is somewhat ironic that we have sticking points with the opposition that actually offer Aboriginal people a lot more than the bucket loads of extinguishment they offered them in government.One of the things that I do know about Aboriginal people is that many of them are hurting. The majority do not get to put their views to people like us very often, because they do not get to meet us, so their spokespeople do it for them. And some of their spokespeople have caused them great harm.It is interesting to note that one of the so-called A-team, Tracker Tilmouth from the Northern Territory, is now seeking endorsement to stand for the Labor Party. Another A-team member I referred to previously in this House, Noel Pearson, made the infamous `racist scum' remark. I cannot imagine a more effective way of ensuring that you do not have a good relationship with someone, short of causing them considerable physical harm. Mr Pearson is supposed to represent the interests of Aboriginal people, and I know that, as a representative of others, the last thing I want to do is insult the very people that I want to get something from for those I represent.The events leading up to the need for the Native Title Amendment Bill, the release of the report on the stolen generation and the problems with the Reconciliation Council have caused me a considerable amount of pain. They are issues that directly affect the health of the nation's soul and, as a member of the Australian government, I have been directly involved in them and thus have contributed to a legacy that will affect the culture of the country that my children will inherit.The government has had to negotiate these issues in an environment that has been hostile to it gaining any agreed outcome. The ignition of racist sentiments across the country by the One Nation Party, the downright indecent hypocrisy of the Labor Party and the self-aggrandisement of some Aboriginal leaders have ensured that the Australian people are left confused and perplexed over the native title issue.If this bill is to be rejected by the Senate again and if we are to go to an election where the central issue is race, I want to place on record my disappointment with the environment within which the government has had to operate. I also want to place on record my personal hope that these issues will be resolved in a manner that accords Aboriginal Australians the physical and spiritual resources that they need to live with dignity and pride, something so often denied them over the past 200 years.I support the government's bill, because it is an honest attempt to walk a very difficult line between the very important rights of Aboriginal Australians and other users of land. The rights of other users cannot be disregarded. The mining industry—and I am hardly the first to jump when the mining industry wants something—comprises 8.5 per cent of GDP, 34 per cent of total exports to the value of $36 billion last financial year, and indirectly employs five per cent of the Australian work force.The other major group is of course the pastoralists. As a vegetarian, I am not a consumer of their product, but the fact of the matter is that the overwhelming majority of Australians are. They are consumers of the pastoral industry's products to the tune of around $20 billion per year.All rights and interests have been taken into account, and there are winners and losers across all areas of the 10-point plan and the legislation implementing it. But, despite the fact that the Aboriginal people may not fully realise the High Court's decision, they will be justly compensated and it does represent an honest attempt to balance these rights and interests—something the Labor Party avoided doing in government.12:43:00962Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—You might be surprised to learn, Mr Deputy Speaker, that I was disappointed in the speech which the honourable member for Kingston (Ms Jeanes) has just finished delivering on the Native Title Amendment Bill 1997 [No. 2] . Perhaps I could begin by challenging one of the crucial centrepieces of her speech, and that is her claim that we in the Labor Party have this attitude—this was the label the honourable member stuck on us—`The nation either accepts the Labor Party position or we go to war on race.'EK6JEANESMs Jeanes—That's right.CU4GALLUSMrs Gallus—That's it.MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr LEE—Mr Deputy Speaker, you would have heard the honourable members interject and say, `That's it.' The point I would like to make quite clearly is that the bill that came to a final vote on the third reading in the Senate was not what the Labor Party wanted. There were 300 or more amendments to the original bill introduced to the Senate, the bill that had passed the House of Representatives. By the time Senator Harradine, the Greens and the Democrats had worked out which clauses they thought should be passed, altered and amended, the bill was very different from that which we would have wanted and also very different, I am sure, from that which the government wanted. But we in the Labor Party believe that the Harradine compromise, which gave 90 per cent of what the government asked for, was better than nothing. We were prepared to vote—and actually did vote—with the government on the third reading to pass that bill. So I think that is pretty fair evidence of the lengths the Labor Party has been prepared to go to to seek to have these problems addressed.The test of good faith for the government came a couple of days ago when the Attorney-General (Mr Williams) stood up in this House and introduced the government's Native Title Amendment Bill—not as amended, not the Harradine compromise which gave the government 90 per cent of what it asked for, but this government's original Native Title Amendment Bill. You have to ask yourself why the government has rejected a large number of amendments that it accepted in the Senate when the legislation was before the Senate last year. The only conclusion you can reach is that the government is determined to trigger an election based on the Wik legislation. It is clear from that as to which party wants to go to war on race. I sincerely hope that the government fails in its attempt to try to use this legislation to divide the nation.Before I return to a few comments about the current legislation, it is important to review how we have got to this point. When you go back to the original Mabo decision in 1992, in some ways it was not all that surprising that the High Court made a ruling that, under Australian common law, native title existed on Murray Island. The reason I say that that was not that surprising in hindsight is that, in some ways, the Australian High Court was coming into line with decisions of the Canadian and the United States supreme courts. For many years those courts have been handing down decisions that recognise their indigenous citizens' right to traditional uses of land.Murray Island—or Mer Island, whichever name we use for Murray Island—had some land practices that most of us would have believed gave people certain entitlements to land. Land was handed down from generation to generation. There were recognised boundaries on parts of the island. I think most Australians would have thought that it would be an outrage if those islanders' rights to ownership and having some say over their land was overturned because of some piece of paper signed in Britain in colonial days or some piece of paper signed in Brisbane. But, nevertheless, when that Mabo decision was handed down, it forced the nation to address what should be the rights to land of indigenous Australians.In a year of discussion and negotiation, the Keating government sat down with representatives of indigenous Australians, with representatives of the miners, the pastoralists and the churches. The 1993 bill was not perfect, but it was a bill that sought to strike a compromise. It agreed to validate all of the interests in land that were placed at risk by the High Court decision. In return, indigenous Australians obtained a right to negotiate where they were able to lodge legitimate claims for native title or have native title accepted.We were very keen to set up tribunal and court processes that would try to ensure that these cases did not have to be dealt with under Australian common law. We saw the Mabo case itself take more than 10 years. The compromise that the Labor government introduced certainly did not provide Aboriginal Australians with a veto over land on which native title was accepted. It gave those indigenous Australians certain rights: a right to negotiate for six months and if, after that period of six months, no agreement could be reached a second period of six months was put aside for the Native Title Tribunal or an equivalent state body to arbitrate over what would be a fair deal between a miner or a pastoralist and the native title holders.In addition to that, there was a further protection to ensure that the interests of the country were looked after, to ensure that the national interests were looked after. After the six-month period of negotiation and the six months for arbitration, even if the decision went in favour of the native title interests, we allowed ministers of the Crown, federal or state, to be able to overrule the decision if it was in the national or the state interest. That was certainly not the veto that indigenous Australians were given by the Fraser government in 1976 under the Northern Territory land rights legislation. It was certainly a compromise that gave the pastoralists, the miners and those with interests in the land the validation they needed for greater certainty, but there was also a concession on the part of the indigenous Australians that their rights would be prescribed in the manner I have outlined.That legislation was passed by this parliament despite the active and determined opposition of the coalition parties. We had to strike all sorts of compromises on amendments with the Democrats and the Greens in those days to ensure that that 1993 compromised bill was passed. We have never claimed that that bill was perfect. My colleague the member for Banks (Mr Melham) and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Beazley) have made it clear on many occasions in the last two years that we are and have been prepared to sit down with Justice French from the Native Title Tribunal and with members of the government to look at ways that we can make the system work better than it has in the past. But, at the end of the day, there has to be that compromise—validation in return for the right to negotiate followed by right to arbitration followed by the right of a minister to overrule. That is the compromise that is the very basis of the native title legislation.4T4MELHAMMr Melham—And that it is constitutional.MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr LEE—As my colleague interjects, it is also essential that that compromise be there to ensure that the bill can withstand constitutional challenges. There is no point in the government claiming that what they want to do to provide certainty is wipe out the interests of indigenous Australians if, at the end of the day, that delivers the government with a bill that will be struck down by the High Court because it is unconstitutional.The government claims it is trying to deliver certainty, but the very mechanism it is using is going to increase the level of uncertainty in the community. It is going to mean that various acts that could have been validated by the government last year, if it had accepted the Harradine compromise, are still at risk today, because this government, rather than trying to prepare the way for a compromise, has been determined on preparing the way for a double dissolution election.That position has not been helped by the activities of the National Farmers Federation with the support of coalition members who have run around saying that the backyards of ordinary Australians will be lost to indigenous claimants or claims that freehold titles are at risk or even the attempt by the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) to use his infamous map of Australia on television to try to inflame the debate. That is certainly not the action of a Prime Minister determined to try to address the problem and to find a compromise that all of us can live with.Mabo came down in 1992, and a number of people have made false claims about what the former government's view was on pastoral leases. One excerpt from the Commonwealth Law Report on that Mabo case describes very succinctly what the position was on the island of Mer. It makes the point:In 1882 the Islands were apparently reserved by proclamation for the native inhabitants of the Colony and part of Mer was leased by the Crown to the London Missionary Society and subsequently was transferred to the Australian Board of Missions, to trustees of the Board and thence to a church body. In 1912 the Governor in Council ordered that the Islands (with the exception of the leased area of Mer) be permanently reserved and set apart for the use of the aboriginal inhabitants of the State. In 1931 the Crown granted a twenty-year lease of the whole of Dauar and Waier for the purpose of establishing a sardine factory. The lease was subsequently forfeited.The crucial thing about that excerpt is that that provision for a fishing lease was mentioned by Justice Brennan in his decision. He made the point that, while native title was found to exist on Murray Island, it was so fragile that a forfeited fishing lease could extinguish native title. All of the legal advice which came to the government of that time—perhaps even from some people who are in the officials gallery today—and certainly all of the official legal advice that came from people of very high stature in various government departments of the day, was that it was extremely unlikely that pastoral leases would fail to extinguish native title—in part, because many of the experts had read the judgments that were handed down by the various High Court judges.I acknowledge that there were others who argued that coexistence was a central feature of this whole debate. Therefore, I think it was quite proper for the government to act to ensure that any interests in land that were struck down by the first Mabo decision had to be validated. That is what we did. Any pastoral leases which were placed in jeopardy by the Mabo decision were fixed up by our 1993 legislation.The problem came when the Wik test case came before the government. Naturally, it was indigenous Australians keen to ensure that they had the best chance of success on this legal point who took a case before the government that involved a piece of land in Queensland. That particular piece of land was included in a pastoral lease earlier this century, but there was very little, if any, activity actually carried out on the land in northern Queensland. So that was the ultimate test case of whether or not pastoral leases extinguished native title. If no activity actually took place on the land, could native title be extinguished by simply drawing a line on a map in Brisbane?That is why the Wik case was so important, and it found that, where pastoral activity and native title conflicted, the pastoral interest would override. It provided for the coexistence that the member for Banks was referring to. There was no way in the world that people could claim that farmers lost the right because of the Wik decision to build dams, to fence their property or to repair fences on their property. That was the sort of inflammatory language that we had from the National Farmers Federation and members of the coalition, simply because of that decision handed down by the High Court.When this legislation went before the Senate last year, Senator Harradine went through and basically gave the government 90 per cent of what it was after. The Harradine compromise provided us with at least a starting point for resolving this issue. The Labor Party would have preferred the government to have actually accepted it as the resolution of the issue. If we had had a different Prime Minister, if the member for Bennelong—the Prime Minister—had been prepared to step back and look at it objectively, if the Prime Minister had accepted the amendments that were put through the Senate last year or if the Prime Minister had accepted the Harradine compromise, what would have happened? The validations would have gone through.All the people who have interests in land—the thousands of Australians and the thousands of companies that are affected by interests in land that have been granted in recent days by state governments—know that their interests in land are at risk because this government and the member for Bennelong, the Prime Minister, have refused to allow the Harradine compromise to be accepted and, therefore, have refused to allow those clauses that enact the validation to stand. That is the first point.If ever a government were trying to argue that we needed greater certainty, surely they would be not only seeking to ensure that the validation was passed as soon as possible but also keen on making sure that their bill would withstand challenges in the High Court. That is the point that we believe has been addressed in the Harradine compromise. We think the Harradine compromise does seek to ensure that the bill can withstand constitutional challenges.At the end of the day, we believe that we have tried to address this in a manner that addresses all the concerns of all the stakeholders involved in this. We have sat down with the farmers, the miners and the indigenous Australians. We have tried, where possible, to acknowledge that the previous Native Title Act was imperfect. We have been prepared to sit down with people like Justice French and others to work out ways to make it work more efficiently. We believe that this is not legislation which is about some form of guilt. Guilt is not a very productive feeling in my opinion, but we need to acknowledge the mistakes that have occurred in the past, and it is crucial that we do not make the problems worse by precipitate actions—certainly precipitate actions by this government—to seek to obtain a double dissolution election on this issue of race.At the end of the day, all Australians have a shared future. We are the only nation that occupies an entire continent. Indigenous Australians and non-indigenous Australians do have that shared future. If we are to ensure that the mining, tourism and pastoral industries continue to grow, if we are to get the development that will fund the future improvements in health, education and other community services, we have to make sure that we have a native title bill that will not be struck down by the High Court, that will not be tied up in challenges in various courts of the land for another decade. That is why this government should be seeking to get that compromise that delivers the certainty that it claims it is after.13:00:00966Brown, Bob, MPMr ROBERT BROWN5A5CharltonALP00—The reintroduction of the Native Title Amendment Bill 1997 [No. 2] today really represents an appalling stage in the sequence of legislative enactments and judicial decisions that have taken place in Australia since the referendum in 1967, in particular in relation to Aboriginal Australians, indigenous Australians, and their rights. We had the 1975 Racial Discrimination Act, the 1992 Mabo decision, the 1993 Native Title Act and the 1996 Wik decision, and we are finally brought to this.It is a sorry day for the Australian community, and it is certainly a bad day for the rights of indigenous Australians. It is a bad day in Australia for racial harmony; it is a bad day for political morality and for fundamental justice. It is also a bad day for Australia's standing in the world; for the reputation which Australia, since it has been a nation, has been able to develop around the world and for the respect that Australia and Australians have earned from the rest of the world.I want to emphasise one of the points which has been made so admirably by others. There is a feeling around that, as a result of the native title legislation, something was given by white Australians to Aboriginal Australians. That is not the case. Nothing has been given to Aboriginal Australians by that legislation or by the two major judicial decisions concerning Mabo and Wik. What those two judicial decisions did, of course, based on common law rights of indigenous Australians, was to recognise those rights and to assert them, to declare them and to affirm them.In the face of that, what this legislation is attempting to do is to remove those rights, to repudiate those rights, to deny those rights and to hand those rights to others. That is what it is all about, and that is what it has been all about from the start. Whatever the outcome of this sorry, disgraceful exercise might finally be, what we need to do is to make the law certain. We need to make the law workable and we need to make the law fair and just.No-one denies, and certainly we have not denied, that Labor's native title legislation needed to be amended. It broke new ground. Of course there were going to be ambiguities and some elements of uncertainty. There would have been the need for clarification, for streamlining and for improvement in procedures. The Labor Party in opposition has indicated, all the time, a willingness to be involved in that process. Those weaknesses needed to be identified, and some of them were. Had we remained in government, the law would have been amended in order to overcome what clearly became some of the inadequacies of it. But that gives no-one the right—as the government has used any deficiencies in that basic legislation to do—to repudiate that legislation and, in effect, to attempt to destroy the moral basis, the moral foundations, of that legislation.There are a number of very significant differences between the coalition and Labor in relation to these questions. In 1993, when Labor was in government and we were debating the native title legislation, we well remember how the then opposition—the coalition which is now in government—removed itself completely from that process. Of course, it was then nailing on the wall an indication of its attitude to the provisions which the Labor government was seeking to pursue, based essentially on those judicial decisions which had preceded that legislation and then the Wik decision which followed it and in itself helped to clarify the general situation concerning indigenous land rights in Australia. In 1993, the coalition left the running to the minor parties.With this legislation, the Labor opposition has attempted to remain part of the game all the way. We have indicated a willingness to negotiate, a willingness to seek to find ways through the difficulties and, if necessary, to compromise with the government and, of course, so many of those interests that the government has so exclusively attempted to represent and to pursue. There were 359 amendments that Labor moved in the Senate. Those amendments were moved in 36 critical areas, and Labor succeeded in only 10 of them.The point has been made that in the Senate the government achieved 90 per cent of its legislation. The suggestion was made then, and has been made since, that the government should have taken that 90 per cent, extracted that from the legislation and put that through as legislation that the whole of the parliament was prepared to endorse. Had that happened, the government—and pastoral and mining interests in Australia—would have been provided with the sort of certainty that they were after. The remaining elements that could not be agreed to could then have remained a matter of legitimate concern and legitimate debate in this parliament and in the wider community.But the government chose not to do that. The government said, `All or nothing; you give us the lot or we'll take you to a double dissolution and we'll have a race-based election in Australia.' That was the response of this government, and that is what this government has to try and excuse. I think it will have a great deal of difficulty in doing that. There would have been so much greater certainty had the government allowed those amendments that received cross-party support to proceed and to be enacted. There would now be, for example, a threshold test to avoid all of those conflicting and overlapping land claims that have been made, which again in turn have been used by the government to discredit the process which allowed the situation to prevail which allowed it to occur.The government's actions have caused that development, and they now use it to discredit the whole process. All of those doubtful examples of leases which occurred during that uncertain period would have been validated. Quite clearly, those grazing interests who have those leases would have been given the certainty that they seek and the certainty which they sought. Who denied them that certainty? This coalition government denied them that certainty—and they need to know it and they need to remember it. Who sought to give them certainty? The Labor opposition sought to give them certainty.The government referred as well to its covenant with pastoral and mining interests in Australia. What about the covenant that any government should honour to all of its people, to the national community? What about the covenant that this government should acknowledge and respect that exists between it and indigenous Australians, and the covenant that may have been respected had the government not sought to discredit and to misrepresent the interests of indigenous Australians and how they were seeking to assert their common law rights which were identified by the highest judicial agency in this country, the High Court?Most of the legal community, including the Law Reform Commission itself, have said that these amendments that the government is pursuing are legally and constitutionally flawed. If the legislation were to be passed, either now or by following a race-based double dissolution election with a joint sitting of the two houses of parliament, there is no question that there would be a myriad of appeals. There would be continuing litigation—as there should be—as those people representing indigenous Australians have said so often. But, when the negotiations were under way for the Native Title Bill—which became the Native Title Act under the previous Labor government—Aboriginal Australians made concessions, participated in the negotiation and gave ground. In return for that, they were given certain undertakings. I know they were given undertakings by a Labor government, but they were given undertakings by the national Australian government, and those undertakings should have been honoured, even though the party complexion of the national government changed.In good faith, Aboriginal Australians made those concessions and gave a lot away. More recently they have said, `For God's sake, how much more do you want from us?' There are serious breaches concerning questions of just compensation, illegal property confiscation and discrimination. It is an appalling effort on the part of this government to extract from a significant proportion of the national community any right to be protected by legislation which has been enacted by this parliament, the Racial Discrimination Act, and to say, `Well, yes, that's all right, but you're black. You're black, so this doesn't relate to you. You're black.'4T4MELHAMMr Melham—It's a disgrace.5A5Brown, Bob, MPMr ROBERT BROWN—It is absolutely disgraceful. And I want to congratulate, too, the member for Banks for his conduct of this issue. The member for Banks earlier today said that those people who know his record are not people who would subscribe to that grubby accusation that he was seeking to secure some sort of personal political advantage out of this. He knows that that is not the case, and the people who have made that grubby accusation against him should hang their heads in shame. He has been an honourable and honest person, a man of integrity, who has pursued this admirably, with all of the misrepresentation and vile abuse which has often been directed against him.The appeals, the uncertainty, the delays which will follow this legislation will represent appeals, uncertainty and delays having been invited by this government. Who will lose out—apart from indigenous Australians who have lost out now for 200 years? The other people who will lose out are those people that this coalition government says it has a covenant with. The pastoralists and the miners themselves will miss out. Why they should continue to give sustenance to this government, which has so grievously offended their interests, I simply cannot understand.I know there are many pastoralists and miners who are more enlightened, who do understand what this is all about. The miners, for example, have said, `Don't visit this on us; we have been negotiating with Aboriginals successfully for decades.' Those pastoralists who have lived with indigenous Australians and recognise their rights to access their indigenous lands, their hunting grounds, their fishing areas and their sacred sites are the people who know the direction that this could have taken. We could all have pursued that direction with honour.There are basic issues which have got to be respected and protected. There is the right of Aboriginal Australians to negotiate. There is the need for continuity of native title claim rights so that we do not say to them, `Well, you'd better get in and make your claims now because, after six years, it's ended.' We draw the line, according to this coalition, at the end of six years. There is the right for them to access their traditional lands, including those lands that they have been locked out of by less enlightened land users. There is the need for them to be protected against discrimination which is based on race.There must be a commitment to the native title rights of indigenous Australians and an honourable, just accommodation of the rights of others. No-one denies that, and certainly the Labor opposition does not deny that. There needs to be a sensible, just and honourable accommodation of the rights of other land users.I conclude with a couple of points which have already been made, and made so well, by my colleagues—those people with whom I feel so comfortable. We will not abandon our struggle for decency, fairness, integrity, goodwill and good faith. We have been prepared to negotiate. We have been prepared to seek an honourable accommodation based on principles and justice. The coalition government should join us in this honourable endeavour. If it fails to do so, it will have abandoned forever any claim to honour in this area.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Quick)—I remind honourable members that it is inappropriate to walk between the Speaker and the person who is speaking.13:16:00968Stone, Sharman, MPMrs STONEEM6MurrayLP10—When the Native Title Act 1993 was passed, the indigenous people of Australia had the expectation that it would usher in a new era, an era that would give them a straightforward and easy process for the claiming and granting of native title. In fact, the Native Title Act 1993 has delivered nothing but misery and tension in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities across Australia. It has torn families apart.There has been confusion and concern throughout the Australian community as a whole as something that was meant to help reconciliation in this country has gone very wrong—the issue of native title has turned sour. Members on both sides of the House agree that we must amend this act. We must make sure that we do not have the current counterclaiming and vexatious claiming, thus putting this business into the hands of those who simply seek to make substantial financial gain out of the process. Through the Native Title Amendment Bill 1997 [No. 2] , we have to ensure that the act becomes workable. We have to bring the issue of native title into the arena of community understanding, with all Australians able to accommodate and accept it.Last weekend, I met two Aboriginal women from Western Australia who grew up together on Mount Margaret Mission. They told me that they had been advised not to speak to one another because they are claimants in separate claims over the same area of land. They are childhood friends, yet they have been told not to have anything to do with each other during the months and years that it will take to resolve their counterclaims. That shows the absurdity of the current legislation. In my electorate of Murray, the Yorta Yorta claim is working its way through the courts at the moment. That claim should have been a cause for local celebration, with an acknowledgment that parts of the crown land in that area can justifiably be put into the hands of the local Aboriginal people. Instead, the community has been torn apart.The government amendments will make this act workable. They will be fair. They will have transparent and practical processes. Unfortunately, the debate has been captured for party political purposes; and that is a great tragedy. Too often, the media takes the side of the loudest voices, the ones who make the most outrageous statements. We must hope that this issue is debated on the grounds of what is best for indigenous people so that their native title claims can be swiftly resolved.The core of the problem at the moment is that virtually no threshold tests are in place: any individual or group can walk in and make a claim. That has caused a great amount of tension. Another problem is that a lot of the debate has been caught up in the right to negotiate issue. We believe that the problems with the right to negotiate, which has had people tearing at one another's throats, will be resolved by our amendments. However, concentration on this issue has meant that we have not been seen to be supporting the voluntary agreement approach.This government endorses Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people working together with pastoralists, town people and any other interest groups to try to resolve the issue of native title. We strongly endorse the voluntary agreement approach. Indigenous land use agreement provisions are in the bill, and they make the approach a real alternative to long drawn out and adversarial court cases—the sorts of court cases that are tearing individuals and communities apart and which are costing dollars that could be better spent on Aboriginal health, housing and employment initiatives.Our amendments provide strong, fair and legally certain frameworks for agreements about native title—and that is not the case with the current act. The amendments to this act which the coalition is trying to put through will deliver an outcome that every Australian can understand. They will deliver certainty across the nation for all interested parties. They will move Australia towards reconciliation, when the community understands that native title can and should be delivered where claims are absolutely consistent with the law.When native title is delivered to the people who make legitimate claims, then we as a nation can celebrate how richly diverse we are. Our indigenous people have contributed mightily to this nation. They were the owners of this country before white settlement. I call upon everyone in this House and the Senate to put aside party politics and look at the interests of the indigenous people of Australia. The government amendments will then be seen to represent the commonsense approach.13:22:00970Morris, Allan, MPMr ALLAN MORRISFI4NewcastleALP00—In November last year, I put a question on notice to the Prime Minister (Mr Howard)—question No. 2569—in which I referred to the claims he made on television, as he was holding up a map, of the power of veto over 79 per cent of Australia. His answer contains about four or five paragraphs of vague comments, and includes the following:In its practical application, the right to negotiate can amount to a significant constraint, and in some cases an effective veto . . . That is very different to the situation he put forward previously, where he said that the Aboriginal community would have a right to veto over 79 per cent of Australia. That clearly is not the case. The kind of language he used in that television performance has done a lot of harm.In response to my question, the Prime Minister also advised that 41 per cent of Australia is held by just under 7,000 leases. We all understand what that means. If those leases were converted to freehold, 41 per cent of Australia would be owned by fewer than 7,000 people. I also asked about whether the ownership was foreign or Australian. The Prime Minister indicated that the records do not show that. In other words, he cannot tell us whether it is the Sultan of Brunei or anyone else. The Prime Minister is proposing a potential power for the states to convert those leases to freehold for 41 per cent of Australia for less than 0.04 per cent. That is a great deal less than the percentage of Aboriginals who could claim native title.Native title is a shared title. It is not a superior title; it is a shared title. This is all about the fact that 200 years ago a group of people occupied this country. They established legal rights under British law, which they then passed on to their successors. At the same time, they left residual rights for those who were here then. Those residual rights have also been passed on. For 200 years, two sets of rights have been passed on. Both have relevance, both have merit and both are legally valid.We are arguing that this matter will be resolved only if those two sets of rights can be negotiated and agreed on. If the government wants to insist on an adversarial approach, on having winners and losers, this matter will never end. It will be in the courts for decades. The Senate is the place where this parliament negotiates. I urge the government to look at negotiating a solution in the Senate and accepting an outcome that we can all live with and all agree on.When I say `all' I mean just that—not just members of parliament but the community at large. The people do not just want us to get it off the agenda; they want us to find an answer that everyone can live with. I urge the government to think again. This is not a black and white issue in a traditional sense; this is an issue that requires a solution, and the solution is available.NaN:00:00970Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—I thank the members of the House who have participated in this debate on the Native Title Amendment Bill 1997 [No. 2] . As I said in the debate last year, native title is a difficult issue for Australia. It is novel, it is complex and it evokes passion. It is clearly an issue which will require long-term consideration by this parliament and by the nation. The government continues to believe that this bill is an important step in that process and that it is a balanced and practical response to the issues which have emerged since 1993.The debate has progressed considerably since last year. It is heartening that it is now generally conceded that there are substantial deficiencies in the current act. I addressed these in my second reading speeches in 1997 and earlier this week. Principally, the current act was not designed to deal with native title which coexists with other rights and interests. Four years of experience have shown us that some procedures in the act are constitutionally questionable and that others work inappropriately and inefficiently. These must be remedied quickly.It is also heartening that it is now generally conceded that the Native Title Amendment Bill 1997 [No. 2] does not override or overturn the decisions of the High Court in Mabo No. 2 and Wik. The government has always rejected these suggestions. On the contrary, the act as amended by the bill will recognise and protect native title in Australia, including coexisting native title on pastoral lease land, but the bill provides, as the court held in Wik, that the lessees' rights prevail.The opposition voted for the bill in the Senate and has indicated that it thought that that outcome was a fair one. If this continues to be the opposition's position, then it is also heartening to see that many of the issues that were so hotly debated in this chamber last year have dropped away. Sensible and responsible law making is emerging. It would be very unfortunate if the opposition were now to walk away from this middle ground.Most importantly, the need for more certainty and precision in this area of the law has been generally recognised. The Mabo No. 2 and Wik decisions established some fundamental principles, but they also left many issues unresolved. The common law and its development by judicial decisions has many strengths, but it also has weaknesses. The development of law over significant periods on a case by case basis is not always appropriate for a modern democratic society. This is particularly so when that law touches upon basic property and economic rights.There is clearly ongoing uncertainty and ambiguity about native title rights and their relationship to other rights. This is damaging our social and economic life. The situation needs to be resolved by clear and precise legislation. This bill provides a way forward. It builds on the common law but adds to this a much greater level of certainty and predictability for native title holders, pastoralists, miners and governments. After enactment of the bill, we will need to continue to grapple with native title issues, but we will be able to do so on a much firmer foundation.I would like to mention several key areas where this bill will deliver much needed certainty. The first is validation and confirmation. Validity can be provided to grants made before Wik, when there was uncertainty as to the effect of pastoral leases on native title. The confirmation provisions set out tenures which, on any reasonable view, have extinguished native title. The act currently leaves this issue to be determined by the common law. As I have said, this approach is clearly now inappropriate. To leave such issues to be resolved by individual cases which work their way through the courts would cause significant economic and social cost and would perpetuate uncertainty.The bill clarifies that pastoralists can carry on primary production activities on a pastoral lease and that those activities prevail over native title; that state and territory governments can continue to authorise primary production activities; that state and territory governments can continue to authorise pastoralists to carry on activities outside the farm area which are directly related to the primary production activities on the lease; and that state and territory governments can continue to authorise the taking of natural resources from pastoral leases. These acts will not extinguish native title. Where these acts affect native title, significant compensation and procedural rights are given to native title holders. Existing access is maintained for registered claimants. We believe that this is the appropriate balance and, importantly, it provides clear, precise rules.In relation to future development on pastoral lease land, the policy of the government is to ensure that legitimate land management needs—such as suburban developments, public infrastructure and agricultural developments—can be accommodated. It is hoped that this can be by way of agreement. Where agreements cannot be reached, the protections in the current act against extinguishment of native title are maintained and indeed strengthened. They will ensure that the only way native title can be extinguished in the future is by agreement or by way of non-discriminatory compulsory acquisition.As to water and public services, the ability of governments to manage and regulate water and grant rights in relation to that water is ensured. The ability of governments—in particular, local governments—to provide facilities for the public is ensured. In both cases, these acts are subject to the non-extinguishment principle, with procedural and compensation rights to native title holders and other protections of their interests.The right to negotiate is maintained for mining and some compulsory acquisitions where native title is a high level right approaching ownership of the land. A proper registration test will ensure that only credible claims have access to the process. But the right to negotiate is a significant break on development. It is in some aspects an inefficient process which does not always provide appropriate protection for the interests of native title holders. To apply this break across large areas of Australia for all exploration and mining will have very dramatic consequences. This government does not believe that the full right to negotiate is appropriate where native title consists of more limited rights and, in particular, where native title is only a coexisting right. In such cases, states and territories should be able to put in alternative processes which provide to native title holders the same rights as others. Alternative processes may in fact be a more appropriate way to protect native title rights.There is widespread support for the enhanced indigenous land use agreements process in the bill. Most recognise the potential for such agreements to provide clear, lasting and workable resolutions. Together with the enhanced representative body scheme, the new agreement provisions provide an attractive alternative to the more formal and adversarial processes.As to the outcomes from the bill, all these provisions will introduce a much greater level of certainty and predictability to native title issues. The government has clear legal advice from Australia's two pre-eminent constitutional barristers that the bill is constitutional. We believe that the bill will deliver greater benefits to native title holders and other interests. The government is not prepared to jeopardise these benefits by incorporating amendments which are clearly inappropriate, uncertain or ambiguous.This is the government's concern with the amendment made by the Senate in relation to the Racial Discrimination Act. The government will not neglect its national and international obligations to prevent racial discrimination. It has done so in the Racial Discrimination Act and the Native Title Act, but the provision proposed is ambiguous and uncertain and its effects are unclear. The non-government parties do not appear to agree on what it means. On one view, it may allow actions to be attacked, notwithstanding complete compliance with the provisions of the Native Title Act. The government, no government, could accept that risk. This House has an obligation to make clear, precise laws, especially in this area where certainty and predictability are so much needed. The government is willing to maintain the existing subsection 7(1) in the Native Title Act. This was the provision supported by the opposition, the Democrats and the Greens in 1993. That they now wish to change it is proof of their political motives.Allegations have been made that the government failed to consult on the bill and, in particular, to negotiate on its contents with indigenous groups. There have been calls for further discussions. The government has followed an open and consultative process. It has done so from the initial development of the 10-point plan at the beginning of 1997 to the development of the working draft bill, the bill's subsequent refinement for introduction into the parliament and before parliamentary committees.The government has had significant discussions with indigenous representatives and the bill includes proposals put forward by them. The bill includes suggestions made by parliamentary committees. The bill includes the amendments moved by the government in the Senate, many of which accommodated legitimate concerns of indigenous peoples. The bill includes a substantial proportion of all the amendments made by the Senate. As I mentioned in my second reading speech, other amendments are being discussed. The opposition denies all this history—no doubt for its own political purposes—but the record shows that the government has been always anxious to reach consensus on these difficult issues where this is possible. Sensible suggestions have been and will be considered but, in the end, there are hard decisions which the government and the parliament must make.I outlined in my second reading speech the key areas of disagreement between this House and the Senate last year. The period of reflection and the debate in this House have not convinced the government to change its position on those amendments. The government will continue, therefore, to seek to persuade the Senate that this bill does find the appropriate balance. Further delay is unwarranted.If the government fails to convince the Senate as to the appropriateness of the bill, then it complies with the requirements of section 57 of the constitution which is available to resolve disagreements between the houses. The requirements of section 57 are clear and precise. These requirements have been met. The original bill was passed by this House. The Senate made significant amendments. This House stated in the clearest possible terms that it disagreed with many of those amendments. Three months have elapsed since this House indicated that disagreement and laid the bill aside. This bill is the original proposed law with some of the amendments made by the Senate. This government does not seek a double dissolution and joint sitting. We continue to hope it is unnecessary but, if it becomes necessary, the preconditions will have been met.The government continues to believe that the bill is a fair balance and that it should be accepted by this House and the Senate. It balances the aspirations of indigenous peoples with the needs of others in the community—in particular, elected local and state governments, farmers, pastoral lessees and miners on whom much of the economic wealth of our society is based. It will deliver a more certain and secure foundation for the recognition of native title in Australia. I commend the bill to the House. Question put: That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Gareth Evans's amendment) stand part of the question.13:42:00The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker—Mr H.V. Quick)82Andrew, J. N. Andrews, K. J.Anthony, L. J. Baldwin, R. C.Barresi, P. A. Bartlett, K. J.Billson, B. F. Broadbent, R. E.Brough, M. T. Cadman, A. G.Cameron, E. H. Cameron, R. A.Causley, I. R. Charles, R. E.Cobb, M. R. Costello, P. H.Dondas, N. M. Downer, A. J. G.Draper, P. Elson, K. S.Entsch, W. G. Evans, R. D. C.Fahey, J. J. Filing, P. A.Forrest, J. A. Gallus, C. A.Gambaro, T. Gash, J.Georgiou, P. Grace, E. J.Hardgrave, G. D. Hawker, D. P. M.Hicks, N. J.* Hockey, J. B.Jeanes, S. B. Johnston, R.Jull, D. F. Kelly, D. M.Kelly, J. M. Kemp, D. A.Lieberman, L. S. Lindsay, P. J.Marek, P. McArthur, F. S.*McDougall, G. R. McGauran, P. J.Miles, C. G. Moore, J. C.Moylan, J. E. Mutch, S. B.Nairn, G. R. Nehl, G. B.Nelson, B. J. Neville, P. C.Nugent, P. E. Prosser, G. D.Pyne, C. M. Randall, D. J.Reid, N. B. Reith, P. K.Rocher, A. C. Ronaldson, M. J. C.Ruddock, P. M. Scott, B. C.Sharp, J. R. Slipper, P. N.*Smith, A. C. Smith, W. L.Somlyay, A. M. Southcott, A. J.Stone, S. N. Sullivan, K. J.Taylor, W. L. Thomson, A. P.Tuckey, C. W. Vale, D. S.Wakelin, B. H. West, A. G.Williams, D. R. Wooldridge, M. R. L.Worth, P. M. Zammit, P. J.42Adams, D. G. H. Albanese, A.Andren, P. J. Baldwin, P. J.Beddall, D. P. Bevis, A. R.Brereton, L. J. Brown, R. J.Crosio, J. A. Dargavel, S. J.Ellis, A. L. Evans, G. J.Evans, M. J. Ferguson, L. D. T.Ferguson, M. J. Fitzgibbon, J. A.Grace, E. L.* Griffin, A. P.*Hatton, M. Holding, A. C.Hollis, C. Jenkins, H. A.Jones, B. O. Latham, M. W.Lawrence, C. M. Macklin, J. L.Martin, S. P. McClelland, R. B.McLeay, L. B. McMullan, R. F.Melham, D. Morris, A. A.Mossfield, F. W. O'Connor, G. M.O'Keefe, N. P. Sawford, R. W.*Sercombe, R. C. G. Tanner, L. J.Theophanous, A. C. Thomson, K. J.Willis, R. Wilton, G. S.Abbott, A. J. Morris, P. F.Bishop, B. K. Smith, S. F.Howard, J. W. Beazley, K. C.Truss, W. E. Lee, M. J.Vaile, M. A. J. Crean, S. F.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.Original question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.974Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Motion (by Mr Williams ) put: That the bill be now read a third time.13:49:00The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker—Mr H.V. Quick)83Andrew, J. N. Andrews, K. J.Anthony, L. J. Baldwin, R. C.Barresi, P. A. Bartlett, K. J.Billson, B. F. Broadbent, R. E.Brough, M. T. Cadman, A. G.Cameron, E. H. Cameron, R. A.Causley, I. R. Charles, R. E.Cobb, M. R. Costello, P. H.Dondas, N. M. Downer, A. J. G.Draper, P. Elson, K. S.Entsch, W. G. Evans, R. D. C.Fahey, J. J. Filing, P. A.Fischer, T. A. Forrest, J. A.Gallus, C. A. Gambaro, T.Gash, J. Georgiou, P.Grace, E. J. Hardgrave, G. D.Hawker, D. P. M. Hicks, N. J.Hockey, J. B. Jeanes, S. B.Johnston, R. Jull, D. F.Kelly, D. M. Kelly, J. M.Kemp, D. A. Lieberman, L. S.Lindsay, P. J. Marek, P.McArthur, F. S.* McDougall, G. R.McGauran, P. J. Miles, C. G.Moore, J. C. Moylan, J. E.Mutch, S. B. Nairn, G. R.Nehl, G. B. Nelson, B. J.Neville, P. C. Nugent, P. E.Prosser, G. D. Pyne, C. M.Randall, D. J. Reid, N. B.Reith, P. K. Rocher, A. C.Ronaldson, M. J. C. Ruddock, P. M.Scott, B. C. Sharp, J. R.Slipper, P. N.* Smith, A. C.Smith, W. L. Somlyay, A. M.Southcott, A. J. Stone, S. N.Sullivan, K. J. Taylor, W. L.Thomson, A. P. Tuckey, C. W.Vale, D. S. Wakelin, B. H.West, A. G. Williams, D. R.Wooldridge, M. R. L. Worth, P. M.Zammit, P. J.43Adams, D. G. H. Albanese, A.Andren, P. J. Baldwin, P. J.Beddall, D. P. Bevis, A. R.Brereton, L. J. Brown, R. J.Crosio, J. A. Dargavel, S. J.Ellis, A. L. Evans, G. J.Evans, M. J. Ferguson, L. D. T.Ferguson, M. J. Fitzgibbon, J. A.Grace, E. L.* Griffin, A. P.*Hatton, M. Holding, A. C.Hollis, C. Jenkins, H. A.Jones, B. O. Kerr, D. J. C.Latham, M. W. Lawrence, C. M.Macklin, J. L. Martin, S. P.McClelland, R. B. McLeay, L. B.McMullan, R. F. Melham, D.Morris, A. A. Mossfield, F. W.O'Connor, G. M. O'Keefe, N. P.Sawford, R. W.* Sercombe, R. C. G.Tanner, L. J. Theophanous, A. C.Thomson, K. J. Willis, R.Wilton, G. S.Abbott, A. J. Morris, P. F.Bishop, B. K. Smith, S. F.Howard, J. W. Beazley, K. C.Truss, W. E. Lee, M. J.Vaile, M. A. J. Crean, S. F.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a third time.Bill read a third time.Bills975r458975Bill presented by Mr Ruddock, and read a first time.97513:53:00975Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK0J4BerowraLPImmigration and Multicultural Affairs10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.This bill gives effect to a measure announced by the Prime Minister on 14 September 1997 to be known as the `Retirement Assistance for Farmers Scheme'. The scheme is part of the government's `Agriculture—Advancing Australia' package. The measure was developed from a recommendation from the special rural task force, which was established by this government to examine the impact of the social security assets test on rural customers. A number of other task force recommendations were also addressed in the `Agriculture—Advancing Australia' package.The purpose of the scheme is to meet welfare and adjustment objectives of farmers by providing a three-year `window of opportunity' for low income, pension age farmers and their partners to gift their farm to the younger generation without affecting their access to the age pension, and to retire from farming with dignity. Eligible farmers will be able to gift their farm enterprise, valued up to $500,000, to family members of a younger generation who have been actively involved in the farm. This will allow eligible farmers to retire and have immediate access to the age pension. The family farm will no longer be required to support two or more generations.The bill provides for the scheme's commencement from 15 September 1997, although people who transferred their farms in the preceding five years might also be able to benefit from the scheme.It is intended that the scheme will operate for three years only, that is, until 14 September 2000.This measure is targeted at those families who are in hardship because their businesses are capable of supporting only one family but are being required to provide a living for two or more families. It will remove a significant impediment to the intergenerational transfer of the family farm. It represents a significant concession for farmers. There are several elements that need to be met in order for a retiring farmer to qualify for the age pension under the scheme. I will outline some of them.The net value of the farm that can be gifted is up to $500,000, not including farm debts. However, where a farmer wishing to retire currently runs a farm in partnership with an eligible descendant and wishes to transfer his or her share of the farm to that person only the retiring farmer's share of the equity in the farm will be included when valuing the farm. If a farmer decides to retain a life interest in their home on the farm or excise their home from the remainder of the farm, the value of the home and of any surrounding land of up to two hectares that is used for domestic purposes will also be deducted from the value of the farm being gifted.The scheme will be open to any farmer of age pension age who, as at 14 September 1997, has owned the property for at least 15 years or has been actively involved in farming in Australia for 20 years, subject to limitations on property value and income.A farmer's total income over the three financial years prior to transfer, including farm income, can be up to the applicable age pension rate, depending on marital status. However, any losses from the farm can be used to offset other income including non-farm income. A further concession is that any social security income support payments will not be included when determining income. Any payments under the Austudy scheme or payments under the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 and the Farm Household Support Act 1992 will also not be included as income.Only one member of a couple will need to be of age pension age or reach age pension age by 14 September 2000 in order for the couple to access the scheme, regardless of which partner has legal ownership of the land. A non-age pension age spouse may qualify for another social security payment such as partner allowance or carer payment.Subject to meeting the other requirements of the scheme, farmers who have gifted their farms to their children in the five years to September 1997 and are currently precluded from receiving age pension for five years or are receiving a reduced rate of age pension because of that gift will be able to have their payments adjusted back to 15 September 1997.I commend the bill to the House, noting that it is the first time in more than 13 years that any government has seen fit to act in this area. I am surprised that members who tried to interject during the second reading speech were prepared to offer comments about the adequacy of this when they failed so dismally to act in relation to these matters themselves when they were in office. I present the explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Ms Macklin) adjourned.Miscellaneous976Motion (by Mr Andrew) agreed to:That the following bills be referred to the Main Committee for consideration: Commonwealth Places (Mirror Taxes) Bill 1998 ; Commonwealth Places Windfall Tax (Collection) Bill 1998 ; Commonwealth Places Windfall Tax (Imposition) Bill 1998 ; Commonwealth Places (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1998 ; National Residue Survey Administration Amendment Bill 1998 ; National Residue Survey (Customs) Levy Bill 1998 ; National Residue Survey (Excise) Levy Bill 1998 ; and Legislative Instruments Bill 1996 [No. 2] Ministerial Arrangements976976Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I inform the House that the Minister for Defence Industry, Science and Personnel (Mrs Bishop) will be absent from question time. She is opening a Legacy war widows function in Victoria. The Minister for Defence (Mr McLachlan) will answer questions on her behalf. The Minister for Transport and Regional Development (Mr Vaile) will also be absent from question time. He is inspecting the flood damaged Gulf region in northern Australia. The Minister for Regional Development, Territories and Local Government (Mr Somlyay) will answer questions in his absence.Questions Without Notice976976976Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister stand by his statement of 15 October 1996, `I mean the guidelines say that you cannot have interests in companies which operate in your area of portfolio responsibility?' Is the Prime Minister aware that, according to the lastest available company return, the Minister for Resources and Energy, who has responsibility for the coal industry, holds shares worth over $2 million in a coal mining and export company Queensland Coal Mine Management, which, I am advised, paid him a tax free dividend stream of almost $300,000 in his first year as minister? Prime Minister, does this not constitute a clear breach of your code of conduct? What action will you be taking?976Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I will take the question on notice and come back at an appropriate time.976976Randall, Don, MPMr RANDALLPK6SwanLP10—My question is addressed to the Attorney-General. Will the Attorney-General inform the House whether anything has occurred today in relation to the improper use of confidential Federal Court documents detailing government action against Christopher Skase?976Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—I thank the member for Swan for his question. I inform the House that the Senate has today censured Labor's legal affairs spokesman, Senator Bolkus, for revealing the contents of a confidential Federal Court affidavit. The resolution passed by the Senate is in these terms:That the Senate—(a) notes: (i) that Senator Bolkus, during and after a press conference on 5 January 1998, revealed certain contents of a confidential Federal Court affidavit, (ii) that this affidavit formed part of legal proceedings undertaken by Mr Max Donnelly, trustee of the bankrupt estate of Mr Christopher Skase, to recover assets allegedly concealed by Mr Skase, (iii) that Federal Court affidavits may only be obtained by leave of the court or a judge, (iv) that in relation to the affidavit revealed by Senator Bolkus no such leave had been obtained, and (v) that Mr Donnelly had not authorised the release of the affidavit by either his firm or solicitors acting for him;(b) censures Senator Bolkus for: (i) revealing the contents of a confidential Federal Court affidavit, (ii) his disregard of the larger public interest in putting at risk the success of Mr Donnelly's legal attempts to recover assets belonging to the bankrupt estate of Mr Christopher Skase, and (iii) his knowingly taking a course of action directly contrary to the public interest.The Senate has today reinforced the decision of this House last week to censure Senator Bolkus. Clearly, the parliament of Australia believes that Senator Bolkus has behaved improperly. It is disturbing that Labor continues to deny that there has been any wrong doing. The message to the Australian public is that Labor will do whatever it takes to score a political point and Labor does not care about the proper operation of the legal system. When caught red-handed Labor denies wrong doing.What the Leader of the Opposition and Labor's legal affairs spokesman are saying by their continued denial of any wrong doing is that they will do it again. By his silence, by his inaction and by his inability to enforce appropriate standards on his frontbench, the Leader of the Opposition is just as responsible as Senator Bolkus.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Before the next question, I ask that there be a little more subdued level of public conversation.977977Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH5V5PerthALP00—My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister stand by his code of conduct and the requirements of the parliament that ministers fully declare their interests, particularly where that might conflict with their public duty? Is the Prime Minister aware that, having resigned his publicly declared directorship of Queensland Coal Mine Management, the Minister for Resources and Energy retained his shareholding in that company but kept it hidden by failing to declare it on his register of interests? Does this not represent a clear breach of your code of conduct?977Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I will take the question on notice and come back at an appropriate time.5V5SMITHMr Stephen Smith—I seek leave to table Minister Parer's register of interests.Leave not granted.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I ask members of the opposition please to remain silent.977977Gallus, Christine, MPMrs GALLUSCU4HindmarshLP10—My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister committed to appropriate ethical standards in business? Would the Prime Minister advise the House on the government's position in relation to the improper use of confidential Federal Court documents relating to Christopher Skase?977Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—Can I say in answer to the honourable member for Hindmarsh that the government emphatically is in favour of proper ethical standards. I think it passes very strange for an opposition that has asked two questions about alleged—and I underline the word `alleged'—non-compliance with ministerial guidelines that that same party is led by a man who does not have the guts to sack Senator Bolkus. The only issue about ministerial standards before the parliament at the present time is whether the Leader of the Opposition can summon the courage, can actually whistle up the courage to get rid of Senator Bolkus.Senator Bolkus shamefully, for the basest of political motives, absolutely betrayed the fundamental principles of his office as shadow Attorney-General by releasing what he knew to be a confidential court document. I think it is almost without precedent that the same frontbencher should have been simultaneously censured by both the House of Representatives and the Senate.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I ask members of the opposition to remain silent.ZD4Mr HOWARD—In the Senate censure motion the government was joined by senators who hardly ever vote for the government on anything. I cannot remember the last time the Green senators supported us. I cannot remember the last time, except the industrial relations legislation, when the Australian Democrats supported us.The truth, the reality is that we have caught red-handed a man trafficking in confidential documents. We have caught red-handed a man who is prepared to do anything in defiance of the commitment he made when he became a shadow minister, a man who would be the first law officer of the Commonwealth. He is prepared under the cover of some kind of phoney anonymity in terms of his relationship with the media of Australia to peddle not a document authored by himself but a sworn document of which the trustee in bankruptcy said the publication would prejudice the case against Christopher Skase.The last thing Senator Bolkus was worried about was whether the small businessmen and women who have been taken to the cleaners by Christopher Skase would ever get their money back. He was not interested in them. He was not interested in the truth. He was only interested in scoring a cheap political point, and the spineless Leader of the Opposition does not have the guts to sack him.978978Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH5V5PerthALP00—My question is also addressed to the Prime Minister and it follows on from the question to him by the member for Hindmarsh in respect of ethics and high standards. Is the Prime Minister aware that Senator Parer personally holds shares in a subsidiary of Queensland Coal Mine Management but has not disclosed this either on his register of interests? Prime Minister, doesn't this also breach your guidelines on both disclosure and conflict of interest?978Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I will take the last four-fifths of the question on notice, but the first fifth of the question which relates to standards in public life I will answer. I will answer that by saying that the first requirement of any person who puts themselves forward as a significant figure in public life is to respect the processes of the legal system of this country. That applies most particularly to a man who would be the Attorney-General of Australia. Senator Bolkus, while ever he remains in that office, will run around the country saying, `I should be the Attorney-General of Australia. Don't worry that I traffic in secret court documents.'5V5SMITHMr Stephen Smith—Mr Speaker, on a point of order: my question to the Prime Minister in respect of ethics and high standards related to a particular minister and his conduct.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Prime Minister is answering the question. There is no point of order.ZD4Mr HOWARD—I am telling you about standards and ethics. I am telling you that Bolkus has neither. I am telling you that in a political context Senator Bolkus has betrayed the fundamental obligation, and you are led by a man who does not have the courage to get rid of him.DT4CREANMr Crean—Mr Speaker, I have a point of order and it goes to relevance. The question that was asked went specifically to Senator Parer's shareholding.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—There is no point of order.DT4CREANMr Crean—There must be a point of order. He is required to keep to the point.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The introduction was broad. There is no point of order.ZD4Mr HOWARD—You should go to a question drafting school—you ought to work out how to draft a question. You asked me about ethics. The first obligation of anybody who sits on the front bench of the alternative government of this country is to understand the responsibilities of the office they exercise. If you are the shadow Attorney-General of Australia, you have an obligation to honour the legal processes of Australia. You have an obligation not to dishonour them. You have an obligation to respect the confidentiality of court documents. You have an obligation to help the law enforcement authorities. You have an obligation to look to the interests of the consumers of Australia. Senator Bolkus has failed every single test. Every single obligation has been failed by Senator Bolkus. That is why Senator Harradine joined us. That is why the two Green senators joined us. That is why the Australian Democrats joined us and that is why the Leader of the Opposition has an irresistible obligation to summon the guts and get rid of Senator Bolkus.5V5SMITHMr Stephen Smith—I seek leave to table the annual company return of Queensland Coal Mine Management Group (ESP) Pty Ltd.Leave not granted.Distinguished Visitors97910000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon members of a parliamentary delegation from the Federal Republic of Germany. On behalf of the House, I extend to a very warm welcome to our visitors.UNKNOWNHonourable membersHonourable members—Hear, hear!Questions Without Notice979979979Hawker, David, MPMr HAWKER8H4WannonLP10—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. I ask the Treasurer: can he inform the House of the improvements to financial accountability and openness resulting from government policy announced during the last election campaign? Furthermore, how will this new information benefit the Australian people?979Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I thank the honourable member for Wannon for his question. One of the most solemn promises that we made to the Australian people before the last election was that if elected we would introduce a charter of budget honesty to ensure that any future government, ours or any other government, could not go to another election and try to practice the deceit which Mr Beazley tried to practice as finance minister before the 1996 election.We said that we would introduce a statute which would require any incumbent government after an election was called to notify the Australian people of the state of the books. We said that we would introduce legislation to require mid-year reviews. We said that we would introduce legislation which would require those making promises to make them in a responsible way. We did that for the sake of the Australian people.There was one political group which did everything it could to prevent the Australian people having access to full and free financial information. This bill could have gone through 12 months ago. Yet the Australian Labor Party sneaked its way around trying to delay the passage of this bill because it did not want provisions put in place to prevent it trying to return to the scene of the crime before the 1996 election. It wanted the opportunity to try a repeat attempt at cheating, just as it had in relation to the March 1996 election.As recently as yesterday morning, AAP was reporting that the Leader of the Opposition had told his caucus meeting that he was prepared to fight an election on all four double dissolution potential triggers: the Wik Native Title Bill, changes to the Public Service Act, small business exemptions from unfair dismissal, and a charter of budget honesty. But by 8.05 last night—VD4EVANSMr Gareth Evans—On a point of order, Mr Speaker: is it in order for the Treasurer to read from a report which was subsequently corrected?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—That is not a point of order. The deputy leader will resume his seat.CT4Mr COSTELLO—By 8.05 yesterday evening, AAP was reporting that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition had been seen skipping around the press gallery with the information that, far from taking their big stand against the charter of budget honesty, the Labor Party had backflipped during the day and were now going to remove their objections. It is a backflip which we totally welcome.There was no reason for the Labor Party, for 12 months, for concocted reasons, to try to hold up this legislation. What it did was waste the time of this parliament in a concocted argument, trying to cover up legislation which was required because of the deceitful nature of the Leader of the Opposition. This was the Leader of the Opposition who, in February 1996, said that the Australian budget was in surplus when it was $10,000 million in the red.The charter of budget honesty, which will be a great contribution to Australian legislation, was introduced to make sure that a man like him could never try to repeat the same trick and could never go to the Australian people and try to deceive them as to the state of the true accounts when the Australian people were in a mood before an election where they could be deceived in that way. The charter of budget honesty is world-class legislation.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—On a point of order, Mr Speaker: this is weak, worthless legislation—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—That is not a point of order.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—But really length of answer and relevancy, Mr Speaker—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. That is not a point of order.CT4Mr COSTELLO—Mr Speaker, it is weak, worthless legislation which he has now decided to vote for. Is that right? I will tell you what is weak and worthless, old son, and it is not this legislation.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Treasurer will respond to the question.CT4Mr COSTELLO—You can look in the mirror. Mr Speaker, this is world-class legislation. This is legislation which is designed to prevent a repeat of the experience of 1996. This is legislation which this government promised before the election. It is legislation which we will deliver and it is legislation which will be of lasting benefit to the Australian people.980980Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is again to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister aware that on Meet the Press on 26 May 1996, the resources minister said, `I have never personally had any interest in shares in the mining industry,' and that the holding of such shares would be in breach of your own guidelines? Prime Minister, in light of the minister's undisclosed shareholding in Queensland Coal, both directly and through his family trust, hasn't he misled the Australian public and breached your code of conduct? Shouldn't he be sacked for breaching that code of conduct?980Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—On this occasion I will take the first four-fifths of the question on notice. But I will deal with the last fifth, that is, the responsibilities of a party leader to remove from office those on their front bench who are no longer fit to occupy that office. I will again remind the House that it is now 18 minutes past two and the Leader of the Opposition has still not indicated a readiness on his part to remove Senator Bolkus.Senator Bolkus has been undeniably indicted, not just by the House of Representatives but also by the Senate. He was voted down in censure not just by the Liberal and National Party senators, but also by the Independent senator, Senator Harradine, by the two Green senators and by the members of the Australian Democrats. By a vote of 44 to 27, the members of the Australian Senate adjudged that he was no longer fit to hold the office of shadow Attorney-General.The Leader of the Opposition knows his duty. The Leader of the Opposition has been told his duty by the House of Representatives and by the Senate. The Leader of the Opposition remains impotent and incapable of summoning the courage to remove Senator Bolkus.980980Stone, Sharman, MPMrs STONEEM6MurrayLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for the Status of Women. Could the minister inform the House what the Howard government is doing to promote women's participation in community affairs, including politics, business and related sectors?981Moylan, Judi, MPMrs MOYLAN4V5PearceLPStatus of Women10—I thank the member for Murray for her question. The Howard government is firmly committed to ensuring that women are included in and have access to all the decision making processes in this country. Our government has a very impressive record of achievement in this area. For example, the number of women appointed to Commonwealth boards has increased to 30.6 per cent and the number of senior executive women has increased by nearly 15 per cent. We have appointed a record number of women to head our foreign posts and missions.The opposition cannot boast the same credibility. It stops women in the starting blocks. It prevents women from being preselected in winnable seats. I have already advised the House of the Labor Party's shoddy treatment of Ann Scott, who is seeking Labor preselection for Oxley. She claims Labor boss Gary Gray told her that he would tip a bucket of muck over her if she did not withdraw.CE4O'KEEFEMr O'Keefe—I have a point of order, Mr Speaker. It goes to the comments that you made when you assumed the chair about ministers reading from statements.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—What is your point of order?CE4O'KEEFEMr O'Keefe—The minister is simply standing there reading from a statement.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—That is not a point of order, and I will take notice of the way in which she is reading. The honourable member for Burke will resume his seat.4V5Mrs MOYLAN—Ann Scott claims that the Labor boss, Gary Gray, told her that he would tip a bucket of muck over her if she did not withdraw and she claims that she was threatened by a senior member of the frontbench. I called on Kim Beazley to expose this frontbencher but, in another test of leadership, he has failed.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, on a point order: it is part of a childish strategy, but there are forms of address in this House that refer to members of parliament.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—There are forms of address and the minister will refer to the Leader of the Opposition by his correct title.4V5Mrs MOYLAN—I called on the Leader of the Opposition to expose this frontbencher but, in another test of leadership, he has failed. While the Leader of the Opposition does absolutely nothing, Ann Scott's position has worsened. For rightly complaining about this appalling treatment she has been charged with disloyalty and engaging in conduct harmful to the party. If these charges are upheld, she will be expelled from the Labor Party. In my view, it is Gary Gray and the anonymous frontbencher who ought to be charged, not Ann Scott.Labor women are outraged, too. Senator Margaret Reynolds said on radio 4QR this morning, `If people in the Labor Party can't express a point of view, it is pretty tough and it is undemocratic.' What is even more worrying is that Senator Reynolds also admitted, `I have my own Ann Scott story that may eventually be told.' The opposition talks about promoting women, but behind the scenes it is intimidating women into silence.CE4O'KEEFEMr O'Keefe—On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I am just asking that you require the minister to table the document she is reading from.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I do not think the minister has finished her answer.4V5Mrs MOYLAN—The Labor Party is intimidating its women into silence. It is not into promoting its women at all. The Ann Scotts in the Labor Party should come forward and demand leadership on this issue from the Leader of the Opposition. Clearly, the Leader of the Opposition cannot control his own party and he has reneged on Labor's commitment to women. Let us expose the ALP blokes for what they are. They are bullyboys. They are thugs. They are captives of the trade union movement. They are determined to drive women back home.981981Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is again directed to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, when you commissioned Max Moore-Wilton to audit ministerial shareholdings, did he fully investigate the holdings of Senator Parer? Did he establish the facts that we have revealed today in question time? Mr Speaker, in accordance with your ruling yesterday, I am now holding a diagram illustrating the web of deceit surrounding Senator Parer's coalmining shareholding.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member will withdraw the word `deceit'. You are making an allegation.Opposition members interjecting—DT4Mr CREAN—A point of order!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable gentleman will withdraw that imputation. If you wish to make that imputation, you can do it by substantive motion. You can find another word, but `deceit' is not appropriate.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Honourable members of the opposition will remain silent.DT4Mr CREAN—Mr Speaker, on the point of order: this is a double standard.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—You are withdrawing the word `deceit' and saying `double standard', are you?DT4Mr CREAN—No, Mr Speaker; I am saying that your ruling is the double standard.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I am ruling that the word `deceit' must be withdrawn and another word inserted instead.DT4Mr CREAN—Can I be heard on the point of order, Mr Speaker?Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Honourable members of the opposition will remain silent. I will hear you on your point of order.DT4Mr CREAN—Thank you, Mr Speaker. The other day in this House when you were in charge of the chamber there was a request made to withdraw the word `lie'. `Deceit' was substituted in lieu of it and that was allowed.VD4EVANSMr Gareth Evans—It was the Treasurer.DT4Mr CREAN—It was, I am reminded, in relation to an answer from the Treasurer and deceitful was used in that case.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member has finished his point of order.DT4Mr CREAN—No, I have not.Government members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I suggest members of the government remain silent. We will hear the balance of the point of order. I suggest you draw it to a conclusion.DT4Mr CREAN—Yes, and I am indebted to the article today in the Bulletin under Laurie Oakes's name that draws attention to this very point that you took when you were a backbencher in terms of the ability of members to say in this parliament if they believe that facts are being told to them which are inconsistent with what is on the public record, which we have not been allowed to table in this parliament today. A member of this parliament should be able to put it.We are alleging that it is a web of deceit. It clearly is a web of deceit. Mr Speaker, I suggest to you that not only in terms of your earlier ruling is `deceit' allowable but with your own queries from the backbench before you became Speaker this is entirely a point that you would have made and expected the Speaker to uphold.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I draw the honourable member's attention to standing order No. 75. In this instance you are using an offensive word against a particular person who is a member of the parliament. I ask the honourable gentleman to withdraw the word `deceit' and to proceed with his question.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—On that point of order, Mr Speaker: can I read the rulings of Deputy Speaker Nehl on 3 March.Mr Lee —On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: did I hear the Prime Minister accuse the Leader of the Opposition of deliberately misleading and you are allowing that on the Hansard record?Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —No, you did not.Mr Lee —He said `deliberately mislead'.Opposition members —He did.Mr HOWARD —Deliberately deceive—try that!And then it went on.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I thought even the honourable Leader of the Opposition would understand that there is a distinction between—VD4EVANSMr Gareth Evans—Oh, Mr Speaker—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I am responding. Will the Deputy Leader of the Opposition resume his seat.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member for Lyons and the honourable member for Isaccs will remain silent. There is a distinction between `deceive' and `deceit'. I am asking the honourable member for Hotham to withdraw the word `deceit' and to resume his question.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Opposition members will remain silent.VD4EVANSMr Gareth Evans—On a point of order: if you are ruling that way, what is to be said about the Treasurer's answer earlier today when he used the expression `deceitful' on several occasions? Is there a distinction between`deceive', `deceit' and `deceitful'?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Yes, there is.VD4EVANSMr Gareth Evans—Would you please explain the syntax or grammar of that, because I would be delighted to hear it.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable gentleman will resume his seat and I would ask that members of the opposition remain silent. As I explained before, I am concerned that members understand that, in accordance with standing order 75, `where offensive words are used against either House of the Parliament or any member thereof', they should not be so used. I am asking the honourable member for Hotham to withdraw the word `deceit' and substitute another word.DT4Mr CREAN—Mr Speaker—VD4EVANSMr Gareth Evans—A web of deceit! How's that!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will remain silent. The honourable member for Hotham, are you withdrawing the word `deceit'?DT4Mr CREAN—I am withdrawing the word—Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Before you do, can I ask members of the opposition to remain silent. You may be able to hear the honourable member for Hotham; I cannot. Will you withdraw the word?DT4Mr CREAN—In deference to you, Mr Speaker, I withdraw the word `deceit' and say that your ruling will make for very interesting reading.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—There is no need to reflect on me, thank you. You shall withdraw the word and proceed with your question.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member for Burke, when you are ready, the honourable member for Hotham will ask his question.DT4Mr CREAN—Mr Speaker, may I start the question again; is that appropriate?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—You will proceed with your question before you are required to sit down for the time you have taken to ask it. Can I ask you to ask your question.DT4Mr CREAN—My question to the Prime Minister was: did the investigations by Max Moore-Wilton reveal the facts that we have disclosed in this parliament today, and in accordance with a ruling that you made yesterday—that I trust will not be changed now—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member will not reflect on the chair. He will proceed with his question.DT4Mr CREAN—I am holding up a diagram which illustrates a deceitful web. I think this is a deceitful web.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I hear you. Complete your question or sit down.DT4Mr CREAN—It is a deceitful web which surrounds Senator Parer's coalmining shares. Prime Minister, is this your idea of a blind trust? Is it also part of the reason that your government has shelved plans for changing trust tax laws in this country?983Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—Mr Speaker, as to the first five-sixths of the question, I will—as I have in relation to the others—take the question on notice. As to the remaining one-sixth of the question which relates to trusts abuse and action against tax avoidance, it is rather ironic that the member for Hotham, who was out there with his hand up in favour of the rorters in relation to all the R&D syndicates and who is the great friend of the R&D syndicate rorters, has asked this question. Can I say in relation to him that he will find as the months go by that this government's resolve in relation to the tax avoidance abuses that were left untouched during the 13 years that his mob were in government will be very impressive indeed. Every time you ask a question about tax avoidance and every time you allege that it now goes on in large measure, what you are doing is indicting 13 years of Labor neglect, 13 years of the Labor Party's indifference to do anything about tax avoidance when it had an opportunity of doing so.984984Kelly, De-Anne, MPMrs DE-ANNE KELLYFK6DawsonNP10—My question is addressed to the Treasurer: how does the government's record of providing benefits to families in the form of lower interest rates and taxation compare with recent history? Treasurer, would you inform the House of the most important policy areas which benefit families in Australia?QJ4THEOPHANOUSDr Theophanous—That is incoherent.984Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I thank the honourable member for Dawson for her question. I could not help but overhear that, when she asked the question about benefits for families, the member for Calwell said the question was incoherent.QJ4THEOPHANOUSDr Theophanous—It is!CT4Mr COSTELLO—It is, is it? We do not think it is a matter of incoherence to give benefits to families. In fact, we on this side of the House quite like helping Australian families.QJ4THEOPHANOUSDr Theophanous—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Do you have a valid point of order?QJ4THEOPHANOUSDr Theophanous—Yes, Mr Speaker. The Treasurer, in his attack on me at the moment, said that my comment on the question being incoherent was wrong. The fact of the matter is the question—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member will resume his seat. That is not a point of order.CT4Mr COSTELLO—Mr Speaker, we would like to give the Labor Party a demonstration of coherent benefits for families. One of the most coherent benefits for families is to bring their mortgage rate from 10.5 per cent to 6.5 per cent. That gives a coherent benefit of about $330 a month.3V5EVANSMr Richard Evans—How much?CT4Mr COSTELLO—Three hundred and thirty dollars a month. Another coherent benefit for families was the family tax initiative which, together with hospital and ancillary health insurance incentives, benefited Australian families by $10 a month. Another coherent benefit! But it is always a tale of two elections, is it not? You cannot just look at 1996 and say that families are $430 a month better off as a result of the 1996 election. Let us compare it with what happened after the 1993 election: tax promises which had been put into l-a-w were abolished, and that left families much worse off; all wholesale sales tax rates were increased by two per cent; and home mortgage interest rates were raised from 8.75 per cent to 10.5 per cent, which took away from families $150 a month.So we can compare and contrast the figure after the 1996 election, $430 per month better off, with the figure after the 1993 election—$150 per month worse off in relation to interest alone. The fact is that, if the Labor Party were elected, it would try to introduce the same old policy: spend money it did not have, drive the budget into deficit, run up debt, push up interest rates and make families much worse off.The member for Batman is already saying he thinks that the government should be digging into the surplus. The Leader of the Opposition is saying he thinks there should be surpluses for the next three years. The member for Jagajaga is making unfunded promises for nursing homes. The member for Werriwa is making unfunded promises in relation to education. The member for Kingsford-Smith is making unfunded promises in relation to aid. The member for Hotham is promising to reintroduce R&D syndicates. Mr Speaker, you have got to have a hide, if you are the member for Hotham, to get up and talk about tax avoidance, don't you? You really have to have a hide. The parliamentary voice for the R&D syndicates—DT4CREANMr Crean—Where is your trust legislation? Where have you hidden it?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member for Hotham!CT4Mr COSTELLO—He asks about trust legislation. The fact is that we have in the Senate at the moment legislation to prevent trafficking in trust losses. The firm of lobbyists which is lobbying against that legislation, Kortlangs firm, accidentally sent me a fax which was designed for the Australian Labor Party.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. Despite the breadth of the question, this is just way off the mark of the question he was asked. If we have to put up with 10 minutes of this rubbish, we might at least have it relevant.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Treasurer will answer the question.CT4Mr COSTELLO—Of course, Mr Speaker. Part of locking in the benefits for families is to ensure that we have a good, coherent budgetary situation in this country. The charter of budget honesty, a coherent benefit for good economic policy, will be a lasting reminder to Australia of the need that there was after the last election to legislate to ensure that what happened before that election—the conduct of the finance minister in that election—is never repeated.The one good thing we can say for the conduct of the finance minister, as he then was, before the 1996 election is that the rules have been changed forever to make sure that nobody ever tries to do again what he tried to do, so that the Australian people will be protected.985985Rocher, Allan, MPMr ROCHERZI4CurtinIND00—I ask the Minister for Veterans' Affairs why claims for funeral benefits must be lodged within 12 months of the death of a veteran. What difference should it make to the success of a claim if it is made after an arbitrary time limit of 12 months?985Scott, Bruce, MPMr BRUCE SCOTTYT4MaranoaNPVeterans' Affairs10—The regulation, as it has been, is that 12 months is the time limit that is considered a reasonable time in which to make a claim for a funeral benefit through my department. If you have got some specific cases you would like to bring to my notice, I am very happy to look at those, but I think 12 months has been considered a reasonable length of time; it has been the policy for a long time and has been supported by those on both sides of the House.985985Mutch, Stephen, MPMr MUTCHNK6CookLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business. Minister, what will be the impact of the strike action taken by the Maritime Union of Australia in Port Botany today? Is the MUA claim related to productivity?985Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—I thank the member for Cook for his question. Sadly, a lot of those wharfies at Port Botany would not know productivity if they fell over it. The truth is that, on any reasonable international benchmark figure, productivity in the Port of Botany is absolutely woeful.I will give the member some indication of those figures. For example, with regard to the crane rate in Sydney, the last published figure put out by the independent analysis was actually below the national average. We had published in Australian newspapers at the end of January a survey of international shipping companies looking at Australian port performance. They surveyed 18 ports, a number in Australia and 13 or 14 internationally. They looked at reliability. And where did Sydney come in a reliability test out of 18? It was eighteenth out of 18, dead last, on the issue of reliability.On the question of turnaround speed, where did Sydney rate compared with others in Australia and internationally? It came dead last, unable to compete even with those ports in Australia, certainly unable to compete with competitors like Auckland, Los Angeles and elsewhere. On value for money, a key ingredient, a key factor of the capacity of the port to run efficiently, it came second last to another Australian port. On any reasonable criteria, the fact is that Sydney does very poorly indeed.Here we have the world's highest paid wharfies on a wage claim of $4,500 in return for which we get the world's worst practice. And they are supported by none other than the Leader of the Opposition and the spokesman for the MUA who sits on his front bench. They have no defence to the indefensible work practices in Sydney.I conclude by saying this: my Sydney rort of the day, which goes out on the Internet to all members and interested parties, is the one headed, `Who needs new exports rort'. This relates to an Australian company trading into the South Pacific which had set up a business, a growing trade, in bagged cement to several island nations. They were doing pretty well; they were getting a few customers; their product was well received. Bagged cement, being a high volume, relatively low cost product, is sensitive to stevedoring and shipping costs. Recently, the Australian company noticed that instead of growing its business, it was starting to lose business, so it investigated why it was losing business. The answer was that the lower price being offered by New Zealanders was attributable to the lower costs of wharf handling and sea transport out of New Zealand. That was the essential difference.The New Zealand competitors were paying one half of what the Australian company was paying in stevedoring costs. When it investigated the work practices, in New Zealand the cement was loaded at 400 pallets per shift; in Sydney they were only able to load them at 230 pallets per shift. The conclusion of this rort was that the Australian company lost the entire business of providing its product into those island states. We have another loss of jobs as a result of inefficiency and lack of productivity. Today they have the cheek to be taking industrial action in Sydney and these people are so weak that they cannot stand up for the national interest.986986Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH5V5PerthALP00—My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister aware that today in the Senate, in response to a question as to what he had done in his portfolio to advance the interests of the Queensland coal mining industry, Senator Parer referred to the removal of export controls on coal? Given that Senator Parer, in his portfolio, has taken decisions on and advocated positions in relation to the coal industry, and in the light of Senator Parer's undisclosed interest in Queensland coal mining and exporting, is there not a clear conflict of interest with the minister's portfolio activities? As a consequence, should you not sack him for breaching your code of conduct?986Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—Ooh, heavy guns now! I'm reeling! I'm reeling! Mr Speaker, like the others, I will take that question on notice.986986Sharp, John, MPMr SHARPAJ4HumeNP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Finance and Administration. Can the minister inform the House of the progress to date in the sale of ANL and how does that progress contrast with past efforts to sell ANL?986Fahey, John, MPMr FAHEYHQ5MacarthurLPFinance and Administration10—I thank the honourable member for Hume for that question and acknowledge the significant contribution made by the member for Hume to the sale of ANL in a former role. I thank him very much for that contribution. The sale of ANL is proceeding on schedule.ET4BEVISMr Bevis—On a point of order, Mr Speaker: the Notice Paper for today lists the bill for the sale of the ANL, which is clearly the subject of the question. The matter that the minister is now answering is in anticipation of the debate.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Unfortunately, your point of order is too late.ET4BEVISMr Bevis—When am I supposed to do that?Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Remain silent, please. Have you finished your point of order?ET4BEVISMr Bevis—I have.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The point of order is not applicable other than to the putting of the question. The attention of the chair was not drawn to the fact that the matter was on the Notice Paper , but when the minister is responding he should take note of the fact that the matter is listed on the Notice Paper . Had my attention been drawn to that at an earlier stage, the question would have been ruled out of order.ET4BEVISMr Bevis—I rose to take the point of order 15 or 20 seconds—Opposition members interjecting— Mr SPEAKER —I haven't a clue what you are saying. If your colleagues would like to remain silent, I will call you on a point of order.ET4BEVISMr Bevis—Mr Speaker, I rose to take the point of order at what would have been 15 or 20 seconds after the minister was at the dispatch box.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—But the minister had still started. I take note, and we will endeavour in future to ensure that points of order are raised even earlier.HQ5Mr FAHEY—As I was saying, the sale of Australian National Line is proceeding on schedule. It is targeted for completion by 30 June this year and the sale itself is being managed by the Office of Asset Sales. Advertisements appeared in domestic newspapers on 29 January last and in international newspapers on 12 and 13 February. The government has released an information brief to all parties who have expressed interest. The expressions of interest are required to be lodged by 3 April, after which the government will consider those expressions of interest and short list the potential bidders before progressing the matter further.I am encouraged by the responses we have received to date from companies which have shown an interest in the Australian National Line, not just Australian companies but companies based in other parts of the world—Asia and Europe. The government's preference is to sell its 100 per cent shareholding in Australian National Line completely; that is, in one go. We have reserved our right to sell it in parts, should the bids come in in that way. We have given ourselves some flexibility in that regard.The sale of Australian National Line is something which should have occurred a long time ago. This brings me to the second part of the honourable member's question, contrasting the approach that has been taken by this government to that of the former government.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker, on whether or not the question should be permitted.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—It is now too late, I am afraid. The question has been delivered and the answer is being given.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, can I complete my point of order? It is actually not, I would submit, necessarily wrong to discuss something that is on the Notice Paper . That has been permitted by tradition in this place. However, when it is discussed, the Speaker limits it to the technical issues involved in explaining the material that is within that legislation or whatever particular the question is to. I submit that the Minister for Finance and Administration was in order in the presentation he has made to this point because it is perfectly appropriate to ask for technical detail about something that is on the Notice Paper . He now departs that and canvasses a bill that is before the House. In those circumstances, I submit to you that he has placed himself out of order.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition is very close to being accurate. I suggest the minister takes note of that in the second part of his answer.HQ5Mr FAHEY—Mr Speaker, I want to address the second part of the honourable member's question which clearly relates to the progress that this government has made in the course of 1998 compared with the progress on this issue at another time. I can say that the progress on this issue at another time has absolutely nothing to do with legislation that will be introduced into this parliament in the next 24 hours or so.In respect of the progress made previously, the sale of ANL was first mooted by the Labor Party in 1991. In fact, the announce ment was made in the 1991-92 budget. For some four years we went through this charade of an attempt to sell the Australian National Line until it fizzled out in 1995.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—On a point of order, Mr Speaker: this may well be relevant material to a debate but it is not to an answer in these circumstances.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister should not anticipate debate.WI4REITHMr Reith—Mr Speaker, just on the question and the answer being put by the minister, can I put it to you that the second reading speech of the ANL Sale Bill makes it quite clear that legislation is not actually necessary to complete the sale. On that basis it is irrelevant what might be the transition arrangements or otherwise. I put it to you, Mr Speaker, that an answer which canvasses whether or not the Commonwealth should be in the business of shipping is not an answer which is canvassing necessarily a bill before the House which will not be debated until tomorrow.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—On the point of order, the minister cannot anticipate a bill before the house, so he needs to be very careful in any answer he gives that he does not anticipate debate.HQ5Mr FAHEY—Thank you, Mr Speaker, for your guidance on that matter. As I indicated, the sale that was previously proposed fizzled out in 1995. I do not think that surprised anybody, because over those ensuing four years it was clear that the ultimate decision on the sale of this asset would be determined by the unions. It was never going to be the decision of the government; it was to be determined by the unions.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I think you are getting very close to anticipating debate and I suggest the honourable minister draws his answer to a close.HQ5Mr FAHEY—As we will proceed with this sale, rest assured that the government is determined to take all steps to protect taxpayers' funds. That has occurred in other areas of assets sales—not ANL, but AIDC, HLIC—which you could not do—PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I want to take again in a point of order the correct way in question time to consider a piece of legislation that is before the House. These are all debating points—every single one of them.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I think, if we look at most issues, that debating points are extraordinarily wide. I suggest the minister draw his answer to a close.HQ5Mr FAHEY—This particular area is just one other step that this government has taken to ensure that taxpayers' funds are protected and that sensible management occurs. We will continue to take those steps where necessary.988988Evans, Gareth, MPMr GARETH EVANSVD4HoltALP00—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Why did the Treasurer announce earlier this month that he was breaking his promise, explicitly made last budget night, to give early public release to a major Treasury-Tax Office discussion paper on the taxation of trusts, in order to allow informed public debate on that issue. If the work has been done, why are you hiding it? Who are you trying to protect?988Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—We are not, and no one. If you read the release, what it said was that we are going to review the whole of the Australian taxation system. We are doing that with indirect tax, personal income tax and business tax; and after we have done it and worked out ways to help Australian families, ways to encourage incentive and ways to make the Australian taxation system fairer we will be announcing it.All I can say to the Australian Labor Party is this: you have not announced one policy in two years in opposition—not one policy. You have a whole series of unfunded promises out there, and the reason why you have no credibility is that you have no discipline and no leadership. Until you get a Leader of the Opposition who can control his own frontbench and announce a policy and cost it, you are going nowhere.VD4EVANSMr Gareth Evans—Mr Speaker, I seek leave to table the extract from the Treasurer's statement last budget night making the promise which he has now broken.Leave not granted.989989Nugent, Peter, MPMr NUGENTUT4AstonLP10—My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Does the government still support the national agreement on gun control achieved in the wake of the Port Arthur tragedy in 1996? Can you inform the House what action the government will be taking to ensure that the national agreement continues to provide tough and effective controls on firearms?989Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—The government most certainly does continue to support in full the agreement that was concluded between the police ministers in 1996 in the wake of the Port Arthur tragedy. I believe that, in saying that, I speak on behalf of all members of the House and also on behalf of all members of the federal Senate. I want to inform the honourable member that, since that agreement was concluded between all of the governments of Australia, I have been advised that there has been no sanctioning of any watering down of that agreement by any jurisdiction—any sanctioning on behalf of my government—and nor has there been any sanctioning on behalf of the Australasian Police Ministers Council, which was the ministerial body through which the agreement was originally concluded.I think I speak on behalf of all Australians when I say that they saw the achievement of that agreement as being a milestone in guaranteeing a higher level of public safety in this country, and they would bitterly resent any attempt to water it down. I certainly do, and I know I speak on behalf of all my colleagues and I think I speak on this occasion on behalf of most of those who sit opposite.I inform the House that I will list this matter for discussion at the Premiers Conference, which is taking place on Friday week. It will be an opportunity for all heads of government in Australia to reaffirm their commitment in full to the principles to which their governments so fulsomely subscribed in 1996.989989Ellis, Annette, MPMs ELLIS5K6NamadgiALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Have you seen the media reports about Fliur-Louise Pippas, a 24-year-old unemployed married woman, who found a job on the Centrelink computer at a local CES but was barred from applying for the job because she was not on the dole? Isn't she one of the 50,000 married women who are now at a distinct disadvantage in our job market?ZD4HOWARDMr Howard—I ask the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs to answer the question.DT4CREANMr Crean—Squib! Squib!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Before I call the minister, I ask honourable members of the opposition to remain silent.989Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPEmployment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs;Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—I am aware of the case of Ms Pippas. What this illustrates, first of all and above all, is the need for the improved services that the government will be putting in place from 1 May through Job Network. The improved service starts on 1 May, and it will be a significant improvement over what is currently available,ZD4HOWARDMr Howard—Which was Labor's system.BT4Dr KEMP—Which was Labor's system. Labor's system failed unemployed people. The Labor Party is not interested in unemployed people. If you have not got a union card, the Labor Party is not interested in you. That is why the member for Batman—PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. It goes to relevance. A very specific question was asked about the case of this—Government members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I ask members of the government to remain silent before I call the Leader of the Opposition on a point of order.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—My point of order is on relevance. A very specific question was asked in relation to a person's circumstances. We are now getting a generalised rave about where the government intends to take employment policy.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister is within the standing orders. I ask him to resume his answer. BT4Dr KEMP—Ms Pippas is a resident of Hoppers Crossing. I am pleased to inform the House that, in the Hoppers Crossing and Werribee area, from 1 May there will be five members of Job Network, including Employment National. Employment National has made it very clear that it will be helping every unemployed person—whether on benefits or not—and, without discrimination, will be seeking to place the best person in the job. I also draw the opposition's attention to the fact that there will be other providers besides Employment National in the Werribee and Hoppers Crossing area. I suggest that people in this situation may well care to shop around. They will have the chance to choose the provider which best helps them. They will have, under the government's Job Network, the dignity of being able to choose the employment service that provides them with the best opportunity to get a job. Until 1 May, the CES will continue to service all job seekers.990990Wakelin, Barry, MPMr WAKELINHV5GreyLP10—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. I refer the Treasurer to the fact that the National Competition Council is conducting a review of the Australian Postal Corporation Act as part of the national competition policy review. Has the Treasurer received the report? What is the government's attitude to the role of Australia Post in regional and rural Australia?990Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I thank the member for Grey for his question. Yesterday I received the National Competition Council's final report on the review of Australia Post. I would like to thank the National Competition Council and its President, Graeme Samuel, for their work in producing this important report. The main recommendations are that Australia Post retain a universal service obligation to provide an Australia-wide letter service, that household letter services remain reserved for Australia Post with a continued uniform rate of postage, and that there be competition in business letter services and in international mail services.K26LATHAMMr Latham—He is always announcing the status quo. That is your job in life, old son!CT4Mr COSTELLO—I am sure the member for Grey will welcome the fact that the universal service obligation will be retained, and will welcome the reservation of household letters for the bush. It is good for region al Australia and I am sure the member for Grey will welcome that. The young tyro member for Werriwa who is interested in economic reform interjects that this is just status quo. But what the National Competition Council did recommend was that there be competition in business letter services. I am sure that the economic reform minded member for Werriwa will be pushing the trade union bosses on his own frontbench to endorse that reform. I hope he does, because it would be an example of the Labor Party standing up to a trade union, which would be a rather rare event. I was quite surprised when the Communications Electrical and Plumbing Union wrote to me, saying:Dear The Hon CostelloOver recent months, the Federal Treasurer, Peter Costello, has authorised the National Competition Council to conduct a review . . . This is not an accurate letter. It was not an accurate campaign. It did not engage in honest assessment of the Australia Post position. It was just another union campaign, as you might imagine. I hope that the representatives of the trade union movement who sit opposite do not join them.In fact, I think that the representatives of the trade union movement who sit opposite, who are sent here to do the work of the trade union movement here in the Australian parliament, should remember that the competition review which we have undergone was actually pursuant to a competition agreement which the previous Labor government had entered into. This was, of course, while they were in government. This review has been followed through as a result of that policy. It was a good policy to engage in competition reviews. I congratulate the Labor Party, when it was in government, for having the foresight to be interested in reform.This is a report which the government will consider, and the government will assess the competing objectives. But I make it clear that, as the NCC has recommended, this is a good report for the bush. The government welcomes the retention of the universal service obligation and the reservation for the letters. The member for Grey will be very pleased to see that, once again, the government looks after rural and regional Australia.991991Evans, Gareth, MPMr GARETH EVANSVD4HoltALP00—My question is again to the Treasurer. Has the Treasurer seen the latest Westpac-Melbourne Institute consumer sentiment figures, released just half an hour ago, which show that consumer confidence in Australia has plummeted in the last month—I repeat: consumer confidence in Australia has plummeted in the last month—by a massive 10 per cent? In the light of the plunge in consumer confidence today, together with the sharp falls in business confidence that were reported yesterday, does the Treasurer accept that the Australian economy is now facing a significantly greater risk of substantial economic slowdown? Don't these figures also demonstrate that Australian business and consumers simply do not believe the government's rhetoric that it has fireproofed the Australian economy from the impact of the Asian economic crisis?991Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—Of course, I have seen the figures and of course I anticipated that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition would ask me a question about it. It is as regular as clockwork: scour the newspapers for any negative story and get up and say `The Australian economy is in trouble.' And if you cannot find any bad news, you try to create some. I will say this to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition: you can take no credit for the downturn in Asia. I know you would have done it if you could have. You take great glee in the downturn in Asia but you can take no credit for it. It was done independently of you. You may well take great delight in that, but the consumer confidence report of Westpac made it quite clear that consumers were influenced by events in Asia. It said that this was the first convincing evidence that the Asian crisis is starting to impact on householders' confidence.Of course it would. If you see the situation in Indonesia on the front pages of the newspapers, of course you would take that into account. The great thing about this is that this was a government that took steps before the Asian crisis to strengthen the Australian economy. Where would we be now if we had had two 10-billion dollar deficits led by the finance minister? Where would we have been now if we had taken the Labor Party's advice against a monetary policy agreement with the Reserve Bank? Where would we have been now if you had taken your legal action to sue us over the monetary agreement which ushered in and locked in low inflation in this country? Where would we be?How can a complacent operation like the Australian Labor Party—which, on the one hand, says it is worried about the situation in Asia—say, `But we refuse to cooperate in reforming the waterfront'? How can you possibly maintain the position that on the one hand you are worried about foreign debt while on the other you are prepared to penalise every exporter in this country by maintaining the cosy arrangements of the MUA? The first thing that you could possibly do would be to come out and condemn your mates. Why can't you do that? Why can't you stand up with some strength?VD4EVANSMr Gareth Evans—My point of order goes to relevance, Mr Speaker. The Treasurer was specifically asked about his claim that he had fireproofed the economy. How is that consistent with a plunge in confidence of the order of magnitude we have seen today? Some fireproofing, Treasurer!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—There is no point of order! The Treasurer is answering the question.CT4Mr COSTELLO—So where do we now find the Australian economy? We have: highest growth in the OECD; lowest inflation for 30 years; interest rates the lowest for 30 years; movement into surplus; labour productivity up; and a budget which will, on current estimations—in the absence of a Labor Party victory—halve the debt to GDP ratio in Australia. All that Labor ever offered Australia was deficit and debt. All that Labor ever offered Australia was high interest rates. This side of the parliament had the foresight to put in place the economic policy which would protect us from external and adverse events, and we were opposed root and branch by the Australian Labor Party.When the Australian Labor Party—and this is a very important point—had all of the stimulus coming out of Asia in 1990-91, do you know what they managed in terms of domestic growth? Recession. You were running recessions, with a stimulatory external position, and who was the minister presiding over 11.3 per cent unemployment? The Leader of the Opposition. The best thing we can say about you is that although you fought us all the way you were unsuccessful and we were able to put in place those policies which would strengthen the Australian economy just at the time it was needed.992992Billson, Bruce, MPMr BILLSON1K6DunkleyLP10—My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. What is the government's response to claims being made that Australia's greenhouse emissions target agreed at Kyoto is too lenient? Is the government aware of the ACF arguing that Australia's emission abatement target should instead be six per cent below 1990 levels by the 2008-2012 accounting period? Is the ACF position supported by other groups in Australia?992Downer, Alexander, MPMr DOWNER4G4MayoLPForeign Affairs10—I thank the honourable member for Dunkley for his question and acknowledge his interest in these issues. He is a former adviser to the Victorian Minister for Conservation and is one of a number of members of this House who stand up for the interests of Australia in international negotiations, not the interests of other countries.It was drawn to my attention by our embassy in Washington that the Australian Conservation Foundation's acting director, Mr Michael Krockenburger, has written to the American and apparently also to the British environmental negotiators criticising Australia's successful outcome in the Kyoto negotiations and asking that that position be reconsidered in the conference of the parties which next meets in November of this year.I think that is regrettable. It is regrettable that an Australian organisation should go out and ask other countries to take a stand against Australia. We would have expected Australians to be on Australia's side. So naturally I regret that, although I would not have thought, frankly, that the British government or the government of the United States of America would be rocked to their foundations by a Mr Michael Krockenburger from the Australian Conservation Foundation.What is interesting is that the government, having achieved such an outstanding success in Kyoto on behalf of Australia, is not only being attacked by the Australian Conservation Foundation, which is a well-known lobby group—and perhaps we would not be surprised that they should take that position—but by the Australian Labor Party, the alternative government in this country.What is interesting about the Labor Party is that they think they can get from here to the next election without any policies. They think they can come in here and abuse and denigrate people but that they themselves can produce not a single page of policy between now and the next election, and they are going to try to achieve it. If you examine what the Labor Party is saying on this whole issue of climate change, you realise that, if the Labor Party were elected at the next election, Australia's successful position at the Kyoto conference would be undone by a Labor government. A Labor government would undo Australia's successfully negotiated position in Kyoto.Admittedly, in a period of three months the Labor Party has had three different positions on this issue. In November the Leader of the Opposition attacked the Australian government saying that we would never achieve anything and that we were isolated in the Kyoto negotiations. We remember it all. He said that we were isolated and that we should be on the side of everybody else and how dare we stand up for Australia. There you were saying that we should go into those negotiations arguing for stabilisation. You said that, didn't you, on 18 November? That was your argument. You said, `Give the game away. Don't stand up for Australia. Go in there and just make sure everybody thinks you're a good fellow,' because being a good fellow is apparently more important than good policy.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order on relevance. If he is going to do this, perhaps he can explain why he said that, unless we got a 30 per cent growth rate, the country was ruined.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—You have finished your point of order. There is no point of order.4G4Mr DOWNER—Mr Speaker, that was November's position. Then in December we had the member for Denison trotting along to Kyoto with all his background briefings of the Australian media and so on during the conference and tut-tutting about the disastrous techniques that we were pursuing. That was his argument. He then told the Melbourne Age that Australia should accept a target of plus five per cent, that that was generous and that Labor would sign such a treaty in government. So we had zero from the so-called Leader of the Opposition and we had plus five per cent from the member for Denison. One month later, in January, we had the Hobart conference of the Labor Party.DT4CREANMr Crean—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. I draw your attention to the length at which the minister is going on and your admonition that they should keep their answers short.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I am sure the minister is conscious of that admonition. The honourable member for Hotham will sit down.4G4Mr DOWNER—You do not want to hear this and that is why you take points of order. The fact is that, if you noticed anything at the Labor Party conference—for those who noticed anything happened there at all except Cheryl Kernot's removal van went into her house—the member for Denison and his cohorts were there arguing against the Australian government's successful outcome in Kyoto and arguing for a reduction in Australia's greenhouse gas emissions between 1990 and the years 2008 and 2012.So what is the Labor Party's position? Let us nail you down. Your position is clear. Your position is that you want to reduce emissions by 2008 to 2012 and, in doing so, you will whack 2½ per cent off our GDP and you will cost a minimum of 90,000 jobs. It is cant and hypocrisy for the Labor Party to say it cares about employment on the one hand while on the other it is going to wipe out tens of thousands of jobs by changing our green house emissions policy and by abandoning our successful outcome in Kyoto if the Labor Party should ever be returned to government. We would like to hear a lot more about where you stand on this issue and plenty of others instead of hiding away behind smut.ZD4HOWARDMr Howard—Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper .Questions to the Speaker993993993Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—After question time yesterday, the honourable member for Hunter asked me whether a facility could be provided for members to allow them to have telephone calls received in their Parliament House offices while they are unattended redirected to their mobile phones. As members would be aware, a range of telecommunication services are available in Parliament House to help members and their staff. Alternative ways of meeting the request of the member for Hunter would, for example, be either to use the Aspen voice message system, to ask callers to ring the member's mobile phone direct, to use the existing call forwarding facilities to divert calls back to a member's electorate office or to advise the switchboard of your whereabouts in the building so that calls can be redirected to those locations.The concern I have with the proposal of the member for Hunter is that call costs associated with mobile phones are substantially higher than normal telephone tariffs. While it would be possible technically to provide in a limited way the facility as suggested, the costs involved would be open-ended and may well be substantial. I have asked the Department of the Parliamentary Reporting Staff to investigate further the issue and to report to the President and me on the issues involved.993993Moylan, Judi, MPMrs MOYLAN4V5PearceLPStatus of Women10—On indulgence, Mr Speaker, I specifically seek your guidance. During my answer to a question today, the member for Prospect was heckling. She said, `Go back to the kitchen.' I was just wanting to know whether that interjection would be included in Hansard .7T4CROSIOMrs Crosio—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order on relevance. How can the minister possibly put out a press release when she does not even know if it is in Hansard ?994Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—There is no point of order. The honourable member will resume her seat. As members would be aware, when there are interjections, unless they are responded to by the minister or member on his or her feet at the time, they are not entered in Hansard .PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, also on indulgence, is it not some form of contempt of this parliament or whatever? I am quite clear what has happened here. The minister has put out a press release entitled `Go back to the kitchen' and has obviously suddenly released that it is probably not in Hansard , because, of course, the `Go back to the kitchen' was in reference to the Liberal Party's policies on things like child care and the other propositions they have been putting forward.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I think the Leader of the Opposition—PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—The minister is known on our side of the House as `Go back to the kitchen Moylan'.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition has made his point and I suggest that he conclude his remarks.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—That is why that was proposed. `Go back to the kitchen Moylan' is your nickname—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I suggest the Leader of the Opposition resume his seat.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—That is your nickname as far as this side of the House is concerned because those are the policies of your party on women.Government members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The members of the government will remain silent. The issuing of a press release is the responsibility of every individual minister and member, not of the chair. Personal Explanations99415:23:00994Brereton, Laurie, MPMr BRERETON5T4Kingsford-SmithALP00—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?5T4Brereton, Laurie, MPMr BRERETON—Yes.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Please proceed.5T4Brereton, Laurie, MPMr BRERETON—The proof Hansard of yesterday evening's adjournment debate records the honourable member for Macquarie (Mr Bartlett) attributing the following to me by way of a direct quote—and this is in respect of Badgerys Creek:We will do an EIS, sure. Then we will ignore it and push ahead regardless of what it says, regardless of what the residents want.As I have never said any such thing, I would ask that Hansard record the honourable member's deceitful misleading of this House.Documents994994Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—Papers are tabled as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members. Details of the papers will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings and Hansard .The schedule read as follows—Australian Industry Development Corporation Act—Australian Industry Development Corporation—Report for 1996-97.Finance—Consolidated financial statements for 1996-97.Motion (by Mr Reith) proposed:That the House take note of the following paper:Finance—Consolidated financial statements for 1996-97.Debate (on motion by Mr Crean) adjourned.Matters of Public Importance99499410000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I have received a letter from the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Tanner) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:The government's approach to improving waterfront productivity. I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—15:25:00995Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TANNERYU5MelbourneALP00—The Australian government is engaged in orchestrating and implementing a plan to bring about mass sackings of existing Australian waterfront workers to be replaced by people organised and trained by the National Farmers Federation. This plan was commenced as soon as it took office, and the American-style union busting that entails involves three stages: firstly, the creation of an alternative waterfront work force; secondly, through that means, the provoking of a dispute on the waterfront in order to ensure that the existing work force takes strike action, preferably prolonged on their part; and, thirdly, the sacking of those workers. That is the game plan.A smokescreen has been put up to justify this game plan. That smokescreen is the National Farmers Federation's setting up of a new stevedoring operation at Webb Dock. It has nothing to do with getting rid of existing wharfies; it is simply pure, honest, normal competition! The Dubai exercise to train people to take the existing jobs of waterfront workers is unrelated—nobody knows anything about it! The government has no involvement with, no knowledge of or no connection with any of these things! The whole exercise is riddled with deceit, duplicity and evasion. It is an outrageous plan for mass sackings of existing private sector workers created, orchestrated and being implemented by the government, trying to pretend that nothing more is happening other than simply the entry of a new stevedoring company.Let us examine some of the facts to see what in fact is going on. In March last year, Derren Gillespie of the Department of Workplace Relations and Small Business wrote a minute to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business (Mr Reith) which included the following:. . . stevedores would need to activate well-prepared strategies to dismiss their work force, and replace them with another quickly in a way that limited the prospect of, for example, the Commission ordering reinstatement of the current work force.If you think this was something the stevedoring companies were pursuing—and that is what the minister has said—have a look at something else:. . . unless the stevedores give signals of more developed thinking, then don't raise it in the meeting.In other words, he was saying to the minister, `This is our plan, but the stevedoring companies aren't up to speed on this approach as yet. So don't raise it in the meeting unless they actually pursue it.' In other words, the strategy for mass sackings was the government's idea and has been from the outset.Chris Corrigan of Patricks has fought tooth and nail in the Supreme Court in Victoria to keep out a third operator, OOCL, a legitimate stevedoring operator, from the Port of Melbourne. Simultaneously, he was doing a deal with the NFF to not only allow them entry to the Port of Melbourne as a third stevedoring operator but also allow them to do it on his territory, land that he was leasing. Is there not a slight contradiction there? There is an explanation: the NFF are not a serious competitor. They are not a threat to Chris Corrigan; they are there to supply him with a new labour force. As a result, in the lease was a restrictive covenant designed to ensure that they would not directly compete with him nor embarrass him in the court proceedings that he had under way at that time.Mr Ferguson of the NFF has been quoted in the BRW as saying that commercial outcomes are not really the primary objective. Paul Hoolihan has said, `This is mainly a training facility.' There have been numerous attempts by the NFF trainees there to provoke violence on the part of the MUA rank and file, including brandishing knives at them and a whole variety of other outrageous activity.The overall picture is very clear. First through Dubai and then through the Webb Dock operation, the attempt is to create an alternative work force that will be deployed on the waterfront as a result of the mass sackings of existing waterfront workers. How many new owners of a business turn up for their first day at work with a truck full of riot shields? The NFF, of course, say that the Dubai operation was nothing to do with them. We had serving Australian soldiers involved in a clandestine operation organised by people with advertised skills in violence and intimidation involving a foreign government designed to displace existing Australian workers who were not on strike, who were not breaching the law, who were complying with their industrial agreements and who were simply going about their normal business.The NFF says, `Oh no, we had nothing to do with that.' It is the old story: failure is an orphan, whereas success has a thousand parents. Yet they were in negotiations with Mr Corrigan in November about setting up at Webb Dock, the same Mr Corrigan who lied about it initially but has admitted that he was centrally involved in Dubai. The person who hired the riot shields for the NFF was none other than Peter Kilfoyle, one of the two principals in the Dubai exercise. From day one at Webb Dock, people who were involved in the Dubai exercise were there working for the NFF. Now, of course—an amazing coincidence!—we see that almost all of the ex-Dubai people have fronted up and are there working at Webb Dock.The NFF say they do not know anything about this. Our position is that it is very clear. This is all part of the big picture orchestrated by the government. Dubai was the first stage. It did not work out and everybody ran for cover. They are salvaging what they can out of it and the real game plan is now proceeding.If there is no connection between the NFF and Dubai, why are we are being asked to believe that there were two strategies, two alternative approaches, both about the same thing—to produce a new work force for the waterfront? They both involved Chris Corrigan. Chris Corrigan was there orchestrating something as bizarre and off the planet as Dubai while, at the same time, negotiating with the NFF and not telling them, `By the way, there is somebody else doing exactly the same thing and I am involved in it too. I thought you might be interested.' I find that a little hard to believe.Talking about credibility and things that are hard to believe, let us have a quick glance at the role of the government in all of this. The government say that they were sitting scratching their navels thinking about waterfront reform and lo and behold people came along and started sending troops to Dubai. The NFF turned up and said, `We are going to set up a new stevedoring company.' The government sat there and gave them a round of applause and said, `This is all fantastic stuff. We do not know anything about, but it is good. Anything slightly dodgy has nothing to do with us, but we think it is all okay.'The reality is very different. Some $1.3 million has been spent on consultancies. The list of consultants is an honour roll of Liberal Party stooges, an honour roll of Liberal Party mates—Gaul, Davies, Webster, Trebeck, Textor and so the list goes on. What did they do? They market tested their strategy. They got the media strategy drawn up all courtesy of the taxpayers.On 18 September—and the minister will not answer questions about this—the minister, along with the disgraced former minister for transport, the member for Hume, Mr Sharp, met with the NFF in Melbourne and discussed with them the contents of the ACIL report. This is the same report that he says cannot be released to the Senate, this House or the Australian public because it is cabinet in confidence and commercial in confidence. But he can discuss its contents with the NFF.How likely is it that Mr Corrigan did not tell the government about Dubai? He is involved in it, he has had previous discussions with the government about sacking his entire work force, he is having detailed discussions with the government about maritime reform, and he does not say anything to them about this bizarre escapade! How likely is it that the Department of Defence did not know what was going into the army newspaper?Let us have a look at the motives of these players. Chris Corrigan, the self-described desperate man, has admitted lying to his workers. He is desperate enough to be involved in something as mad, as provocative and as crazy as Dubai, but apparently he is not desperate enough to try to manage his own company. He makes all sorts of claims about how quickly cars are being driven off the waterfront and about alleged rorts. Where were the bosses? We know where they were. Information from Alan Knight, a former manager at Patricks, is that there are some very serious issues of management inefficiency and management incompetence in Patricks that the minister and Mr Corrigan do not want to talk about.The NFF has been captured by ideological hardliners. After a period in the wilderness they are back. They do not represent all farmers. Many sections of their consistency are clearly very disturbed about this. There are clear rumblings about this in Queensland and Western Australia. People there have indicated that the Maritime Union of Australia and those organisations had a good relationship and their ports were working well.We hear the farmers' purported representative talking about all these rorts and inefficiencies while saying, `We're as pure as the driven snow.' Have they never heard of the rural adjustment scheme—the rural equivalent of the waterfront redundancies that were partly funded by the government? Have they never heard about the Murray-Darling Basin Commission and the immense cost that is going to be involved in cleaning up the mess in the Murray-Darling Basin? If we had world's best irrigation practices, the agricultural use of water from the Murray-Darling would be barely more than half of what it currently is and the current environmental damage would be substantially less. The list could go on.The government is motivated in this exercise by two key things: revenge—they hate wharfies and they have decades of scores to settle; and the desire to spread Australian workplace agreements throughout the entire work force. The Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business, or industrial relations as it used to be called, is there not only orchestrating the dispute but creating it. His role is supposed to be to settle disputes. His role is supposed to be to ensure that disputes do not occur. He is there as the minister for industrial relations actually creating industrial conflict and organising industrial conflict.When you listen to his speech in this debate on the MPI tick off the number of points I have made that he responds to. The answer will probably be none but maybe one or two. His speech will simply be a litany of abuse and a litany of falsehoods about alleged rorts and unproductive activities by the Maritime Union. It was a poignant moment when the former minister for transport, the minister for the nick, Mr Sharp, got up and asked a question about these issues about half an hour ago. A government with its track record—and yet another score on the board coming today from Senator Parer—that actually has the gall to raise these sorts of issues has to have a lot of front.This issue is about ends and means. In spite of what the minister says, Labor achieved very substantial productivity improvements on the waterfront in the late 1980s and early 1990s. More is required but there is a proper way to do it. We need: more genuine competition, which he has done nothing to foster; further improvements courtesy of enterprise bargaining; further approaches to intermodal transport issues; and further development of the non-workplace relations issues which he and the government know absolutely nothing about. These are the sorts of things that need to be put in place to further improve waterfront productivity.Is sending in the troops the right way to deal with these issues? Is mass sackings the right way to deal with these issues? There are productivity issues and workplace issues in many parts of the Australian economy that need to be addressed. The legal profession is one very good example. There are many debates in the legal profession about restrictive work practices. That is a legitimate area of concern for the community. Many small business people, who the minister purports to represent, have a lot of complaints about the cost of lawyers and the time it takes to get redress.But is the minister going to send in the tanks to the Supreme Court? Is he going to get the colonels to sit in instead of the judg es? The answer is no. Nor should he because there is a proper way to deal with those sorts of issues and the way that he and the government are approaching them is not the way that they should be dealt with. That is something that stands to the great shame of this government. It is pursuing a vendetta based on decades of hatred against the Maritime Union, contrary to the interests of this country.Whatever productivity issues are there they should be dealt with in a proper way—in a way that entails negotiation, constructive engagement and the sorts of improvements that were achieved in the late 1980s and early 1990s, contrary to what you say. This government is scapegoating and vilifying a particular group of workers and it is an old Liberal tactic.Do people remember the Greek social security scandal of 1981-82? Do people remember that, in the time of Malcolm Fraser? This is the standard Liberal government approach: you pick a particular group of people who are almost certainly Labor voters, you vilify them, you abuse them in public, you heap vitriol on them, you blacken their name everywhere and, of course, it turns out to have minimal substance in it. This is the Liberal Party we know and the Liberal Party we do not particularly like. This is them performing true to form in this exercise.There is a better way to deal with these issues than orchestrating mass sackings of non-government workers, private sector workers, who were not involved in industrial action prior to this exercise. They have been provoked deliberately to take such action so that they can be dismissed and so that a new waterfront work force can be brought in to replace them. That is what this exercise is all about. It is being orchestrated by the government. It is way over the top. It is out of step with anything that has occurred in the past. It is something that this government should move away from. It should get back to dealing with these issues in a proper, fair and reasonable manner, in a way that can succeed and in a way that can produce the improvements that are required.03:40:00998Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—We welcome the fact that, finally, the opposition has summoned up the courage to raise as a matter of public importance a debate about the waterfront. What is very interesting in the remarks of the shadow minister, the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Tanner), is that he basically never got on to the real issue, the issue which he himself nominated as a matter of public importance, namely, waterfront productivity. It was a struggle for him to talk about waterfront productivity when Australia has a shocking, disgraceful, job destroying level of inefficiencies and productivity on the Australian waterfront for which he and the Labor Party bear a very large share of the responsibility.He talked about what Labor did when it was in office. If ever Labor were to be in office again it would be with the financial support of the MUA, and it would be a green light to the inefficiencies and rorts which have characterised the Australian waterfront for many, many years. When we go back to the years 1989 to 1992 we find that $420 million was spent by the Labor Party to try to fix up the waterfront. I am told that working in the Patricks organisation today are of the order of 290 wharfies who were paid out in the early 1990s with taxpayers' funds to retire. They are back there on the waterfront today still ripping us off, still giving us the inefficiencies which are so typical of the Australian waterfront.We have Australian action in Port Botany being run by people who were paid with taxpayers' money to retire, yet the shadow minister does not even have the ability to condemn industrial action in the port of Sydney today. If there are jobs being lost, they are being lost by irresponsible industrial action today, and you do not even have the capacity to say anything about it. Why not? Because John Coombs and the MUA basically run you people, as they always have. He was even at the ALP conference telling you what resolutions you could pass.The problem we have in Australia is not an ideological issue. The shadow minister says that this is about revenge and Australian workplace agreements. No such thing could be further from the truth. The problem with Australian ports is that their productivity is absolutely abysmal. It is abysmal because of the workplace practices which have been put in place over many years and which have been supported by the Labor Party. For example, if you are a crane driver you are paid for an average week of 50.3 hours. During that 50-odd hours a week you will drive the crane for only 14 hours a week. For that, you will be paid $90,000 a year. These people are taking industrial action today. They want all their allowances and all their overtime put into a base salary. And, on top of that, they want a wage increase of $4,500! It must be the most greedy campaign ever run by the wharfies themselves. Yet the shadow minister fails to condemn it.Let us look at Australia's crane rate. The five port average figure for Australia is 18 lifts an hour. In Sydney, where the industrial action is, they are below the national average. If we compare Australia with anywhere in the world, we are well and truly below a reasonable average international figure. New Zealand, for example, runs at something like 25 lifts an hour; in Australia it is 18. Places like Mozambique—would you believe?—or Manila have better crane rates, better productivity and better reliability than we have here in Australia. That is a disgrace. The reason it affects Australian jobs is that we are an island continent. Nearly all of our trade has to go across the Australian wharves. So we must have an efficient waterfront so that we can compete against everybody else from whom we are attempting to obtain business.Let us take, for example, the very good quote early in this dispute from a bloke who runs the stockfeed business in the Riverina—Jack Schmidt. His business supplies stockfeed to the dairy industry in Japan. He said that one of the problems they have in competing against the Americans in supplying the Japanese market is that we are at a 40 to 50 per cent cost disadvantage because of our stevedoring costs. What that means in practice is that all those businesses—farming businesses, agricultural businesses and small businesses in towns in the Riverina area—are worse off because of the inefficiencies of the Australian waterfront.Today we have a dispute in Sydney. I gave the example of Port Botany today which demonstrates in a very practical way how this current lack of productivity is affecting Australians. There is a business which in recent times started up supplying bagged cement to several island nations in our region. They were going quite well and they were starting to win a bit of the market. It is a high volume but low cost sort of product. Every dollar is very important when you are in a competitive business. They started to lose business and they found out that the reason they had been losing business was that the New Zealanders were able to supply the product to these island nations at a lower price. The reason for that was that stevedoring costs in New Zealand were based on the fact that cement was loaded at 400 pallets per shift but in Sydney they were loaded at the rate of 230 pallets per shift. It is a very simple, practical example, the end result of which was that we were not competitive. So the Australian business lost everything to the New Zealand business and we lost the jobs and the export income that we otherwise would have had.The Labor Party complains about foreign debt. One of the reasons that we have a high foreign debt is that we have lost all these opportunities to export more because of the inefficiencies on the Australian waterfront. You can measure productivity through crane rates, for example, looking at Australia versus Mozambique or Manilla. If you can compare Australia in terms of reliability, that is another benchmark. The level of industrial disputes on the Australian waterfront is, according to official figures, approximately 10 times the national average. Someone said to me at the start of this dispute, `Oh, there might be industrial action.' In a sense, you have to got be joking; there is industrial action on the Australian waterfront virtually every day of the week. This is the way in which they run the waterfront, and not just for terms and conditions. These guys take industrial action at the drop of a hat. We had the example before Christmas, again in Sydney, where the wharfies were complaining that they wanted the billiards table recovered. What was the negotiation? The negotiation was: if we do not get our billiards table recovered, we are going to take industrial action.In the maintenance of diesel engines, again in Sydney, we had a classic case again of inefficiencies and lack of productivity. This is a case direct from P&0's Botany container terminal where the MUA has insisted that its members should rebuild the diesel forklift engines in need of overhaul. Unfortunately, it costs more to maintain and repair some of these engines than it does to buy a new one. So the company wanted to buy new engines because, firstly, it would be cheaper and, secondly, the new engines would be more reliable than the old ones. They announced that they were going to do this. What was the MUA's reaction? They were picketing the maintenance shop, would you believe. It is absolutely incredible. This is typical of the attitude. I can say to the House, in fairness, that they finally allowed the company to sell the five old engines in the maintenance shop to a second-hand dealer. The only reason they did was that the media got hold of the story and exposed it. The MUA was so embarrassed that they decided they would let the second-hand dealer come in and take the old diesel engines.But this is not a one-off situation. This is what happens virtually every day of the week. This is how they run the waterfront. That is why I say this is not a question about ideology; this is a question about why we can't have a waterfront that is as efficient as anywhere else. Why can't we have an efficient waterfront that will allow us to create more jobs in the Australian economy? What are the solutions to this? Part of the solution is to have some genuine competition on the waterfront. One of the embarrassing aspects for the Labor Party on this issue is that before the issue started they had just had their Labor Party conference and they passed this resolution—YU5TANNERMr Tanner—The NFF is not genuine competition. You must be joking.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—This is the classic interjection from a Labor Party frontbencher. He says, `Oh, the farmers, they are not allowed to be wharfies. Oh, no, that is not possible.'YU5TANNERMr Tanner—They don't want to be.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—Let my shadow answer this because we saw John Coombs on 60 Minutes on TV a couple of weeks ago. It was what we call in politics a nice colour piece. It was the personal side of John Coombs, and it showed him up on his farm in country New South Wales. Fair enough; he is entitled to have a farm. And he grows chardonnay grapes. Chardonnay Coombs, they call him. So on the weekends he is a farmer, but during the week, as a wharfie, he is running a campaign damaging Australia's economic interests because his line is that farmers are not allowed to be wharfies.YU5TANNERMr Tanner—That's a lie. You're a liar.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—But wharfies like John Coombs, they are allowed to be farmers.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order!WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—It is people like you—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—The minister will resume his seat.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—What is a lie? That he is not a farmer?10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—The honourable member for Melbourne will withdraw that.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—I would like to know what you say is a lie. What is it?YU5TANNERMr Tanner—You said that John Coombs's position is that farmers cannot be wharfies.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—That's right.YU5TANNERMr Tanner—That's a lie.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—The honourable member for Melbourne will withdraw that statement.YU5TANNERMr Tanner—I withdraw.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—The shadow minister has demonstrated my point beautifully, because his interjection was, `Oh, the farmers are not genuine wharfies.' It has nothing to do with John Coombs's, mate. In a sense, it has nothing to do with John Coombs.Mr Tanner interjecting—WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—Who is on trial today, mate, is you—you and the Labor Party, and you and your resolution. I would be interjecting too, if I were you, because it is so embarrassing. Before this dispute started you passed a resolution in which you said Labor will—YU5TANNERMr Tanner—Yes, support competition.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—By encouraging greater competition through new stevedoring operations and performance requirements in terminal leases. Within two weeks, somebody starts up a stevedoring business and because they have not been approved by John Coombs, you, as the little spokesperson for the MUA in the federal parliament, are up here attacking the right of somebody to start a business.This reveals all. The farmers want to start up a business, and why shouldn't they? The farmers are dudded every day of the week that they have got produce going out through a container, so they reckon they can set up a more competitive system. Quite frankly, this is a free country. If somebody wants to set up a new business because they reckon they can do it better than the existing wharfies, why shouldn't they be able to?If the wharfies are so good and they are so worried about the competition, why don't they react like everybody else in the Australian economy—namely, say, `There is a bit of competition, so we will be more efficient wharfies'? Instead of doing what anybody else would do, they are running a national campaign of vengeance against Patrick and against the farmers because they have got the hide, in your opinion, to start up a new and effective business.To show you how effective they can be, it costs roughly $200 to move a box in Melbourne and the farmers are aiming to do it for half the price. I do not know whether they will reach half the price. Let us say they get half of it, $50 savings per box. At a million boxes through the Port of Melbourne that is $50 million a year into the pockets of exporters, into the pockets of farmers and into the pockets of small business people, and that means more jobs for Australia.I am pleased the embarrassed Labor Party has finally raised this issue. They were shamed into it yesterday because they never got around to asking a question and I gave them a bit of a pummelling during question time. So we are pleased to have it up today. But nothing can erase the fact that the Labor Party is putting this motion today for one reason only: they are bound hand and foot to the MUA. They could not give two hoots about the rest of the country. They are supporting a monopoly of rorts and privileges for the working elite—wharfies on $80,000 to $90,000 a year who would not do 30 hours a week in a good week. That is what is supported by you, Mr Beazley and the shadow minister, who will get up and talk about AWAs and every other bit of nonsense. The fact is in the end you are supporting the MUA and you deserve to be condemned for it. (Time expired)15:55:001001McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN5I4CanberraALP00—In an interjection of mine, Mr Deputy Speaker, you picked me up for an unparliamentary remark, which I will not repeat. I was provoked to it because the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business (Mr Reith) deliberately set out to give a false impression.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—The member should not allow himself to be provoked.5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN—Indeed, and I will not again. I am simply referring to the fact that the minister set out deliberately to create a false impression that we had avoided this debate when everybody in this place knows that he gagged a debate on this matter last week, which the member for Melbourne (Mr Tanner) proposed. It was clearly, distinctly untrue and known by him clearly and distinctly to be untrue, yet he still said it in here. It is true that I called it something I should not have, but it was untrue and he knew it was untrue when he said it. Let me just leave it like that.A lot of the other things that he said were untrue and he knew they were untrue when he said them and he deliberately proceeded to do so because the only alternative was to respond to the series of points raised by the member for Melbourne—to none of which he has a response, to none of which did he provide a response and to none of which did he intend to respond. In fact, the member for Melbourne predicted very accurately what we would get—a diatribe of abuse of maritime workers, their organisation and the fact that they are doing two things. Firstly, they are working in accordance with their agreement in all ports but Sydney, where they now are taking industrial action under your law—perfectly, lawfully, in accordance with your law—WI4REITHMr Reith—Do you support them? Do you support their industrial action?5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN—I support the right of every Australian worker to act under the law. They do not need my agreement. They do not need your agreement. They do not need anybody else's approval. They have a legal—Mr Reith interjecting—ET4BEVISMr Bevis—You said it was lawful.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! The member for Brisbane.5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN—It is lawful. It is a legal right that they are taking and every Australian worker has a right to take it, and I support their right to take it. That is unequivocal.The member for Melbourne's matter of public importance is about the approach to waterfront productivity. There is no debate about the fact that our waterfront should be more productive, and we have had a lot of discussion about the best way to go about it. There is also no debate that it is significantly more productive than it was. The Bureau of Transport and Communications Economics made that clear. I listened for the minister to refer to that report, but perhaps you still have not read it. Let me recommend it to you because it did say that Australia was gaining $200 million a year in improved productivity on the waterfront as a result of those reforms. So that is fairly substantial.How much extra per year are we gaining as a result of reforms made since March 1996? Nothing, not one cent, because the minister has deliberately set out to stall the cooperative process of reform that delivered us that $200 million a year because he does not like a cooperative approach. He wants confrontation. It is typical of the approach to industrial relations, not just on the waterfront but throughout. It is a preference for confrontation over cooperation. It is support for the most militant employers over those who are prepared to be cooperative. It is a focus on political management in industrial matters rather than industrial outcomes. It is about the Liberal Party's interest instead of the national interest. It is part of a pattern of seeking to force Australian workers from collective to individual bargaining. That is the pattern of behaviour and it is exactly what is happening.Of course, this government would never seek to force anybody into an AWA; it is a matter of choice. That is why the cabinet made the decision that, on the waterfront, people could have a Defence contract only if everybody working under it was on an AWA. They would never force anybody, but it was a condition of the contract. After the contract had been let, they said, `Let's see how we can provoke a dispute on the waterfront. Let's see how we can break the collective rights of people on the waterfront and force them into individual contracts.' So the cabinet said, `We will use the government's purchasing power as a lever. We will make it a condition of the Defence contract that has been awarded that everybody who works under it has to have an AWA.'But, of course, they would not ever force anybody into an individual contract if they preferred to be collective. They just make it a condition. There is a subtle distinction, like the distinction between `deceit' and `deceitful'. It is very subtle and any normal Australian using the English language might be excused for missing it. So we have this pattern when two employers take different approaches to reform: the one that seeks the cooperative approach gets abuse from this government and the one that seeks confrontation gets support.3J4SAWFORDMr Sawford—That is what happened in Sealand.5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN—We have the most efficient waterfront in Australia for containers operated by Sealand. When they said, `We want to work cooperatively with the union. We are getting satisfactory outcomes,' they were abused by this minister who says, `They are inefficient. How would they know?' Sealand wants to be cooperative.On the other hand, the company whose own former management come out and say, `This is a company which is creating inefficiency by its inefficient management practices,' has the enthusiastic support of this government, because they are investing in confrontation. Millions of dollars of taxpayers' money has been spent to buy them strategic documents that the parliament is not allowed to see because it is cabinet-in-confidence and commercial-in-confidence. But it is all right to show them to the NFF; it is, I suppose, because they are represented in the cabinet. Talk about who has a seat at the cabinet: Donald McGauchie can see cabinet-in-confidence documents but the parliament cannot. It is not surprising; it is only surprising that it was admitted.We find that this fits a pattern. In the coal industry, when employers said there is an alternative strategy to the confrontation strategy of Rio Tinto, the majority of coal companies said, `We want to go down a cooperative route for negotiations.' What did they get from this minister? They got abuse and provocation, while the companies seeking to pursue the path of confrontation have had the minister's enthusiastic support. We see him running up and down the sidelines with his rattle, cheering them on.The minister continually supports the most militant. He never focuses on resolving industrial disputes; he intervenes when disputes might be resolved by seeking to convince the Industrial Relations Commission it should not arbitrate to resolve them and that the disputes should continue. `It is in the national interest that we have this dispute.'We talk a lot about industrial disputes. I have been in and around industrial relations a long time. Maybe other people have a different view, but I have never found an industrial dispute that did not have two sides. If there is no disagreement, there is no dispute. If the parties are in agreement, there is no dispute. There is no industrial dispute without two sides. Sometimes an industrial dispute is started by employers because they think an industrial dispute fits their strategy, particularly if they have a replacement work force being trained that they could take on. Sometimes people want industrial disputes.We have, however, a continuing and important issue of broader public policy underlying this question about the approach to improve productivity not just on the waterfront but around this country. It is this continuing concern about forcing people from the pursuit of their collective rights onto individual contracts, and the attempt to do it is proliferating. It is no wonder that the representative body of government—employers and unions internationally, the ILO—has found that the Workplace Relations Act gives primacy to individual over collective relations and is in breach of international best practice of workers rights. It is okay to talk about international best practice and benchmarks for everybody but workers—workers should not have what governments, unions and employers around the world consider international best practice; they should have whatever this minister wants to force down their throats.We have here on the waterfront a clear conspiracy by this government and by the most militant employers in this country to try to break the collective rights of people and to force them onto individual contracts. The government say they know nothing about it. We are expected to believe that this matter is proceeding exactly in accordance with the government's desire, with the government's timetable, with the strategy they paid millions of dollars for and with their electoral timetable and preference. By absolute coincidence they know nothing about it. (Time expired)16:05:001003Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEYSJ4O'ConnorLP10—We are not surprised at the efforts of the member for Canberra (Mr McMullan) in this debate on the waterfront. This morning the Transport Workers Union in Canberra announced on the ABC that it is going to have a clean-out of parliamentarians in Canberra: sack the local leader, announce the new leader; and you do not think that, when they say `Jump', you do not say `How high?' Don't worry, the member for Canberra would have been very conscious of that when he convinced you to reconstitute this matter of public importance that you say was gagged last week.You came into the parliament last week determined to move a dissent motion on the new Speaker. You knew, as everybody knows in this parliament, that when you did it you would lose your MPI. You thought, `What can we chuck in today just to confuse the government as to our true intentions?' So don't give us the myth and the rubbish about our gagging your debate. You could have put it on the next day but you decided to put it on today. No doubt the member for Canberra has got a bit twitchy about what he heard on the ABC this morning. Don't tell us about how your party works—we know.The member for Canberra told us that we should be addressing broader public policy. When any one sector within the Australian productive process claims more than a fair share of that process or deliberately adds to the overall cost, then everyone else suffers and gets less: consumers pay higher prices and exporters receive lower returns, which often results in their becoming totally uncompetitive and losing the sale entirely—as the minister explained happened in cement sales company case. This results in not only reduced employment, lost jobs and even lost union dues but also lost government revenues, which means that governments have fewer opportunities to help the general community. That is pretty broad policy. We have a major political party standing up in this place putting the case for a monopoly and for vested interest, at the cost of everybody else in the community. We were told about Sealand being the best in Australia. That might be true, but it is no recommendation because Australia is the worst in the world.We talk about the costs of the inefficiencies. Let us listen to what a fellow named John Carroll, of Camden—he signed his own name, I would say with some courage—wrote to the Daily Telegraph last week. He wrote about his experience. He went down to the waterfront to fix the airconditioning on some forklifts on behalf of his employer. This is what he wrote:My job at the time was to service the air conditioning units on the forklifts, a job which would normally have taken only a few days to complete. The waterfront union insisted that I was a union member and be paid a supervisor's wages, which meant I doubled my usual pay and could not touch any tools.In order to do the job I needed a mate (wharf labourer) who would provide all the labour, another union regulation. I had to wait almost two days for one to be rostered to me from a pool.So that was two days when he did not work. He continued:He did not arrive to start work each day until after 9am, he knocked off at 10 for a smoko (half-hour break), stopped for lunch at 12.30 for one hour and finished the day at 3pm.. . . . . . . . .It took me almost two weeks to complete what should have been two days work at great expense to the stevedoring company I was contracting to.There is this myth on the other side that the buck stops with the stevedoring company. No, it does not. It stops with all those other people who are affected. People talk about container rates, but please remember that this cost flows over into freight rates. It is a known fact that every shipping company coming to Australia increases their freight rates quite substantially, for the purpose of insuring themselves against the hassles, the costs and all the other associated problems that arise if they come into these ports.I want to tell the House about another true story given to me first-hand. Hardie's fibrolite company used to make—and I underline the past tense—fibrolite pipe in Rivervale in Perth, I think in the electorate of Swan. Their executives came to me and said, `Can you help us? We are operating three days a week because that's the extent of the local demand. Our Asian subsidiaries are operating two and three shifts, can't meet the demand'—demand was growing in Asia at the time—`and they want us to fill some of the orders, but we've got to meet the price. So we did our sums and our sums said that as manufacturers, using Australian workers, we could meet the price.' But the question mark was freight rates.Their Asian subsidiaries said to them, `This will be no problem; we will send you XYZ shipping company. They cart for us all round Asia at Xc per kilometre, and they're very competitive.' The company said, `Thank you. We'll be able to make a profit. We'll be able to increase the work for our employees.' What happened? XYZ were contacted and said, `We wouldn't be seen dead in Australia. We are a cost-competitive, price-competitive company because one of our rules is to never be seen dead in Australia. We wouldn't go there.' In the end, they did not get the contract and, as I said, history records that they are not even in business now.They could not get the work because they could not get the most competitive shipping companies to come here. Of course, it has been reported in the papers that Australia is charged freight rates equivalent to those for a shipping company entering a war zone. When I questioned a shipping operative some years ago, when that was published, as to whether that was true, he said, `Yes, it's true. The problem is, in a war zone we lose a ship occasionally, but going to Australia, we never know when we're going to get them back.' Those were the words he used. Do we think that doesn't hurt?I sat here and listened carefully to two speeches. One would think that if you were defending people like the MUA, you would take your time to list their virtues, to tell us why there is no need for change. Did they do that? No. We got a lot of gobbledegook; we got a lot of philosophy. As I said, the member for Canberra did his best to protect his job. I do not know where he stands with the TWU clean-out that is going to occur here in Canberra. But this is the truth. I quote what the member for Gellibrand, Mr Willis, said in the Hansard of 1 June 1989:Through various reports commissioned by this Government, it is now common knowledge that Australia has been poorly served by its shipping and waterfront industries. The gross inefficiencies—today they say they are minor inefficiencies, and what are we really worried about—which have been allowed to develop in these industries have restricted our economic growth, reduced our living standards—he's with me—and impaired our capacity to develop export markets.They tried something; they thought they would buy their way out. I love this bit about negotiation. There are always two sides to the story down on the waterfront: the MUA's and the MUA's. The reality is that that is dumb. You tried something. It cost $420 million and it did not work. If the department of transport says there have been some improvements, gosh, it must have been dreadful in those days! All the evidence shows that it is very bad today.We have come up with a pretty simple proposition: maybe someone else should have a go. The farmers say, `We're prepared to do it.' When it came to loading live sheep and the wharfies got involved in a dispute on behalf of the meatworkers, and the farmers said, `We'll go down and load the sheep', the first thing that was noticeable was that they loaded the sheep in about a third of the time, if not less. Now they say they will do it again. Who are the people who are going to do it? Yes, there are some retired soldiers. Why aren't they entitled to get a job when they retire from the services? There is this conspiracy theory, which is quite remarkable, about people being sent away to be trained. You would think the question there was: why did they have to be sent away to be trained? The simple reason was that they could not get trained to do the job in Australia without the permission of the MUA.We talk about competition. Coombs says it is okay to grow grapes in competition with farmers, but it is not proper for farmers to compete with his members. Of course they should. They should do it in the national interest. Every political party in Australia should be saying, `We'll give this a go.' Nowhere else is it a conspiracy to lease someone a bit of property, let them work on it or train on it. (Time expired)16:15:001005Campbell, Graeme, MPMr CAMPBELLCF4KalgoorlieIND00—It is very depressing in this House to hear the government claiming that the waterfront is one of Australia's great problems. Clearly it is not. It is just another example of making straw men which are knocked down. The member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) regaled us with facts. Unfortunately, his facts are not really facts; they are convenient facts.Let us look at the waterfront and what is actually happening. Take the port of Dampier in Western Australia as an example.Motion (by Mr Reith) agreed to:That the business of the day be called on.Committees1006100610061006Reid, Bruce, MPMr REIDVT4BendigoLP10—In accordance with standing order 28A, on behalf of the Committee of Members' Interests, I present the report on the operations of the committee for 1997. (Quorum formed)Tariff Proposals100616:19:001006Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSSGT4Wide BayNPCustoms and Consumer Affairs10—I move:Excise Tariff Proposals Nos. 1 and 2 (1998)Customs Tariff Proposal Nos. 1 and 2 (1998)The tariff proposals which I have just tabled contain alterations to the Excise Tariff Act 1921 and the Customs Tariff Act 1995. Excise Tariff Proposal Nos 1 and 2 (1998) and Customs Tariff Proposal No. 1 (1998) place before parliament, as required by law, alterations published in Commonwealth gazettes during the recent parliamentary recess.Excise Tariff Proposal No. 1 (1998) formally places before parliament proposed alterations to the Excise Tariff Act 1921 which were notified in Commonwealth of Australia Gazette No. S43 on 30 January 1998. The alterations remove uncertainty in the implementation of measures to address fuel substitution practices.On 31 January 1998, the package of nine acts dealing with fuel substitution minimisation commenced. The package contained a new classification structure for petroleum products under item 11 of the schedule to the Excise Tariff Act 1921.Prior to the commencement of the package, technical defects were identified in the new structure of item 11 which may have created misunderstandings in relation to the excise liability of some petroleum products which are intended for certain uses, in particular petroleum products normally for use as fuels which are intended for use otherwise than as fuels.The technical amendments contained in this proposal remove uncertainty as to the coverage of the tariff provisions. They do not widen the intended scope of the fuel substitution minimisation legislation.The alterations contained in Customs Tariff Proposal No. 1 (1998) and Excise Tariff Proposal No. 2 (1998) were notified in Commonwealth of Australia Gazette No. GN7 on 18 February 1998. The changes reduce the customs and excise rates of duty on aviation gasoline from 31 January 1998.In August 1997, the government tabled in this House Customs Tariff Proposal No. 5 (1997) and Excise Tariff Proposal No. 3 (1997) proposing a reduction of 0.6c per litre to 17.403c in the rate of duty on aviation gasoline from 3 July 1997.The Customs Tariff (Fuel Rates Amendments) Act 1997 and Excise Tariff (Fuel Rates Amendments) Act 1997, which were passed by both houses in the last session, came into effect on 31 January 1998. These acts have had the effect of superseding the reductions in duty on aviation gasoline introduced in July 1997. Customs Tariff Proposal No. 1 (1998) and Excise Tariff Proposal No. 2 (1998) reinstate the 0.6c per litre reduction in the customs and excise duty on aviation gasoline. Customs Tariff Proposal No. 1 (1998) also contains alterations to the table of paired customs subheadings and excise items in section 19 of the Customs Tariff Act 1995. This section provides the duty nexus between customable and excisable revenue goods by allowing customs rates of duty to be adjusted in line with movements in the excise rate of duty.The alterations contained in this proposal are of an administrative nature and result again from amendments contained in the Customs Tariff (Fuel Rates Amendments) Act 1997. The alterations amalgamate the table existing prior to 31 January 1998 with the new aspects introduced by the customs fuel rates legislation. The new table also contains consequential amendments to excise item equivalents for alcoholic beverages which were amended by the Excise Tariff Amend ment Act (No. 1) 1997. Customs Tariff Proposal No. 2 (1998) is new and contains an alteration to schedule 4 to the Customs Tariff Act 1995. The new concession will operate from 1 March 1998.At its meeting on 27 August 1997, the ministerial committee on the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games agreed to introduce certain import concessions for the 2000 Olympic and Paralympic Games and associated test events. As a result, amendments to the temporary imports provisions have been finalised and a new passenger concession by-law for unaccompanied baggage for Olympic family members has been implemented by my department.This proposal creates a new item in schedule 4 to allow non-personal and non-commercial goods to be imported into Australia duty free by Olympic Games family members. The reality of the Olympics and associated events is that members of the Olympic family will bring with them a variety of goods which are to be used in a non-commercial manner. These will include give-aways, hospitality samples and other consumables that will be used for team promotion and for cultural and hospitality activities. It is intended that the concession will not apply to tobacco and alcoholic products or extend to any importations of a commercial nature. Similar concessions have been offered at the Nagano Winter Olympics and by host countries at previous summer and winter Olympic and Paralympic games. Summaries of the alterations contained in these proposals have been prepared and are being circulated for the information of honourable members. I commend the proposals to the House.Debate (on motion by Mr Bevis) adjourned.Bills1007r3971007Bill returned from Main Committee with amendments; certified copy of bill and schedule of amendments presented.Ordered that the bill be taken into consideration forthwith.Main Committee's amendments—(1) Schedule 2, item 38, page 22 (line 5), omit "or a patent attorney".(2) Schedule 2, item 38, page 22 (line 9), omit "and patent attorney ".Amendments agreed to.Bill, as amended, agreed to.1007Bill (on motion by Mr Truss)—by leave—read a third time.Bills1007r3861007Bill returned from Main Committee with amendments, appropriation message having been reported; certified copy of bill and schedule of amendments presented.Ordered that the bill be taken into consideration forthwith.Main Committee's amendments—(1) Clause 15, page 15 (lines 4 to 7), omit subclause (1), substitute:(1) The Code Registrar has: (a) the functions and powers conferred or expressed to be conferred on the Code Registrar under the Gas Pipelines Access (Commonwealth) Law or under the National Gas Agreement; and (b) any other functions and powers conferred on the Code Registrar by unanimous resolution of the relevant Ministers of the scheme participants.(2) Schedule 1, item 14, page 28 (line 28), omit "consistent", substitute "not inconsistent".(3) Schedule 1, item 27, page 31 (before line 11), insert:(1A) In this Division: industry code of practice means a code regulating the conduct of participants in an industry towards other participants in the industry or towards consumers in the industry. minor variation , in relation to an authorization, is a single variation that does not involve a material change in the effect of the authorization.Note: The heading to section 87D is altered by omitting "Definition " and substituting "Definitions ". (4) Schedule 1, item 48, page 37 (line 32), after "single", insert "minor".(5) Schedule 1, item 48, page 38 (lines 1 to 4), omit subsection (9).Amendments agreed to.Bill, as amended, agreed to.1008Bill (on motion by Mrs Sullivan)—by leave—read a third time.Bills1008r451Billsr450Billsr456BillsBills1008Debate resumed from 5 March, on motion by Dr Kemp:That the bill be now read a second time.16:30:001008McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN5I4CanberraALP00—The opposition has already placed on the public record its position on these bills—the Public Service Bill 1997 [No. 2] , the Public Employment (Consequential and Transitional) Amendment Bill 1997 [No. 2] and the Parliamentary Service Bill 1997 [No. 2] —both in this chamber and in lengthy debates in the Senate. We regard the government's proposals as going far beyond simplification of a cumbersome 76-year-old piece of legislation.Everybody agrees that the legislation needs to be reformed. In fact, it has been acknowledged even by the government that the process of reform was initiated by the previous government and that simplification is desirable. But we see these bills as, in fact, imposing radical changes on the Public Service, changes which will be to its detriment and to the detriment of the services it provides to governments and, more importantly, through them to the public.Disproportionately, the Australians who are dependent on the services provided by government are the Australians in greatest need. It is they who are principally the con sumers and beneficiaries of the services supplied by government and the policies developed by government. To the extent that changes are to the detriment of those services, they are to the detriment of the interests of the Australians in greatest need whose interests we principally serve here.The opposition believes the bills go too far in enhancing the powers of departmental secretaries and turning Public Service agencies into independent entities. They do not go far enough in protecting the independence and professionalism of the Public Service and the conditions of service of public servants. As an opposition, we sought to redress this imbalance by moving a large number of amendments to the bill. Many of these were successful in the Senate. We did not seek, as asserted by the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service (Dr Kemp), to dismantle the bill, nor were we guilty of short-sighted obstruction. We made a genuine effort to preserve and protect those features of the Australian Public Service which have contributed to the high regard in which it is held at home and abroad.In the event, with the success of a large number of our amendments, we believe we succeeded. Consequently, we supported the bill in the form in which it was amended by the Senate. It did not contain all the amendments which we sought, and it was not the bill we would have introduced if we were the government, but it was a bill sufficiently amended to meet our principal concerns and to preserve and protect those most fundamental features of the Australian Public Service while achieving the necessary efficiency changes. It was a bill which we felt we could support.At that time, at the conclusion of the Senate debate, we publicly urged the government to resist the all too predictable knee-jerk reaction of outright rejection and to accept the Senate amendments in the constructive spirit in which they were made. But, of course, we need not have bothered. The knee-jerk reaction won out. I suspect, more than that, the political agenda of the government won out: the desire to have double dissolution triggers other than Wik to divert the focus of attention from the prospect of a double dissolution election on that bill, which all Australians know is a very undesirable outcome but which is one the government wants. The government is trying to put some veils between it and that outcome. This issue had three veils. It is now down to two. This is the dance of the four veils. We are now down to three.What the minister said in his response to these amendments when they came back from the Senate was that the government rejects outright those amendments. That is very interesting. There were 50 Senate amendments, but nothing—not a comma, not a word, not a sub-part—in those 50 amendments was found acceptable by the government. Not one. It was not that they said, `We've gone through all these and we think 48 of them are wrong. Two of them have got something going for them.' It was 50 out of 50. The government said, `No, not one piece of this can we accept.' The government was never interested in even considering the amendments. I have some grave doubt whether the minister even read them.They do not want negotiation. They certainly do not want compromise. It is confrontation which is in their political interest, but not in the national interest. They are also, I imagine, banking on keeping the bills in their original form if they are successful in their strategy and it results in them winning an election and being able to put these bills through in their undiluted ideological form following a double dissolution at a joint sitting. Therefore, for those two reasons, they have no desire for and no interest in compromise. Sadly, therefore, we find ourselves with a bill that ought not be at the centre of this sort of public confrontation between the parties; not that we do not have disagreements about the way the Public Service should operate and be administered—that is part of the democratic process.The Public Service in this country serves governments of either political colour. Its structure and its administration are of concern to both opposition and government. It is one area where, if reforms are to be enduring, they must be acceptable to the opposition as well as to the government. Not that we expect this government to put in place exactly what we would wish—that is, of course, absurd; there is nothing in our political process likely to lead to that outcome—but it has got to be within the parameters of acceptability; and this bill is not.The government will, of course, claim that it was open to compromise, and demonstrated this by accepting the recommendations of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts. I have to say that JCPA did improve the bill—there is no question about that. We have gone from having a bill that was absolutely dreadful to one with which we simply disagree. That is a substantial improvement. But the opposition made it clear, in joining the JCPA consensus in its report and in its recommendations, that we did not believe those recommendations went far enough towards remedying the defects in the government's proposals. We indicated at that time that we would go further in seeking to amend the bills in the Senate. While we did not achieve all the changes we sought, in the event we were able to support the bills in the form in which they were amended by the Senate.In speaking in this debate on these bills—this is the second time we have dealt with these bills—I wish also to address the government's position, as made clear in this legislation and in the minister's public statements, that the government's industrial relations prescriptions for the private sector are equally appropriate in the public sector. I have to say that is not a view that I share. It is true that we should seek to have standards as similar as reasonably possible, but there are fundamental differences between the mode of operation and the motivation and the circumstances of the public sector and the private sector. These differences should not just be reflected in the industrial relations arrangements, but also in other parts of the arrangements for the employment, occupation and working conditions of people in the Public Service.This concept that the Public Service should be subject to the same workplace arrangements as apply to the rest of the work force is dangerously simplistic. It is one of those ideological nostrums that you can develop in comfort in a university, but when you come out of it and into the government you need more calculation and consideration of the consequences of what you are doing.If the minister actually believes that this bill—as he said in the second reading speech—`is all about making the Public Service more efficient and effective and delivering better service to both the Government and to the public', he would do well to ponder the words of Dr Michael Keating in his article in the November-December edition of the Australian Quarterly. Dr Keating is very critical of the government's policy that pay for all agencies funded by the budget should be linked to improvements achieved in the productive performance of each agency, and he is critical of its refusal to supplement any pay increases in the public sector by increased budget funding. He maintains this policy is flawed because of its failure to recognise the fundamental differences between the private and the public sectors. Some things have changed since December, but that general question of the failure to recognise the fundamental differences between the private and the public sectors remains the same.Dr Keating is warning that the approach the government is taking `risks damaging morale and consequently performance, rather than enhancing it.' He maintains that the `policy the government is pursuing will over time destroy the public sector and will greatly reduce the value of the services they produce.' This is a warning from someone who was a senior public servant in this country, and a respected one who served governments of both political persuasions very well. He was appointed to be the head of a department by the previous Liberal government, continued in that capacity under the Labor government and for some time under this government. He is a distinguished Australian whose views on the public sector should be heeded. That does not necessarily mean he is the fount of all wisdom and that everything he says has to be agreed with, but I think the government really ought to give it serious consideration. He is warning that we are going down a dangerous path. And I think he is absolutely correct: we are going down a dangerous and worrying path.Regrettably, however, this is the dangerous and worrying path down which the government is heading. Its so-called Public Service reforms do not portend greater efficiency and better services; they are in fact a serious threat to the nature of the public sector which has served our democracy so well. The Westminster system in its Australian adaptation depends for its success upon, amongst other things, a public service that is committed and respected by both sides of politics.It is true that you cannot get a good public service, you do not get commitment, by passing a law. You get commitment because of the motivation of people who come to work for government. They make a decision that they want their career to be in the service of their community and that they are interested in matters of public policy and wish to contribute to enhancing the delivery of those public services to other Australians. It is that motivation which has delivered at the federal level—since Federation but certainly in my experience over the last 20 or so years—a high quality public service serving governments of different political persuasions extremely well.If you change those arrangements to strengthen the power of ministers over heads of departments and strengthen the power of heads of departments over the individual men and women who work in those departments, you do start to create a framework in which some of those values and aspirations that led people into the Public Service come under threat and in which some of those long-cherished traditions of Australian public service cannot be delivered in the objective manner to which we have become accustomed and on which our political process depends. Regrettably, this is the direction in which the government is going, and the opposition will not be assisting the government along that path.I have refrained from going over all the detail of things we dealt with in the original speeches on the second reading of this bill, which was not so long ago. I do not think we need to have a debate here as if all of that had never happened and therefore repeat all the arguments. In opposition, I suppose it is a bit more fun than it is in government, because you have more time to pursue those things and feel less pressure of time, but it does not enhance the quality of our public discourse to repeat all the things we have said before. So I will not go to what I think are the core elements of our concern in the detail set out in the second reading debate when we dealt with this bill last year. It was dealt with in more detail in the Senate, and my colleague Senator Faulkner will do that again in the Senate debate.I simply make it clear that we will be opposing these bills at both the second and the third readings. We will not be reintroducing our amendments here. That would simply be a waste of the House's time. But in the Senate we will be moving all of those amendments which were agreed to by the Senate in November last year. We will accept the judgment of the Senate in relation to those that were unsuccessful. It would simply be an exercise in futility, having only recently debated these matters and found that the Senate was not prepared to support some of our other amendments, and it would be wasting the Senate's time to persist. So we will not do that, but we will persist with those amendments which were agreed to by the Senate in November last year.If we are again successful with the amendments we put forward, we will support the bill because it would be the same bill we were prepared to support last year. We hope that the government might be prepared to accept the amendments in the interests of getting the reforms to the Public Service which they say they seek, many of which will be preserved in that amended bill. We hope that they can therefore accept that bill if it comes back. But we live in the political reality that we think there is no prospect that they will, because it does not suit the agenda that they are unfolding. If the government again chooses to reject those amendments outright, then so be it. The government will have lost a historic opportunity to ensure and achieve enduring reforms which preserve the best of our Public Service, which bring the Public Service Act 1922 up to date and which would leave us with an amended bill with broad bipartisan support—nobody's preferred model but a model acceptable to everybody.That is what I think the Public Service legislation should be. We all argue for our preferred model; there would be something wrong if we did not. If we came in here and argued for something other than our preference, we would be letting down the people who sent us here. Matters such as Public Service legislation are not, in many ways, the most important ones we deal with but they are matters that affect the capacity for both sides of parliament to be able to work with the outcome because, sooner or later, we are both going to be in government on some occasions and in opposition on others. We need to be able to work with the Public Service arrangements that are put in place.We have the opportunity for that if the government is prepared to accept the amendments that come out of the Senate, and they may not be the same as last time. We do not know, and I at least have not canvassed, the views of the minor parties as to whether they persist with the views they reflected last time. I was in the Senate long enough to know that one does not take that for granted. There was a time when I felt one could not take it for granted even from one day to the next, let alone from one year to the next. But, having left that chamber, I am sure my colleagues are better organised these days.Nevertheless, we do not take for granted that all the amendments will be carried again. If a sufficiently substantial body of them are, then we can support the bill. We will be pleased to do so. We hope that we might achieve the government's support and therefore get a reformed Public Service Bill which we can all support which will be a model for a continuing non-partisan Public Service with a set of rules that governs it that have bipartisan support. That is what we seek. I regret to say that it is not what we expect.MG4LEEMr Lee—We have high hopes.5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN—We have high hopes, high aspirations and low expectations. I reiterate that the government will be opposing this bill at the second and third readings in the House and seeking to amend it in the Senate.16:48:001012Georgiou, Petro, MPMr GEORGIOUHM5KooyongLP10—This is the second occasion on which I have had the opportunity to speak on the government's Public Service legislation. There are relatively few bills on which humble backbenchers have a chance to speak twice. There are very few bills indeed which have proceeded down the tortuous path that these bills have.The legislation is intended to supplant the Public Service Act 1922. It is common ground that, while the act has, for much of its existence, served Australia well, there is a universal consensus that, despite multiple amendments, the act is simply not adequate for the demands of the 21st century.In government, and this was mentioned by the previous speaker, the member for Canberra (Mr McMullan), Labor agreed that a new act was necessary. It set up the McLeod review of the Public Service. It accepted many of the review's recommendations. But unfortunately, or fortunately, it did not introduce new Public Service legislation into the House.The present government, for its part, moved very speedily. It released a discussion paper entitled Towards a best practice Australian Public Service. It consulted widely. It introduced legislation to the parliament and then referred that legislation to the Joint Committee of Public Accounts for review.The bills were reviewed by the JCPA and the report exemplified the committee's tradition of straightforward and bipartisan advice. The committee produced a unanimous report which a number of us believed should have assisted the passage of the legislation through the parliament. The committee unanimously agreed that there was a need to replace the existing Public Service Act and the committee supported the simplification, modernisation and more accessible format embodied in the government bill.The committee also identified areas where the legislation could be improved and it made 20 recommendations and a number of other observations on the legislation. It is worth underscoring that even the shadow minister for public administration, who came to the JCPA especially for its consideration of the Public Service Bill, had his doubts about the committee's thorough scrutiny of the bills dispelled. Indeed, he congratulated the JCPA `on the comprehensive and professional way it went about its task'.Leaving this byplay aside, the important thing is that the JCPA did produce an objective report; a report that was supported by all its members. The government, for its part, took these recommendations very seriously and did introduce amendments which addressed all of them during the consideration in detail debate in this House. Nonetheless, the opposition sought to move further amendments which were not acceptable to the government and not incorporated in the bill which was passed by the House in October.The legislation was subsequently considered by the Senate Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee. The majority findings of this committee largely replicated those of the JCPA. Then Labor stalled the process in the Senate. Senator Faulkner, despite his active participation in the JCPA review of the legislation, and his agreement with the report, proposed a raft of amendments which would have fundamentally altered the bill, and which were not acceptable to the government. The opposition together with the minor parties combined to pass the amendments at the end of November, but they were duly rejected by this House and the bill was laid aside.I think this is a worthwhile opportunity to make a few brief comments about the debate on the legislation and about the legislation itself. Firstly, I turn to the claim by the opposition, which was once again echoed by the member for Canberra, that the government's handling of this legislation is:. . . another case of political posturing without focus on desired public policy outcome—another double dissolution trigger.That was a quote from the past, so at least he is consistent with this line. I was tempted to say originally that this assertion was so incredible that I did not even think that the member for Canberra believed it himself, but he has repeated it ad nauseam—that somehow this is an attempt to get another double dissolution bill up.Unfortunately, there is a straightforward response to that. If the government was trying to generate political disagreement sufficient to trigger a double dissolution, why would the government have undertaken extensive public consultations? Why would the government have referred the bill to the JCPA? Why would the government have introduced amendments on the floor of this House which addressed every one of the JCPA's unanimous recommendations? Why would the government still proceed with passing amendments to those parts of the bill that can be achieved by regulation? The fact is that the only political posturing on this issue has been that engaged in by the Labor Party.Given that the Labor Party has decided to pass a bill that it was resolutely determined not to pass this morning, I get the impression from the member for Canberra's ruminations that, ultimately, maybe this is another bill that it does not wish to stop.It is important that the Labor Party lets the bill through the Senate because it does agree that the Public Service Act and the Public Service itself are in need of reform. Labor in government actively instigated a process of reform, the objectives of which were not dissimilar to those of the government, but it did not pursue its conclusions through legislation.During the JCPA's deliberations on the legislation, Labor members made significant contributions to improving the bill and to developing the bipartisan recommendations that the government made effective amendments in order to meet. This has now been diminished to what the member for Canberra says is changing an unacceptable bill to one with which Labor merely disagrees. That is fine, but the fact is that, when push came to shove, Labor postured in the hope of wringing a few drops of political advantage on the issue.The transparent opportunism of the opposition is underscored by the member for Canberra's previous comments that the government should agree to pass those sections of the bill with which Labor agrees and come back to the rest at a later date. That is a good one. That is a very compelling political argument.This politically partisan obfuscation on the part of the opposition should not be allowed to overshadow the importance of what the government is trying to achieve through its Public Service legislation, let alone derail the process. The Public Service legislation is not just another one of the many so-called important pieces of legislation put before this House. It is not just about private sector notions of efficiency and effectiveness, as important as these are, but also about an institution with quite unique traditions and values and basic responsibilities and accountabilities to Australia's government, to Australia's parliament and to Australia's people.There is a challenge for the government not only to balance the need for efficiency and effectiveness with those longstanding traditions, values and responsibilities but also to meld the two into a mutually reinforcing whole, into a service which retains its unique and invaluable heritage but which is structured to meet the demands of modern Australian society. The Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs (Dr Kemp) essentially said this in his second reading speech last week, and this is the objective of the government's Public Service legislation:It not only removes prescription and central control but also enhances the accountability framework which the parliament and the community expect of the Public Service.Achieving these sorts of balances is a difficult exercise, and I think it is fair to say that the initial bill, as it was presented to the House, did need a little bit of additional balancing. However, the key point is that the government did take the responsibility of getting things right very seriously. It did take on board the bipartisan recommendations of the JCPA. I think it is fair to say that the government has essentially got the balance right.I do not wish to repeat all of the key arguments, but I think it is important to repeat some of them. These underscore the extent to which the government was willing to go to produce a fair and balanced piece of legislation.The first issue relates to advice. There were substantial concerns expressed to the JCPA that the government's initial Public Service legislation would have eroded the quality of APS advice. From my perspective, nothing in our system of government is more precious, or more fragile, than good advice. Some of those appearing before the JCPA testified in quite dramatic terms that changes in the positions of secretaries and others would mean the end of so-called frank and fearless advice.Unfortunately, legislatively guaranteeing good advice is not possible, but it is the responsibility of government to encourage and support the culture and the ethos and to provide the incentives for the bureaucracy to give the best advice—and a government writing a new Public Service Act has a particular responsibility to specify the quality of advice expected from the APS.The JCPA suggested that in this respect the initial legislation could be improved by extending the description of the quality of advice expected from the Public Service from `timely' to `frank, honest, comprehensive, accurate and timely'. It is an earnest of the government's commitment to the importance of APS advice and to getting an effective Public Service Bill that the amendments to the bill embody this.The second area which highlights the preparedness of the government to change its original position in order to produce a better legislative package relates to the streamlining of APS review mechanisms. Under the government's original proposal, the Merit Protection Review Agency was to be abolished and the Public Service Commissioner was to be the external reviewing authority.There were, however, understandable concerns about whether the Public Service Commissioner could be totally impartial in judging the actions of his management advisory committee colleagues. It is of central importance that the impartiality and independence of the external reviewer be clear, and the JCPA thought a sensible solution to this complex issue was having a Public Service Commissioner and a Merit Protection Commissioner operating within the one administrative organisation but with separate statutory powers. The government did subsequently implement this.The third area highlighting the government's commitment to producing a balanced bill relates to the merit principle. Much has been made of the fact that, for the first time, the Public Service Bill provided for an explicit statutory reference to the merit principle. Labor was in government for 13 years and, despite its protestations, did not move to form the Public Service in terms of legislation.The reference to merit in the bill as it originally stood was not, however, accompanied by a legislative definition of merit. The JCPA recommended that this be done and the government subsequently incorporated this recommendation into the legislation.Other government amendments to ensure the accountability of the APS is fully defined, to enhance the scrutiny of agency workplace diversity programs and to secure mobility rights for staff of parliamentary departments and MPs are further demonstrations of the government's desire to produce a balanced, fair and reasonable replacement for the Public Service Act.Unfortunately, this approach has been conspicuously eschewed by the opposition, which, since the JCPA concluded its report, has continuously misrepresented the bill's intent and content. The reason for this is to derail the process of reform in its entirety. I think it is instructive to look at the sorts of generalisations that Senator Faulkner has put out as his and Labor's fundamental reason for pursuing unacceptable amendments to the bill.Senator Faulkner has claimed that agency heads `can hire and fire at will'. Somehow this Genghis Khan definition of the powers of the agency head omits to mention that the employment decisions of agency heads, including terminations, are reviewable internally and by the Merit Protection Commissioner. They are also subject to the provisions of the Workplace Relations Act under which employees may apply to the Industrial Relations Commission for relief in respect of the termination of employment on the ground that the termination is harsh, unjust or unreasonable. Senator Faulkner also neglects to mention that the view of the JCPA, of which he was a member, was:. . . that the protections afforded by the Workplace Relations Act against termination of employment provide an adequate safeguard against unfair termination decisions which are commensurate with the protections afforded to workers in the private sector.I want to pursue this issue for a moment because the member for Canberra said that maybe this sort of protection was not quite what was needed. I emphasise that there are internal review mechanisms in addition to these.Senator Faulkner has claimed that SES officers `will have negligible protection against capricious or unfair dismissal'. The fact is that the commissioner's direction on SES employment matters will specify minimum requirements in relation to the termination of employment of an SES officer, involving: an assessment being made with due regard to procedural fairness and grounds for termination having been fully established; the employee being given full information about other employment in the agency that the agency head considers could be made available; and—this is very important—the Public Service Commissioner certifying that he or she is satisfied that the termination is in the best interests of the APS.Senator Faulkner has claimed that the legislation `will remove the mobility provisions of the Public Service Act by making mobility rights purely discretionary after a three-year transitional period', thereby `limiting the movement of staff between the Public Service and Parliament House'. This is inaccurate, and he knows it. If he does not know it, then he should. The JCPA recommended and the government accepted that:The Prime Minister should exercise the power under clause 21 of the Public Service Bill to issue a general Direction to agency heads stating that agency heads must grant leave without pay to APS employees to take up statutory appointments, employment under the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act or employment under the Governor-General Act.Contrary to Senator Faulkner's assertions, employees who take up statutory appointment or employment under the MOPS Act or the Governor-General Act will automatically be granted leave without pay by their agency head. Further, the Parliamentary Service Bill has specifically been drafted to provide for reciprocal mobility arrangements between the Parliamentary Service and the APS. I could go on. The three years to which Senator Faulkner refers is a transitional arrangement which applies only to APS staff who are currently on mobility arrangements and wish to access their right of return to the APS.What is left of all his grand generalisations that justify amendments that are either petty or devastating to the bill? Nothing. When you scrutinise the generalisations, they collapse.The fact is that the amendments are not aimed at improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the APS. Labor's amendments are not about this or about retaining the APS's core values and traditions. What they are about is burying those core values and traditions under a morass of inefficiency and ineffectiveness, prescription and regulation.The minister has indicated that the amendments are not acceptable to the government because they would fundamentally devalue the government's reforms and render the whole exercise a futile one. Given this impasse, the government is doing two things. Firstly, it is proceeding to implement those aspects of the reform package which it can through regulation. Secondly, it is giving the parliament another opportunity to consider the Public Service legislation.I think it is time that Labor, having contributed to the shape of the bill through the JCPA and having squeezed its political posturings through the sorts of amendments that have passed through the Senate, should really reconsider. Maybe I am a bit naive but I think there was this whiff coming from the member for Canberra that they could reconsider. Given that you have done it with the Charter of Budget Honesty Bill, why not do it now, guys?The Public Service Act is 70 years old. It has been amended more than 100 times. It needs to be replaced. This government is committed to replacing it. The government has consulted on this legislation and has amended and improved this legislation and put before the parliament a bill which is well balanced and eminently reasonable. The opposition should stop its political posturing and pass this sensible legislation, which it contributed to through its membership of the JCPA. I commend the bills to the House.17:07:001016Hatton, Michael, MPMr HATTONLN6BlaxlandALP00—This is stage 2 in how to get a double dissolution for this day. It is also stage 2 in being able to question this week whether or not there should be a double dissolution granted on the basis of the Public Service Bill 1997 [No. 2] , as I questioned the other day in discussing the charter of budget honesty. We are not just looking at one bill here but three cognate bills relating to the Public Service.We are also looking at—and it was mentioned by the member for Kooyong (Mr Georgiou) at the very end of his remarks—some actions taken by the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs (Dr Kemp) on 25 February 1998. Those actions, I would argue, almost completely invalidate the need for this bill and set of bills. If this set of bills goes through the Senate and the government rejects the amendments that are put and then attempts to use this legislation as a trigger for a double dissolution, the Governor-General of the day, Sir William Deane, will be faced with a situation where a set of bills that have been twice rejected have in fact been primarily brought into effect by delegated legislation introduced by Dr Kemp, the minister.I turn to what these bills are supposed to be about at the core. The National Commission of Audit, which followed this government's prescriptions in terms of what it was supposed to find, made a series of recommendations in relation to the Public Service. Recommendation 5.1 of the audit report at page 84 states:The public sector acts and regulations should be stripped back and simplified to provide improved performance. Any legislation covering the public sector should be limited to the core fundamental principles and values under which the Public Service should operate.That advice was followed and triumphantly the minister has indicated that the 1922 act, having been amended so many times and things having changed a great deal, has become an increasingly unwieldy act, as has been argued in a number of places. It was recognised by the previous Labor government that that was so and that the bill needed amending. The key question for us is how one seeks to amend that bill and what processes are undertaken in relation to that and what the outcomes are.In fact, when this bill was first before the House in October 1997, the Information and Research Services of the Department of the Parliamentary Library made the point in their background information that 300 pages of `dense, complex and poorly organised drafting' in the Public Service Act 1922 would be replaced with an `admirably direct and succinct statement of the essential characteristics of public service', totalling a mere 36 pages. This is a substantial rewrite, to reduce 300 wordy pages down to 36. But, as the National Commission of Audit suggested, what the original material should be replaced with was a set of principles.So if we look at these bills and what is being proposed, we could argue that yes, by and large most of the detail has been left out of these bills. It was intended that most of the detail be brought down in secondary legislation—that is, delegated legislation—either through regulation or through actions by the minister in terms of giving directions to the departments and agencies under his charge. So most of the detail would not be replicated in this new legislative framework.What has been done by Dr Kemp, the relevant minister, recently? Having rejected the amendments which the Senate put to this bill and having had this set of bills laid aside—and we have them back here today—what actions has Dr Kemp undertaken? Has he merely set in place the regulations and other instruments which would have been additional to the initial bills, or has he gone further? Dr Kemp made the announcement of what he intended to do not in this House but in an address on 25 February to CEDA, the Committee for Economic Development of Australia. His address was entitled `Reforming the Public Service to meet the global challenge'—an impressive sounding title. He said, according to a DEETYA media release that day:. . . the Government would implement many reforms through administrative changes and regulations.But the `key components of the reforms' would be put in place `in the next few weeks', including transferring staffing powers from the Public Service and Merit Protection Commission to departmental secretaries.He further went on to say that under the reforms being implemented in the next few weeks, without the need for legislation, through delegated legislation, secondary legislation by regulation, departmental secretaries will have greater authority and flexibility to effectively manage their staff. Secondly, new Public Service values and a staff code of conduct will be established through new regulations, not through this bill passing through the parliament—and that is what basically the bill was supposed to be an expression of—but through new regulations. We therefore have to ask the question: is this set of bills now necessary? The Governor-General, should it come to that, will certainly have to ask himself that question. Thirdly, public accountability will be increased and strengthened. Finally, protection for whistleblowers raising allegations of code of conduct breaches will be strengthened. In his own inimitable style Dr Kemp said:The government's reforms will lead to a dynamic and flexible public service which is vital for good Government and better quality service to the public.He accused the Labor Party of a head in the sand approach. He said the government's determination to improve the Public Service would not be shaken by Labor's attitudes, that our amendments were a backward leap, unduly prescriptive, containing excessive regulatory controls and that they could lead to reduced levels of service and less satisfying work. He ended with this:The government will not let Labor wreck this opportunity for much-needed reform of a 75-year-old act that has been patched up more than 100 times.In undertaking the reforms by regulation and ministerial direction that he announced on 25 February, and that he is already putting into place in the first sitting weeks of parliament, Dr Kemp has effectively, as minister, taken away any real reason for this bill to be put back here today and then go to the Senate and any real reason for a double dissolution, should the Governor-General agree, if the amendments are rejected by the Senate, that that is a reason for a double dissolution.I will go to an opinion from 1914 because it is even more apposite now in this situation than it was in matters I was dealing with in relation to the charter of budget honesty. There was consideration in 1914 by the then Prime Minister, Joseph Cook, who attempted to achieve a double dissolution. His attempt to achieve that was in relation to a very minor bill which was twice rejected. It just so happens that that minor bill that was rejected twice in 1914 was making amendments to Public Service employment conditions. The Governor-General at that point acceded to a request by Prime Minister Cook for both houses to be dissolved. On that basis, the background paper to the charter of budget honesty argues:This appears to have established the principle that disagreement over any Bill, not just an appropriation Bill or other significant piece of legislation, can constitute the basis for a deadlock under section 57. The 1914 `precedent' does not, however, put beyond doubt the issue of how Governors-General will exercise their judgment in deciding whether a proposed law `is one of such importance that it should be referred to the electors for immediate decision by means of a complete renewal of both houses . . . '.In 1914, the decision by the then Governor-General to follow the advice of his Prime Minister on a minor bill, coincidentally making amendments in relation to the conditions of Public Service employment, may have given rise to the expectation that you can just wheel up any bill and expect to get a double dissolution on it. History would seem to indicate that that course has been followed.But it argues here in the background paper, quite correctly, that these issues are not put beyond doubt. An opinion was sought in 1914—a reasonable opinion—from the Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia in relation to powers under section 57. Griffith CJ advised that the Governor-General was an `independent arbiter'. Given that he accepted that there should be a double dissolution, he may have made that decision as an independent arbiter, but any Governor-General following Griffith CJ's argument is, in fact, an independent arbiter, and he should dissolve both houses of parliament only where he is, and I quote the former Chief Justice:. . . personally satisfied, after independent consideration of the case, either that the proposed law as to which the houses have differed in opinion is one of such public importance that it should be referred to the electors of the Commonwealth for immediate decision by means of a complete renewal of both houses, or that there exists such a state of practical deadlock in legislation as can only be ended in that way.I would argue that in the present circumstance, in relation to these cognate bills, the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs, having announced on 25 February 1998 that in the coming weeks he was going to introduce regulations to cover almost all the material covered in the cognate bills—because he could not wait for this bill to go through, because he could not wait for it to be reintroduced and possibly passed if he chose to accept the amendments put by the Senate, because he could not wait for an election in order to get these matters in hand—has effectively invalidated any argument that the Prime Minister of this country, the member for Bennelong (Mr Howard), could put to the present Governor-General that there is such a deadlock in legislation that he should have a double dissolution on the basis of this bill, because the essential features of the bill have, in fact, already been put into practice in these weeks by the minister himself. So why have the bill? The work has effectively been done through regulation.In these circumstances, we have another interesting challenge coming up for the Governor-General as to whether or not there would be sufficient grounds to grant a double dissolution where most of the matters dealt with in the legislation have been dealt with now by delegated legislation. We face the situation where that may come to the test, because we have seen with this bill and the set of bills associated with it a movement to take the Australian Public Service and to dramatically change that Australian Public Service, and to do so in such a way that the people who are involved in the process of providing the service to the Australian people are, by and large, cut out of the picture.One of the key things that the Australian Public Service has done in the past—and it has been alluded to by the member for Kooyong (Mr Georgiou) and he argues that you cannot legislate for this—if one looks at what, in fact, has been recommended in terms of the values put by the minister, is argue that it is responsive to the government in providing frank, honest, comprehensive, accurate and timely advice and in implementing the government's policies and programs. No-one in this House should dismiss those arguments and statements that that kind of advice should be brought forward to any government.When the Joint Committee of Public Accounts was looking at the provisions of this bill, two people gave evidence to the joint committee in terms of key problems that existed with the bill. Those key problems have still not been fully addressed in the bills that are again before us. One person who did that was Sir Lenox Hewitt, a former head of the Public Service, a most distinguished Australian. What did he have to say in relation to these pieces of legislation that are before us and the effect they would have on the Australian Public Service if they were to go through? We have a situation now where, by and large, it is being done by regulation, so this is almost irrelevant in terms of these bills. I will quote the evidence that he gave:. . . the intention to change, indeed to destroy, the Australian Public Service and to convert it into a series of appointments at pleasure—at the whim, in the case of secretaries of the Prime Minister; in the case of agency heads, of the minister . . . That to me is a fundamental change in the service that was established . . . what we are dealing with here, too, is not the dismissal; it is the threat hanging over. You will destroy frank, fearless, honest advice if you are party to this proposal of the executive.Sir Lenox argued that the core of this legislation was for the executive not only to dominate the parliament but to dominate the Australian Public Service and to destroy its freedoms and to destroy the honest, open, fearless, frank advice that had been given in the past but that would be changed dramatically if this legislation and—I would say now—the delegated legislation were to go through because the Public Service would then be turned into, effectively, an extension of ministerial officers.Mr Jack Waterford, the Editor of the Canberra Times, also raised serious doubts concerning the effect that this legislation would have. He had a look at the old system with all of its problems and he argued that there was a serious problem in terms of potential nepotism because of these bills before us going through. He argued:. . . the essential requirement of the old system was that positions had to be advertised, and that the best of those who applied should be chosen. I do not think there is anything wrong with that. I do think there is a very significant risk that a system in which senior managers are free to pick people without advertisement creates a real risk of creating organisations full of clones and crones of the prevailing management—perhaps not appointed nepotistically, or with direct patronage, but picked from the core of people who the boss already knows, whom he or she regards as thinking rather like himself or herself.Mr Waterford's condemnation of the potential that this legislation and the regulations that are now going through is very apposite and pertinent because there is a great danger, as Sir Lenox pointed out, that you would do away with that free advice and that you would end up instead with an Australian Public Service full of sycophants, full of yes men and women, full of people who would give advice that the minister required and not free, frank and open advice that he did not particularly want. So the freshness and innovative quality that we have seen in the past in the Australian Public Service not only could be diluted but could be broken altogether.Those two gentlemen in giving their arguments to that committee made fundamental points about the problems with these bills and the difficulty that there would be with running a truly independent Australian Public Service. I do not think the Prime Minister of this country, the member for Bennelong, and the current Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs want an independent Public Service. Rather, they want a Public Service that is an extension of their ministerial officers—one that will not give free, frank, fair and open advice, but one that will toe the line.In the situation we now have with this bill potentially becoming a trigger for a double dissolution, the Governor-General will have to take a very close look at the fact that almost everything that these bills set out to achieve has already by this day, the 11th, been done by regulation. (Time expired)(Quorum formed)17:30:001019Beddall, David, MPMr BEDDALLQE4RankinALP00—As someone who served on the Joint Committee of Public Accounts inquiry into the Public Service Bill 1997 [No. 2] and other bills, I have followed with great interest what the government has been doing with respect to the Australian Public Service. It is clear that, instead of working in a consultative manner, the government is hell bent on confrontation with the Australian Public Service. The spirit of the JCPA inquiry was to ensure there was genuine reform of the Public Service Act. I am sure the member who spoke earlier in the debate, the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Georgiou), agrees with me as he, along with Senator Faulkner, listened and participated in many lengthy hearings into this legislation. We have heard noises from the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Public Service Matters (Dr Kemp) that Labor is being obstructionist. This is the minister who is often referred to as `the minister for black is white'. When people have asked what the minister thinks about the weather outside, if he says it is fine, then we all take our umbrellas. The opposition is concerned about maintaining a level of fairness and equality within the Australian Public Service. It is simply not good enough for the government to keep harping that all they are doing is simplifying a cumbersome 76-year-old piece of legislation.As my colleague the member for Canberra (Mr McMullan) has outlined, the opposition sees these bills as detrimental to the Public Service. A large number of amendments were passed in the Senate to protect the independence and professionalism of the Public Service. It is ridiculous, therefore, that the government found every one of those 50 Senate amendments unacceptable. Obviously, this legislation now coming back into this House is providing the government with another trigger for a double dissolution. That is obvious, because we could not possibly accept that, of 50 amendments, not one of them would be acceptable to the government. The Joint Committee of Public Accounts brought down a unanimous report, and many of the amendments came out of that report.During the debate, the government and the minister have made it clear they are not interested in any form of compromise—only confrontation. We have seen this attitude shown to the Australian Public Service. The Howard government has an aversion to the idea of government being involved in any sort of meaningful relationship with its employees. Since this government came to power, over 30,000 Commonwealth public servants have been sacked. When you combine this with job losses in the state governments, the figure is almost 80,000 of our fellow Australians out of work. That is a massive impact on Australian families from a government supposedly concerned with family values. When you translate the flow-on of these sorts of figures to regional areas, you find that they have a devastating effect in service delivery and in the local economies.I would now like to outline some of the concerns I have with these bills. When you look at certain aspects of the legislation like agency heads having the right to hire and fire, determining salary conditions for agency employees or the APS ceasing to be a career service, it is no wonder that alarm bells have rung out through the whole community in Australia. In my electorate of Rankin, jobs and jobs security are increasingly becoming the No. 1 concern of my constituents since the Howard government came to power. As the youth unemployment rate in my electorate has continued to increase to now over 32 per cent and keeps rising, if the government has its way these young people can forget about ever looking at a career in the Australian Public Service.In my state of Queensland, where the government's axe has fallen, 10.8 per cent of Australian public servants have lost their jobs already, and that does not take into account the job losses that will flow from the employment decisions made by this same minister. Even if a person is lucky enough to find a job in the Public Service, the government now wants that person to have lack of job security. This kind of Americanisation of our society—whether it be in aged care, health care or higher education—will not translate into Australia. This government is now trying to pass on this American philosophy into the Australian Public Service.We as an opposition do not believe that, every time there is a change of administration in Australia, there should be a wholesale change in the Public Service. It is quite interesting to note that the monarchist Prime Minister (Mr Howard) has had to accept American Republican free market policies.During the public hearings of the committee on this legislation, there were quite a number of people who did not share the views of the government—most particularly, Sir Lenox Hewitt, a very distinguished public servant. During the public hearings, Sir Lenox made it very clear that the government, with these sorts of policies, would destroy the whole ethos of the Australian Public Service. As Sir Lenox said in his statement:. . . the Bill will detract, because what has been an outstanding Service will not maintain the quality that it had under the conditions of service that were introduced at Federation.He and others were right in suggesting that Australia did not need a `Washminster' system within the Public Service. We subsequently saw the bitter attack on Sir Lenox that raged in the media.But that was not the only PR disaster for the government in relation to these public service bills. In November last year, we saw Senator Ian Campbell boasting about the cuts to the Public Service and what a fantastic achievement it was by the federal government to give Canberra a recession. What he forgot to mention was that the impact of these cuts in the Public Service had a much bigger impact in the regions than anywhere else.Before these pearls of wisdom were dropped, we had the accident prone industry minister claiming in August last year that the Public Service was `overpoliticised and full of wimps'. I agree with the industry minister on the first point. I only wish he would convince his colleague—the minister, Dr Kemp—that these bills are a recipe for the absolute politicisation of the Australian Public Service. Instead of ripping into the guts of the Public Service, the government should start referring to the Prime Minister's pre-election commitment that `no public servant would be worse off under a coalition government'. I suppose this is a non-core promise. In fact, it probably is true that every public servant is affected.Labor's amendments will ensure that the minister's master plan for converting the Public Service into a corporation will be stopped. What we need is a public service, not a service for the government of the day. The amendments moved in the Senate guaranteed effective appeal rights for public servants, prevented agency heads from overriding negotiated conditions of employment and provided protection for APS employees against arbitrary dismissal. It is about time the Howard government stopped treating the Public Service as the enemy and realised that the Australian Public Service is a crucial element in our society made up of our fellow Australians.I agree with my colleague Senator Faulkner, who believes that the motivation of the minister, Dr Kemp, in his attempt to politicise the Public Service, has more to do with deep- seated resentment of the service rather than reform. As members would know, I served as a minister in both the Hawke and Keating governments. Every minister works closely with his or her department. But from time to time, a minister may receive advice that he or she does not like. I can assure the House that there was more than one occasion when I, or one of my colleagues, experienced this. That is the nature of the Public Service. Ministers are paid to make decisions on that advice and that is what they should do. The Public Service should be free to give rational advice without fear of being punished for doing so.This, I believe, is an important function of our Public Service. It is part of the Westminster system which has served our country well since Federation. It is right that we oppose these bills at both the second and third reading stages. In my remarks when the JCPA report was tabled, I outlined concerns that were raised during the initial committee hearings. I wholly support the amendments that were moved in the Senate. The Howard government appears to be unable to cope with any criticism of those proposals. The government's handling of these important matters is nothing more than electoral point scoring. It is not committed to genuine reform of the Australian Public Service.Far from simplifying procedures, the government is creating far more complex administrative arrangements than already exist. I think all Australians, and especially our public servants, expect more from this Prime Minister and this government. I therefore support the opposition's amendments.17:39:001021Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPEmployment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs;Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—in reply—I believe I am the last member to speak in this debate. I would like to take this opportunity to comment on some of the points that have been raised in the course of the debate and to thank members for their contributions.Perhaps the saddest aspect of this debate is that the Labor Party has been unable to address the substantive issues raised by this piece of legislation because of its very close ties to the trade union movement. We are increasingly seeing that the opposition is hamstrung in its ability to produce policy or to take an independent position by its close ties with the trade union movement. It seems that it is now prepared to betray all those public servants whose years of work and experience have gone into the bill which is currently before the House; that it simply does not recognise the fact that we are not going to have a public service in this country which provides a satisfying work environment for public servants themselves, a public service which is going to be able to provide the Australian people with the quality of government that they are seeking, unless we have a public service which has a much greater level of flexibility to manage its affairs, to organise its activities, than we do at present.The member for Canberra (Mr McMullan) ought to understand this well. Instead, the opposition has now made clear, through the remarks of the member for Canberra in this debate, that it intends to revive once again in the Senate all the out-of-date, prescriptive, centralised procedures which it had in many cases abandoned in government, but which are being forced on it by its narrow political concerns to obtain the support of the Community and Public Sector Union. This is a tragedy for Australian public servants. It is very demoralising to see that the opposition has no sense of responsibility in this area but intends to pursue a course of action which is contrary to the need for the improvement of the central structures of government in this country.There are no institutions more important to government outside those of representative democracy itself than the Commonwealth Public Service. The Australian Public Service is one of the pillars of Australian democracy and the members of the Public Service deserve respect. This piece of legislation gives them respect. It allows them the level of flexibility and autonomy that they need to provide the Australian people with the quality of advice and the quality of service which the Australian people have a right to expect.We see the Labor Party in this area, as in other areas, such as the area of workplace reform, going backwards at 100 miles an hour, past even changes they had agreed to in office, back to the 1970s, the 1960s, the 1950s. It is a very sad thing. The government will resist this in every way possible. If the opposition succeeds in reinstating its amendments to this legislation in the Senate, the government will once again have this bill rejected by the House.There have been a number of specific comments made in the debate and I want to refer to these. One comment made by the member for Blaxland (Mr Hatton) that I think is a very important one to answer is the fact that because the government is proceeding with Public Service reform now via legislation and directions of the Public Service Commissioner, this means that this legislation is not necessary. Oh, that this were the case, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I am sure there would be many public servants who would wish that this were indeed the case. But the reality is that we do need this piece of legislation.The government has been able, using the regulations under the 1922 act—an act 75 years old, amended more than 100 times and now grossly out of date—and by the exercise of certain Public Service Commissioner powers, to improve the flexibility and enhance accountability within the service. But it is quite clear that if we attempt to operate under the Public Service Act as it now stands, the whole framework will be one which is, and remains, complex, difficult and confusing to those who have to operate it.There are a large number of substantive changes which cannot be achieved without the passage of this legislation. These include such changes as giving employment powers directly to agency heads to place them in a position where they can lead, as well as manage, their departments; and removing complex grievance and appeals arrangements and including those via the MPRA.The legislation is necessary to remove the concept of office and replace it with much more modern and up-to-date concepts of employment comparable to those in the private sector. The Public Service Bill 1997 [No. 2] is necessary to completely remove the complex part 4 mobility arrangements. It is necessary to the removal of the inflexible employment categories, including prescriptive arrangements for recruitment and termination of temporary staff. It is necessary to remove the compulsory maximum age retirement at 65. It is necessary to enable the creation of executive agencies. It is necessary to simplify the arrangements for machinery of government transfers and for ensuring a secure, parliament endorsed legislative framework for APS values, the new code of conduct and protection of whistleblowers.The remarks of the last opposition speaker that this bill in some way opens the way to politicisation of the Public Service is, of course, absolute nonsense. Indeed, it does the reverse, and it ill-behoves the Labor Party to be talking about politicisation of the Public Service. This government is fed up, as are the Australian people, with the attempts of every Labor Party government when it comes to power to place its own supporters in key positions within the service. For the first time, this bill provides quite explicitly in legislation for the concept of a non-political public service and it contains specific provisions to prevent ministers taking an active role in and giving direction in the appointment of particular people within departments.These are the strongest safeguards against politicisation of the Public Service that there has ever been in legislation in this country. To suggest that in some way this bill opens the door to politicisation shows just what a lack of grasp and, indeed, interest the Labor Party has in this historic piece of legislation.It is very sad to see the member for Canberra going down this track. I suppose, to some extent, it aligns with the fact that the Labor Party was so extraordinarily unsuccessful in the recent election in the ACT. We did not see great expressions of outrage here against the coalition or the Liberal Party because people understand that what this bill does is to improve the work environment, the prospects for people within the Public Service—5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—Are you going to come and run in my seat?BT4Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMP—Talk to some people other than your union members and you'll be right. The member for Canberra said that the government simply rejected the Senate amendments out of hand for purely political reasons. Of course, this is not the case. The government rejected these amendments because they would take the Public Service back to that era of prescription and central regulation and dictation which has done so much damage to the service. It is the failed strategy of the CPSU which has argued over the years that this detailed prescription is necessary to give members of the Public Service security. What we have seen in every institution where union power has become excessive is that that institution has been damaged and the members of that institution have had their satisfaction and their workplace destroyed, leadership and management has been undermined and, in the end, the institution itself has struggled.This bill enables the enormous pool of talent, experience, goodwill and commitment to Australia within the Public Service to flower and express itself. The Labor Party, unfortunately, has again aligned itself with this pathetic and failed union strategy—you would think they would learn some time—in these amendments.The member for Canberra commented that the bill is not written within the parameters of acceptable legislation. My only comment on that is that, while the bill may not be acceptable to the opposition and to the public sector unions, it is a necessary, essential and reforming bill. It spells out the values of the Public Service, it establishes an accountability framework and it promotes efficiency while providing protections for staff. On this basis, the bill is entirely acceptable and ought to be acceptable to any reasonable person.The further point was made that the concept of adopting general industrial arrangements is simplistic and makes no distinction between the nature of employment in the public sector and in the private sector. My response to that is that the bill explicitly recognises the distinction between private and public enterprise. It explicitly enshrines merit as the guiding principle in staffing matters within the Public Service. It establishes a code of conduct which guides public servants in their dealings with each other and with the public. It provides public servants with specific rights to seek internal review of employment decisions and it ensures the role of parliament in scrutinising the public sector and ensuring the accountability of that sector through ministers to the parliament and ultimately to the people of Australia.From these examples, it is obvious that this bill is misunderstood by the opposition and that their comments to it are misconceived. The member for Canberra appears to think that this bill is a serious threat to the nature of the Public Service. On the contrary, it is the government's very strongly held belief that these reforms are necessary to ensure the future strength and effectiveness of the Public Service. They articulate the nature of public service. They will improve the manner in which public services are delivered while maintaining the recognised ethos, objectivity and professionalism of the Australian Public Service. They will free public servants from the stultifying effect of service-wide prescriptions and processes and allow them to organise their departments and workplaces in a way which will best meet the needs of the clients of the service, whether that be the democratically elected government of the day or whether it be the members of the general public.This bill is all about good government. It is all about governing Australia well. It is one of the major reforms which is being put forward by the government to improve the life of the Australian people and to place this nation in a position where it is able to cope with the intense international pressures that it is now facing. Nations these days are competing not merely on the basis of the efficiency of their private sectors but on the basis of the quality of their public sectors and the quality of governance that those public sectors can provide. This bill has been hailed internationally as a visionary bill which is absolutely at the forefront of international thinking on the organisation of the public sector.It provides the framework for the establishment of a high performance Public Service in Australia, one which will meet the needs of all Australians. The government is not going to be deterred by the obstructive attitude of the Labor Party and the minor parties in the Senate. We are going to pursue the issue of this bill and, if the Senate does in fact re-establish the amendments that the government has refused to accept, we will bring this bill back to the House and reject those amendments once again. Question put: That the bill be now read a second time.17:58:00The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker—Hon. N.B. Reid)81Abbott, A. J. Andrew, J. N.Andrews, K. J. Anthony, L. J.Baldwin, R. C. Barresi, P. A.Bartlett, K. J. Billson, B. F.Broadbent, R. E. Brough, M. T.Cadman, A. G. Cameron, E. H.Cameron, R. A. Causley, I. R.Charles, R. E. Cobb, M. R.Dondas, N. M. Downer, A. J. G.Draper, P. Elson, K. S.Entsch, W. G. Evans, R. D. C.Fahey, J. J. Filing, P. A.Forrest, J. A. Gallus, C. A.Gambaro, T. Gash, J.Georgiou, P. Grace, E. J.Hardgrave, G. D. Hawker, D. P. M.Hicks, N. J.* Jeanes, S. B.Johnston, R. Jull, D. F.Kelly, D. M. Kelly, J. M.Kemp, D. A. Lieberman, L. S.Lindsay, P. J. Lloyd, J. E.Marek, P. McArthur, F. S.*McDougall, G. R. McLachlan, I. M.Miles, C. G. Moore, J. C.Moylan, J. E. Mutch, S. B.Nairn, G. R. Nehl, G. B.Nelson, B. J. Neville, P. C.Nugent, P. E. Prosser, G. D.Pyne, C. M. Randall, D. J.Reith, P. K. Ronaldson, M. J. C.Ruddock, P. M. Scott, B. C.Sharp, J. R. Slipper, P. N.*Smith, A. C. Smith, W. L.Somlyay, A. M. Southcott, A. J.Stone, S. N. Sullivan, K. J.Taylor, W. L. Thomson, A. P.Truss, W. E. Tuckey, C. W.Vale, D. S. Wakelin, B. H.West, A. G. Williams, D. R.Wooldridge, M. R. L. Worth, P. M.Zammit, P. J.43Adams, D. G. H. Albanese, A.Baldwin, P. J. Beddall, D. P.Brereton, L. J. Brown, R. J.Campbell, G. Crosio, J. A.Dargavel, S. J. Ellis, A. L.Evans, G. J. Evans, M. J.Fitzgibbon, J. A. Grace, E. L.*Griffin, A. P.* Hatton, M.Holding, A. C. Hollis, C.Jones, B. O. Kerr, D. J. C.Latham, M. W. Lawrence, C. M.Lee, M. J.Macklin, J. L.Martin, S. P. McClelland, R. B.McLeay, L. B. McMullan, R. F.Melham, D. Morris, A. A.Mossfield, F. W. O'Connor, G. M.O'Keefe, N. P. Price, L. R.Quick, H. V. Sawford, R. W.*Sercombe, R. C. G. Smith, S. F.Tanner, L. J. Theophanous, A. C.Thomson, K. J. Willis, R.Wilton, G. S.Bishop, B. K. Crean, S. F.Howard, J. W. Beazley, K. C.Vaile, M. A. J. Morris, P. F.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.1025Leave granted for the third reading to be moved forthwith.Bill (on motion by Dr Kemp) read a third time.Bills1025r4501025Consideration resumed from 5 March, on motion by Dr Kemp:That the bill be now read a second time.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.1025Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Dr Kemp) read a third time.Bills1025r4561025Consideration resumed from 10 March, on motion by Mr Speaker:That the bill be now read a second time.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.1025Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.Bill (on motion by Dr Kemp) read a third time.Bills1025r3881025Debate resumed from 26 November 1997, on motion by Mr Reith:That the bill be now read a second time.18:05:001025Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TANNERYU5MelbourneALP00—The ANL Sale Bill 1997 establishes a framework for the sale of the Australian National Line. (Quorum formed) ANL has had a proud and long history in Australia and, in its different guises, has been subject to a number of attacks by previous conservative governments. We now have the current attempt by the Howard government to sell ANL, and that is being facilitated by this legislation.In recent years, ANL has shrunk significantly in size as a reflection of a number of issues. In particular, it has reflected a changing task. It is often not remembered that ANL in previous guises played a significant role servicing regional Australia, including some areas where there were minimal road connections and certainly no air connections at that time.The other important factor in the gradual shrinking of ANL has been major changes in international shipping in recent years. In particular, the breakup of the Soviet Union and the opening up of China have meant that there has been something of a glut of international shipping capacity throughout the world. That has had a consequential impact on all shipping but a particularly significant impact on relatively small shipping operations such as ANL. It has depressed prices and returns and has made it increasingly difficult for ANL.In government, Labor did endeavour to sell ANL and adopted the position that public ownership was no longer a critically important issue and that the real question that needed to be addressed was ensuring that ANL could continue to function and that it could continue to employ Australians. Therefore, Labor's approach in office was to provide for a golden share arrangement in the legislation that we put to the parliament. That would enable the government of the day to continue to ensure that, albeit through private ownership, ANL would continue to employ Australians in its operations and thereby remain a significant part of a reduced Australian shipping industry.It is important to remember in this context that, of Australia's international trade, only about four per cent is now carried by Australian registered vessels. So the Australian presence in the Australian international shipping trade is now a pretty tiny proportion of the total. A significant component of that is occupied by ANL.In spite of the welter and cacophony of criticism that emerged at the time, several years ago the former Minister for Transport, the honourable member for Kingsford-Smith (Mr Brereton), put in place a strategy to turn ANL around. That strategy has worked. He put in place a new board, and various decisions were taken to reduce the routes that ANL was servicing, to sell unprofitable operations and to generally streamline the activities of the company.The end result of that has been that an $11 million operating loss for the 1995-96 year, which was itself a substantial reduction on the previous year, has been reduced to a $1.6 million loss for 1996-97, and it is anticipated that there will be a further improvement in the current financial year. This has been in the context of a reduction in revenue from $324 million in 1995-96 to $237 million in 1996-97 and a further reduction in employment of about 32 per cent. So ANL has shrunk but, nonetheless, is heading back into the black. This is of course as a result of the decisions that were taken by the former government when it confronted the haemorrhaging of ANL's finances several years ago. It did not proceed to sell ANL because of the difficulties associated with finding a buyer that could guarantee continuing employment of Australians in the longer term. That remains a critical issue today.ANL does have a future. It has a future as a shipping line servicing Australia—both the Australian domestic market around the coast, particularly associated with bulk products, and of course in the Asian region. But it is essentially a niche future. To give you some illustration of the sorts of size constraints that ANL is dealing with, some time ago I had lunch with the second in charge of COSCO, the state shipping line from China. We were comparing national shipping lines, and he happened to mention that COSCO had 868 ships. He asked me how many ANL had, and 10 was the answer at the time. It was a pretty stark comparison. That illustrates, of course, the difficulty that ANL faces as a small operator: when you are in an international shipping market that is extremely cut-throat, where there is a glut of capacity and where you have operators of that size, using flag of convenience labour in most cases, then you have a very difficult environment to operate in.Labor takes the position now, as it took several years ago in government, that we do not oppose—indeed support—the sale of ANL, that it is no longer of critical importance for ANL to be in public ownership. What is important is that ANL continues to exist, it continues to employ Australians and it continues to provide domestic and international shipping services to Australian industry.As I mentioned, only about four per cent of our international trade is now carried by Australian registered vessels, and it is important that we maintain a significant presence in that trade, because there are a range of spin-off benefits to our economy that would be lost if we ceased to have a substantial shipping industry. Maritime skills, providoring and a range of associated industries are all very important to the Australian economy, and they would dwindle significantly if there were no Australian based presence in the shipping industry. Even things like the Australian Maritime College, which is a very important institution in Launceston and plays a very important role in the maritime industry generally, would suffer significantly if we saw a further decline in our presence in the maritime industry.It is worth noting in this context that the government, through the former Minister for Transport and Regional Development, the member for Hume (Mr Sharp), commissioned the Manser report into Australia's shipping industry some time ago. The inquiry the government established was dominated by employer representatives. There were no union representatives and almost all of the representatives on the Manser committee were employers. The report came back with a variety of recommendations with respect to reform in the Australian shipping industry.It recommended that company employment be reintroduced. There has been the seafarers engagement system or, as it is colloquially known, the roster in the shipping industry for quite some time. It also recommended a reduction in the crew to berth ratio from 2.13 down to about 1.7 and a variety of other specific proposals. But, significantly, the Manser committee recommended that the fiscal supports to the Australian shipping industry which had been put in place by the former Labor government and taken away by the Howard government be reinstituted.I refer to the Ships (Capital Grants) Act, which was one of the very first pieces of legislation put to this parliament by the new Howard government for repeal. I refer to the accelerated depreciation provision, which when it was removed meant that things like bulldozers, tractors, crop dusters and a range of other things that are common capital items in the farming community attracted accelerated depreciation, as do a whole raft of other capital equipment items. But no longer do ships bought to be registered in Australia attract accelerated depreciation. They now have to be depreciated over 13 years inevitably at greater cost which ultimately goes on to the bottom line of the operating costs of each vessel. Finally, the government legislated to wipe out the PAYE tax rebate for international seafarers which, contrary to popular mythology, did not go to the seafarer; it went back to the company and, therefore, in effect reduced the total cost structure of the particular vessel.There is effectively a $2 million per annum per vessel gap between average flag of convenience vessels and Australian registered vessels in international shipping. That $2 million cost gap is critical. It means that Australian registered vessels cannot compete anywhere near the price that can be offered by flag of convenience vessels, many of which of course qualify for the infamous tag of `Ships of shame'. Narrowing that competitiveness gap is of fundamental importance to the Australian shipping industry. We do not need to eliminate it altogether because there are significant advantages with decent safe shipping with well-paid, well-trained crews that will help to balance out the gap in insurance, for example. So the existence of a gap is not in itself a problem, but the magnitude of the gap as it currently exists—around the $2 million mark—is.The Manser recommendations have been the subject of extensive negotiations for quite some time between the various unions in the maritime industry and the employers. Great progress has been made in these negotiations. The union has accepted in principle the notion of reducing the crew to berth ratio to the sorts of levels that are required. An arrangement that amounts to radical change to the seafarers engagement system and moving in the direction of company employment has been accepted. A range of improvements have in effect been accepted in negotiations by the union.The one thing that the Manser inquiry recommended which of course is not over the horizon just yet is fiscal support. That might be something that may cause many people in this chamber to think: why should we subsidise the shipping industry? Why should we subsidise anything? The critical point here is that almost all other countries with any significant shipping industry do subsidise their shipping. International shipping is basically a gigantic tax avoidance and labour regulation avoidance exercise. OECD countries in particular provide substantial fiscal support for their industries.If the Australian shipping industry is to have any prospect of competing on an even vaguely level playing field, it needs some form of fiscal support. With that fiscal support, on top of the reforms that have been and are being negotiated by the unions and the employers, there is a good prospect that we will see that $2 million gap between flag of convenience vessels and Australian vessels narrowed substantially down to, maybe, $300,000 a year or $500,000 a year which provides a possibility for serious competition and competitiveness.The interesting thing about all this is that these negotiations proceeded very well, but the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business (Mr Reith), who has picked up all maritime issues, although he seems to think there is only one maritime issue, which is the work practices of waterside workers, has unilaterally intervened and announced that the Australian Maritime Safety Authority will no longer participate in the seafarers engagement system. He has done a range of other small things that are basically designed, if anything, to derail the negotiations—at best described as imprudent and ill-informed interventions that could cause problems with those negotiations.It is important to understand the nature of the concessions that are involved here by what is painted by the minister as a recalcitrant union. The crew to berth ratio effectively means that you have two sets of crews and seafarers working, in a sense, on a one-on-one ratio—two weeks on, two weeks off; four weeks on, four weeks off and those sorts of things. That is there for a reason. It sounds great until you actually have to do it. It would be great for a lot of ordinary workers if they could say, `Oh, beauty, I turn up for work for two weeks and then I have two weeks off.'The difference here is that these workers do not get to go home at the end of their working day. They are still on the vessel. They have to stay at their workplace. The conditions now are, in a general sense, not too bad. You would not want to be unduly critical, but it is very different from being at home with your family, being able to go out and have a game of golf or do whatever you like. That is the key reason why you need this sort of arrangement. That is why you have it with offshore oil rigs, for example.I notice that some of the comparisons that are made in this debate relate to things like shift workers in the steel industry. The last time I looked—and the honourable member for Throsby (Mr Hollis) can fill me in on this—shift workers in the steel industry actually got to go home after their shift. Seafarers do not. We had the bizarre experience on Monday in this House of listening to the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) who had come up with a brilliant suggestion to solve this issue, and that was that the seafarers could take their families with them to sea so they would no longer have any reason to complain about this.This is probably the first original idea he has had in about 20 years. Thank God it is the only original idea he has had in about 20 years because we can only imagine what the others would be like if he actually came up with any. Of course, he did not contemplate the question of the additional accommodation space that would be required on vessels and who would pay for that or the prospects of where children would entertain themselves or play.DH4HOLLISMr Hollis—Maybe they would take their teachers aboard as well.YU5Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TANNER—Exactly. We might as well put a school on the vessel while we are at it. He also did not contemplate the question of what safety arrangements would be required, because ships are inherently unsafe things and pretty dangerous. Seafarers get injured quite a bit and often seriously because of the nature of their work. So the idea that you would have dozens of small children running around relatively unsupervised is just too bizarre to contemplate. Of course, the fact that the children would be separated from their own friends, their own social environment, their school and whatever for half the time is not a problem either for the honourable member for O'Connor.That is the sort of weird, ill-informed commentary that you get about this industry. It is to the great credit of the Maritime Union that, essentially, they are prepared to forgo what is an entirely reasonable and legitimate arrangement which reflects the fact that their members spend half their lives at sea, away from their families and away from a whole range of things that people take for granted being able to access during non-working hours. It is to the great credit of the union and its members that it is prepared to back away from this in order to ensure that the industry can remain competitive and have a prospect of surviving in its current form.The Australian shipping industry is under severe threat because of the glut of shipping in the international market, because of the grossly unfair competition from flag of convenience vessels, from rust buckets, from vessels on which people worked in outrageous conditions. Some people were almost in slavery circumstances—not paid for months, forced to eat rotten food, beaten up and threatened with their lives.DH4HOLLISMr Hollis—And killed.YU5Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TANNER—And killed, as the honourable member for Throsby has pointed out. That is very common. That is the norm in many parts of the international shipping industry. It is an industry that, at its lower end, is effectively unregulated, and a variety of outrageous things occur. It is very difficult for any nation which seeks to have some sort of civilised labour practices—reasonable pay and conditions and reasonable safety standards on its vessels—to compete in that environment.It is critical that we ensure that we do not cave in to that pressure, that we do not surrender to flag of convenience shipping, that we do not simply lie back and say, `There's nothing we can do about it. Let it happen. Let it take over the whole world.' It is difficult, but there is an onus on this government to ensure that the Australian shipping industry does continue roughly in its present form and preferably grows. The Maritime Union is putting a strategy in place with employers that will enable that to occur, if the government is prepared to allow it to occur and if the government is prepared to provide some small degree of support—even a partial reflection of what was provided by the former government.It is possible—indeed, likely—that the government will sell ANL to a foreign shipowner. There is obviously a serious risk that the new owner will turn the vessels involved into flag of convenience vessels, foreign labour will be employed at much lower rates of pay and, ultimately, the vessels could be on-sold individually to a whole range of different operators. The bottom line in this issue that the government has to confront is the future employment of Australians who are currently working for ANL—that is, roughly 280-odd shore based jobs and the equivalent of approximately 300 full-time seafarer jobs. That is a `back of the envelope' calculation, but those are the sorts of jobs we are talking about.Those jobs could disappear overnight if the government sits back and says, `We just want to flog this off. We just want to hand it over. Whatever dollar we get goes into consolidated revenue. That's the end of the story.' They could disappear overnight, and there is no reason why that should happen. ANL is moving into the black. The surgery that was required to fix up its finances has been done, courtesy not of the current government but of the previous government. It is back on an even keel and is likely to continue to be profitable and efficient. Therefore, there is no reason why these jobs should be allowed to go out of Australia.So the challenge that we put to the government is: come into the parliament and give guarantees that you will sell ANL but only on the condition that there is some basis for continuity of employment of Australians in the company. That was the stand that the previous government took—it got criticised widely for doing so—and that is the stand that this government should take also. So far there is no sign that it is doing anything of the sort. Therefore, I move:That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:"whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House declines to give the Bill any further consideration until the Government provides guarantees to the Parliament that the sale of ANL will proceed on the basis that the company will continue to employ Australians in its operations".Incidentally, the government should also come clean on what role it intends ANL to play with respect to the current dispute at Webb Dock involving the National Farmers Federation. There have already been reports of the minister instructing or requesting ANL to enter into contracts with P&C Stevedoring to be the guinea pig for some sort of exercise involving stevedoring at Webb Dock. Alternatively, it is possible that the government could sell ANL to a particular operator on the condition that they act in a certain way with respect to their operations not only with ANL but also potentially with their other shipping operations, if they are an existing shipping company, with respect to the current maritime dispute—that is, facilitate the use of non-union labour, confront the MUA, et cetera.Given the attitude that the government has adopted on these issues, all these things are possible, and the government should come clean on precisely what it is doing in this regard. You can rest assured that the opposition will be scrutinising the sale process and the behaviour of the new owner very carefully in order to see whether any funny coincidences emerge down the track that may indeed have a connection with the sale.In conclusion, as I have moved the second reading amendment, I would also like to mention that a number of amendments have been submitted by the government—to the best of my knowledge, they were circulated only this afternoon; the clerks may correct me, but I believe that is the case. The opposition has had only a very limited time to scrutinise these amendments, so our position is that we will not oppose these amendments in the House, but we reserve the right to oppose them in the Senate following further scrutiny and discussion. Given question time and the fact that I had the MPI this afternoon, we literally have not had the opportunity to give serious consideration to them.The basic position which we will continue to put both here and in the Senate is very straightforward. We do not oppose the sale of ANL provided that the government puts in place some arrangements to ensure the continuing employment of Australians in its operations and provided its ensures that it is not just going to be handed over holus bolus to a flag of convenience arrangement which would mean that 600-odd Australian jobs in a very important industry would simply go down the drain and which would leave Australia in a position where we may ultimately have no international shipping industry at all, which, for a nation that is the fifth largest maritime market in the world on the basis of volume per kilometres, would be a very sad prospect indeed.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. G.H. Adams)—Is the amendment seconded?DH4HOLLISMr Hollis—I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.18:31:001030Smith, Tony, MPMr TONY SMITHSK6DicksonIND00—The remarks we have just heard from the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Tanner) in this debate on the ANL Sale Bill 1997 indicate the difficulties that the Labor Party has had with ANL over many years. His speech, while avoiding the unfortunate and sad catalogue involving the attempts to come to some sort of finality with ANL and to know what to do with ANL, really was highlighted by the grudging acceptance that ANL has to be sold with the proviso that it continues to employ Australians in its operations.ANL and Australian shipping generally once had a proud history on the Australian coast. It was a buoyant industry. It had many vessels plying between Australian ports and elsewhere. It was a profitable industry. In the age of passenger vessels, it was a very exciting industry for many people.However, over time, and as the realities of air and other forms of transport set in, as different ways of doing business set in, as better roads became available and so forth, the shipping industry unfortunately suffered. I say unfortunately because I believe we had a strong Australian shipping industry. It is very sad to see that the shipping industry on the Australian coast has come to the stage where I am standing up in this House, almost 30 years to the day from when I was working as an apprentice in the Evans Deakin shipyard actually building the Sydney Trader, speaking about the sale of ANL.I do not say for one moment that what has happened is not the inevitability of what has been demanded. However, I say it with a good deal of sadness. Not only did a strong and buoyant Australian shipping industry produce many benefits for shore side people—workers in engineering shops and various related industries, providores and parts suppliers—but it also provided potential business for shipyards, such as those in Newcastle, Brisbane, Whyalla, Walkers in Maryborough and others. As the member for Melbourne mentioned, the Maritime College was also a tremendous innovation—and it is situated in your home state Mr Deputy Speaker Adams.Those things taken together provided a tremendous incentive for creating and sustaining work, for the training of apprentices and for the development of career paths for highly qualified people to go on to engineering and naval architecture and to assume command of vessels. Looking back, that has gone. I say that with a somewhat heavy heart.I recalled only a couple of days ago that the very first time I set eyes on the new Speaker, Mr Ian Sinclair, was when he was walking through Evans Deakin as a former minister for shipping and transport, I think, in 1968. At the time, it was a large shipyard. It employed 1,500 to 1,800 people. That has all gone. That is a real tragedy. A lot of things have gone and a lot of things have changed, but I ask myself: why did that happen?It is important to accept—and the honourable member for Melbourne discussed leave arrangements and so forth—that a one-on, one-off arrangement was never sustainable. When I was working on ships on the coast, I think first of all we had one day off to every 1.66 days that we worked. Then it became one-on, one-off. Unfortunately, that combined with unrealistically high levels of wages for those in the industry was unsustainable. The unions in that area killed the goose that laid the golden egg. They did not think it could happen. They never dreamed that the shipping industry would fall away the way it has fallen away—it is not dead yet and heaven help us if it were dead.I want to emphasise that the last thing I would want to see on the Australian coast is a shipping industry with foreign crews and without Australian crews on those ships. I think that would be a tragedy for Australia and an unfortunate consequence of history.Some criticism was made of the member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) in relation to taking families to sea. I recall that happening at one stage. There was a real move to do that. In some vessels it did happen in relation to wives and young children. I can recall a young child going away on a vessel that travelled overseas on a China Navigation Company vessel that I was involved with. That did happen. There was a suggestion of moving into that area which, in my view, was a good way to go if it were possible.There were obviously problems with accommodation. There were obviously problems with safety, as the member for Melbourne said. But the fact of the matter was that there was a capacity to do that in a limited way and there was a capacity to encourage seamen to take their wives and sometimes young children on those sorts of vessels. I think that sort of notion, which I believe the company should have taken more on board, may well have been the incentive perhaps to rein the claims for greater leave entitlements back a little to keep them not ahead of world standards but abreast of world standards. Once we moved away from the average standard—it is quite clear that we did that over time—the problems really started to set in.When you look at the history of the shipping industry, in particular of ANL, you will see that between 1957 and 1969 there were profits in the industry. It was a profitable industry, at least in so far as ANL was concerned and, I believe, also BHP, the other very significant carrier at that time on the coast. After that time there was a deterioration so that by 1975 and 1976 annual losses were around about $10 million. Technically, ANL was insolvent by 1983, requiring a rescue package at that time to convert debts into equity. It was at that stage, I recall, that ANL looked like it was really, pardon the pun, sinking fast. The government then took steps to rescue it.It must be conceded that those high costs related to crew levels. Having had the opportunity to be both on the coast and on foreign vessels, I was able to compare those standards. The numbers of crew on Australian vessels and the numbers of crew on foreign vessels were markedly different—frequently 10 and 12 people more on the Australian vessels than on the overseas vessels. There had to be some recognition of that.As a member of the Institute of Marine and Power Engineers at the time, I can recall having a discussion with one of the union secretaries about that very fact: that there had to be an appreciation of the fact that this disparity is going to lead inevitably to the death of the Australian shipping industry. Unfortunately, we frequently think only of the next week's pay instead of looking down the track a bit and seeing whether we are going to have pay at all. I think there was a good deal of myopic approach to that situation by some union officials.Others did see there were problems coming. I know that the guild and the institute at that time did have people who were very keen to effect some sort of reform. The difficulty always was that we would say, `It is you,' and they would say, `No, it is the engineers.' You would have this continual argument about who should go. Ultimately, during the 80s there was a report titled Moving ahead, which urged financial incentives to encourage owners to invest in labour saving devices and labour saving vessels in particular.Under the Ships (Capital Grants) Act 1987, vessels would qualify for a taxable grant of seven per cent of their purchase price and owners were allowed to claim 20 per cent accelerated depreciation. Crew levels on the new vessels had been reduced to about 21 or 22 under the package of the Maritime Industry Development Committee. As manning levels had fallen on the Australian coast, so they fell even further on foreign vessels. It is true, as you would know, Mr Deputy Speaker—and it has been mentioned again and again—the conditions suffered by some of those crews on the ships of shame, as we have come to call them, were absolutely horrendous. There is to doubt about that.I believe one of the very important things that unions did was highlight that very dreadful situation experienced by foreign seamen. I think they did some very good work in trying to redress the awful conditions. We knew, as has already been mentioned, the difficulties of identifying who owned these vessels. You would go on this enormous path all over the world trying to track them down. You would end up somewhere in Greece, then Panama and then Monrovia—all over the place. Eventually, in trying to get some sort of redress, you would finish up getting nowhere. Unfortunately, that is a sad state of affairs.It was commendable that Australian seamen did quite a bit work in trying to redress those inequities. I commend them for it. Let us give credit where it is due. But I must say that there was an inability, shall I say, to look at the wages and conditions during this time. I know it is very hard to take a drop in your leave payment when you are on a one-on, one-off situation and Australian vessels were, by the mid-1990s anyway, in a situation where each Australian vessel had to employ 2.1 to 2.2 crews per vessel. That cost, compared with the OECD average of 1.6 to 1.7, again put Australian crews in a very difficult situation, with the standard of accommodation and so forth.We have a situation now where the sale of ANL is an inevitability. The history that the Labor Party in government went through in relation to this issue is a stark reminder, perhaps, of the difficulties it had. It struggled with it from July 1991 up to a period in November 1995, basically, after commencing with an independent study of the value of ANL. I might just mention that in 1992 Potter Warburg-Price Waterhouse argued that the ANL's value lay between $171 million and minus $127 million, although another study, undertaken by Salomon Brothers, reported in August 1994 that ANL's indicative value lay between minus $74.8 million and minus $117.8 million.Those figures, of course, gave some idea of a significant dispute about what, in fact, was the real state of ANL, but they did leave the previous government with a situation where something had to be done about ANL. But it is something that has been around for a while. Let us face it: in the mid-1970s ANL was losing money and it continued to lose money. In 1983, that was the first real attempt to rescue it. Basically, from then on, things have not improved greatly. At the end of the day, this is the inevitable consequence of it.In conclusion, I am a 100 per cent wholehearted supporter of Australian shipping and if I could wave a magic wand and see Australian shipping return to its past glory, I would do it straightaway. But is there is no magic wand involved in this situation; there are some hard practical matters of fact before we can say that Australian shipping does need something. It needs a recognition that it has to be more efficient, a recognition that the old days have passed now and we have to try and get these ships running efficiently. Any potential buyer of ANL will have to do that.Like the previous speaker, I do hope—and indeed I will be watching very closely what happens—that the ANL sale will not lead to losses of work for workers in that particular area. I commend the bill to the House and would trust that it will be given a passage through the House.18:50:001033Hollis, Colin, MPMr HOLLISDH4ThrosbyALP00—I usually start off my speeches in this chamber by saying: I am pleased to participate in this important debate. Today, I am not pleased. It is a very sad day. It is a sad day for me personally and it is a sad day for what remains of Australian shipping. I always listen to what the honourable member for Dickson (Mr Tony Smith) says, especially on shipping, because I know that he has had a lot of experience in this field, and especially as he seemed—although he did not exactly say it—to be supporting the opposition's amendment without actually coming out and saying so. I listened to what he had to say with a lot of interest.I suspect that I may be in a minority of one on this. Let me at the outset make my position perfectly clear. I am today, as I always have been, totally opposed to the sale of ANL. Of course, I will be voting for the amendment moved by my colleague the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Tanner). That is the Australian Labor Party's official line and I will support that, but I am personally totally opposed to the sale of ANL.What we should be doing is expanding the fleet, not selling it, and we should be building ships in Australia. Some years ago I was in Copenhagen, Denmark, looking at shipping there. I went to where they were building ships in Copenhagen. We are always told that it is too expensive and that we could not afford to do it in Australia. In Denmark, they have a wage structure actually higher than ours, and by using modern technology, modern equipment, and catering to a specialised market, they can build ships there.I do not see why we have not been able to build ships or why we are not building ships in Australia. I know that there have been several looks at this. Indeed, a House of Representatives committee a few years back carried out an inquiry into shipbuilding in Australia, which is gathering dust on shelves somewhere like so many reports from this place do. Nevertheless, I think that we have lost an opportunity there. We have put it in the too-hard basket.People have been talking about the ANL over the last few years making a loss. I never hear anyone in this parliament talk about the losses of the railways or the losses of other things. There is no state in Australia—and you know, Mr Deputy Speaker Adams, about Tasmania—where the railways make a profit. They put millions—not a year, but a week—into these loss-making ventures and no-one comes into this parliament and makes great speeches about how much taxpayer funds are going into the railways. If we had put just into Australian shipping a smidgen of the taxpayers' money that is thrown at the railways every year, maybe we would not be in the position where we are today, where about only four per cent of our international trade is carried in Australian flagged and Australian crewed vessels.I think selling off that small amount of the fleet that is still in operation is a tragic mistake for Australia. There is no country in the world that is more dependent on the sea lanes to and from it than Australia. We all mouth the words that we hope there will not be any international conflict. We live in perhaps what is becoming the most volatile part of the world. None of us today can say that, within our own lifetime, we will not be involved in international conflicts or there will not be international conflicts in our part of the world. Yet if there were an international conflict and we had sold off our fleet, we would not have any Australian vessels, Australian crew or Australian flagged vessels; they would be all foreign vessels.Whatever happens—and it appears to me inevitable that ANL will be sold—it is important that Australian jobs be maintained. We do have world-class seafarers. I have visited the college at Launceston a couple of times. The seafarers that we produce there are world class. The honourable member for Dickson has said that he hopes he does not see foreign crews along the Australian coastline. I think there is a certainty that we will see foreign crews. We will see the rust buckets of the world because they are cheap and that is all we are interested in in this country today—the lowest possible price. It does not matter what the condition is of the ships going around our coast.People come into this place and mouth words about the condition of the crew. I am a member of the Board of the Missions to Seamen, so you talk to me about the conditions for the crew. I go and look at the ships at Port Kembla. I always go down there. The first thing they do is contact me. The conditions that these people work in are appalling. The conditions which they live under are also appalling. It is not getting any better. Stinking, rusting ships are coming in. Crews are not being fed, let alone paid—they are not being paid for months and months.I have seen seafarers in Port Kembla who have lodged complaints with the International Transport Union never arrive in Brisbane because they are kicked overboard between Sydney and Brisbane. There are people being murdered all the time along the coast of Australia and we do absolutely nothing about it. A bashing happened in the Port of Dampier last year when a crew member there com plained. He was bashed with iron bars. He jumped overboard and drowned. There was a coronial inquiry, which did not produce anything.We just do not care as long as those who are using the ships to and from Australia can get lower and lower rates. I would like to ask some of those people who are benefiting from these lower rates how they go to bed every night with these murders on their conscience, because this is what is happening. The problem is that most of these crews are from the Third World. If they are from the Third World, no-one cares. If they were German, British, American or—God help us—Australian seafarers who were disappearing, there would be articles in the paper and there might even be an editorial in the Financial Review, which is always so strong in criticising the Maritime Union and telling us how our shipping fleet has to be sold off. There might even be an editorial there talking about the conditions that these seafarers face, the way that they are not paid, the way that they are not fed, the way that they are abused, the way that they are beaten and the way it is treated. This is what we want.If it is so important for us to have crews from the Third World working on the ships along the Australian coastline, why don't we go all the way? Since we are so anxious to have it all opened up, why don't we import a few stewards from Burma to work on the airlines—maybe to push the drinks trolley that rattles down through business class, where most of my colleagues travel. Why don't we have drinks being served by Burmese stewards?Why don't we perhaps bring in Greek pilots and co-pilots, maybe a radio operator from the United Kingdom, a crew from Myanmar and then maybe the people who are servicing them from the Philippines? If we are all for deregulation and all for opening up the markets, I am sure that having stewards serving the drinks to the business-class passengers from Burma would be at a much lower cost than having stewards from here. If it is good enough to have seafarers from throughout the world working on the ships along the Australian coastline, why is it not good enough to have people from all over the world working on the airlines or maybe for good measure—and I know the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Tim Fischer), who is at the table, would agree with this—have them working on our railways?It is only shipping that we are prepared to open up to the rest of the world—not any of these other transport industries. Let me tell you this: it will happen. Despite the honourable member for Dickson saying that he hopes he does not see it, the Australian coastline will be opened up not only to the rust buckets of the world but also to crews from throughout the world.Australia has played an important part in the international maritime world. If we are going to continue to have a voice in such international councils as the IMO, it is important that we continue to have a viable shipping industry in Australia. ANL's performance has been good over the last few years. As I said, Australia must have a shipping industry. It is a great tragedy that this government has no policy for Australia's shipping industry. The approach to the Australian shipping industry has always been one of confrontation. What has happened to the Australian Maritime Safety Authority is also a tragedy. Crew levels have come down over the last few years through the training at Launceston and also through multiskilling. It is the Maritime Union that has led this country in the multiskilling of crews.It is important that we keep a viable shipping industry in Australia. The former occupant of the chair, Mr Deputy Speaker Adams, coming from Tasmania, would realise how important it is to areas like Tasmania that we have a viable shipping industry in Australia. I support the amendment moved by my colleague the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Tanner).19:03:001035Prosser, Geoff, MPMr PROSSERRI4ForrestLP10—I am pleased that so many of my colleagues have come in to listen to this speech during the second reading debate on the ANL Sale Bill 1997 . When the Australian National Shipping Line was formed by Billy Hughes in 1916, Australia faced vastly different challenges than it does today. In 1916 there was a shortage of ships to carry Australian exports, there was a shortage of capital for a private shipping line to be established and there was a lack of expertise in Australia's young economy to undertake such a venture. These factors formed a persuasive argument for a government owned shipping business and, indeed, government ownership of other large-scale projects at the time. Eighty years on, Australia's trading environment is entirely different and such arguments do not stand up to scrutiny. Today, Australia is a mature member of the global network of trading nations. Today, sufficient capital and expertise exists for government shipping businesses to be sold and the barriers to competition to be removed.In an international context, the process of privatising government business enterprises is an acknowledgment by governments across the political spectrum and throughout the world that government business enterprises are no longer required in advanced economies. But privatisation of government business enterprises also reflects a realisation amongst public policy makers that private ownership raises overall efficiency and expertise. It does this by encouraging competition, by increasing a firm's market flexibility, by providing alternative sources of capital and by allowing the markets and shareholders to regularly assess the firm's performance.Britain has led the world in privatisation programs since the early 1980s. Privatisation programs have been adopted by not only developed countries but also the developing world and Australia's industrialised Asian neighbours. The World Bank and other international grant providers consistently encourage the developing world to adopt privatisation measures as an essential feature of their economic development.In China, 117,000 of the 118,000 state owned enterprises are being privatised as part of China's economic reform program. This process of privatisation is not only sweeping the countries of our region but also the former communist countries of Hungary, Poland and Russia. These forces for change are also sweeping through Latin America—most notably Argentina, Bolivia and Brazil—where privatisation is well under way by governments which have abandoned their centrally planned economies and opened their protected markets. Mr Speaker, I seek leave to continue my comments at a later time.Leave granted; debate adjourned.Questions Without Notice1036103619:06:001036Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—Mr Speaker, I seek the indulgence of the chair to add to an answer.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Indulgence granted.ZD4Howard, John, MPMr HOWARD—At question time today, I placed on notice a series of questions asked of me regarding Senator Parer. I inform the House that I am satisfied on the basis of the advice I have received since question time that Senator Parer has not breached the ministerial guidelines.LL6BALDWINMr Bob Baldwin—What about Bolkus?ZD4Howard, John, MPMr HOWARD—Indeed, Bolkus.Honourable members interjecting—ZD4Howard, John, MPMr HOWARD—Mr Speaker, I might say that again: I am satisfied that Senator Parer has not breached the ministerial guidelines.YK6WILTONMr Wilton—That's what you said about Prosser! That's what you said about Sharp!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member for Isaacs will resume his seat and remain silent.ZD4Howard, John, MPMr HOWARD—Mr Speaker, it has been alleged that Senator Parer has breached the ministerial guidelines in regard to the operation of the Parer family trust, Investment Management Pty Ltd, or IM Pty Ltd. Senator Parer disclosed in his ministerial return that Investment Management Pty Ltd held a one per cent shareholding involving 16 non-voting shares in the private company, Queensland Coal Mining Management Pty Ltd. That company operates an open-cut coal mine near Blackwater in central Queensland.Senator Parer's ministerial return was referred to the Secretary to the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet on 7 May 1997 for consideration, as is the procedure with all ministerial declarations. On 9 May 1997, the secretary advised my office that Senator Parer's statement was in accordance with the guidelines. Mr Moore-Wilton has subsequently advised me that in forming this view he took into account the following issues: firstly, the Parer family trust vehicle, IM Pty Ltd, has been in operation for a considerable period of time, pre-dating Senator Parer's appointment to the ministry.UNKNOWNOpposition membersOpposition members—Oh!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Members of the opposition will remain silent.ZD4Howard, John, MPMr HOWARD—Mr Speaker, I make the point that, contrary to the inference of the member for Hotham (Mr Crean), these arrangements were not entered into at the time of Senator Parer's appointment to the ministry for the purpose of circumventing the ministerial guidelines. That was a cheap slur against an honest man, made by the member for Hotham.The second point I make is that the shares held by the trust are non-voting shares. Thirdly, I make the point that QCMM Pty Ltd is a private company whose shares are neither listed nor traded, and as such there is no scope for public divestment, as with publicly listed shares.I ask that all members particularly listen to this, because it goes to motive and it goes to honour: I have been advised that neither Senator Parer nor his wife, Mrs Kathi Parer, have received income from the trust holdings in QCMM in either 1995-96 or 1996-97. That is for the whole period that he has been a minister in my government.It has also been alleged that the trust holding constitutes a potential conflict of interest. I have been advised that Senator Parer has not sought to advance the interests of QCMM in any way in his ministerial capacity. He has indicated that he has not made any direct representation in support of the company either within the government or to overseas purchasers of coal. The government's decision to remove export controls on coal was an election commitment formulated prior to Senator Parer having any portfolio responsibility for minerals export policy. He was not even a member of the backbench committee, so I am informed, when that policy was formulated in opposition.In regard to the diesel fuel rebate scheme, this issue relates to a benefit generically extending across a number of portfolios, including primary industries, resources and customs. Senator Parer has no policy or administrative responsibility for the diesel fuel rebate scheme. Moreover, given the importance of this scheme, the decision on its future was taken by the whole of the cabinet as part of last year's budget deliberations.I conclude by saying again: I am satisfied, on the advice that I have been provided with, that he has not breached the ministerial guidelines. I might add that my own personal experience of Senator Parer, over a long period of time, is that he is a man of both intelligence and complete honesty.19:13:001037Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—I seek your indulgence, Mr Speaker.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Indulgence is granted.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—The Prime Minister (Mr Howard) has failed to answer the questions that have been put to him and he is scurrying out of the chamber because he knows that it will not be long before he is back in here announcing the resignation of the Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Parer.We have the circumstances where the Prime Minister stopped Senator Herron from practising medicine because he was Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs but he has not stopped Senator Parer holding shares in a coal company when he is the minister with responsibility for coal. What sort of logic is in that? He required the resignation of Jim Short for not disclosing shares which he could not influence in terms of the NAB. He sought that resignation immediately. We have now established that Senator Parer has, through the private company which he and his wife control alone, nine shares, eight of them held by Senator Parer, one by his wife, both directors, and they have held the shares in Queensland Coal Mining Management. He dismisses 16 shares as a small amount. The trouble is they are worth $2 million, at least.If we are being told that these are just a little parcel, where has the Prime Minister been denying the value of those shares? Two million dollars worth of shares—and we are supposed to ignore it! The Prime Minister does not even mention it. We also have the circumstance in the Senate that Senator Parer has listed in his register of interests the interest in Investment Management Pty Ltd. What he has not done is list the shares that it holds. He is required under Senate practice to do that, quite apart from the Prime Minister's own admonition to his members, when they got caught in the John Moore scandal following the Jim Short episode, when he ordered Max Moore-Wilton, his departmental head, to run the fine tooth comb over all of these things. What we have is the person who hid them.It is not as if he did not know of the importance of this company shareholding because the minister divested himself of the directorship in Queensland Coal Mining Management. Why did he divest himself of the directorship and as chair? Because he declared it. But what he had not declared were the shares and, therefore, he did not divest them. This was deceitful, Mr Speaker.The other point that has not been disclosed and which the Prime Minister has made no mention of in his answer is the direct holding of 44 shares in QCMM—ESP Group Pty Ltd—a direct holding of shares in a subsidiary of the company, not even through the device of the trust or the private company. Nor has he listed, as he is required to do in the Senate, the subsidiary companies of Queensland Coal Mining Management which he just has this little $2 million interest in. What are those interests? They are 100 per cent ownership of Advanced Queensland Resources and Mining Pty Ltd, which just happens to operate an open-cut mine in Jellinbah. They have 100 per cent ownership as a subsidiary of Jellinbah Mining Pty Ltd, which lists the nature of its business as coal mining, and they have a 70 per cent interest in Bowen Basin Coal Pty Ltd, whose principal activity is coal mining. Yet we are being told there are $2 million worth of shares in coal, plus the potential dividend streams that come off it, in the minister's own portfolio area of responsibility.If that is not a conflict, what is? If that is not a conflict, let them bring Jim Short back and try to argue that case for him. Why dump Jim Short when the Prime Minister is prepared to hang on to a mate? We know he shared a house with Senator Parer. Is he protecting him simply because he is a mate? What he is not doing is honouring his code of conduct, nor is Senator Parer abiding by the requirements that exist in the Senate in terms of the way in which you register.The fact of the matter is that Senator Parer is guilty on three counts. He is guilty on the count that he has not disclosed the shares to the Senate, as he is required to do. He is guilty on the count that he has not disclosed, through the Prime Minister, his shareholding in Queensland Coal Mining Management, which constitutes a clear conflict. And he is guilty on the count that, as minister for coal, he has all of these overlapping interests—intriguing web, deceitful web—in the coal industry. If that is not a conflict of interest, what is?I know the Prime Minister has walked away from many things in his tawdry two years of office, but this is a disgraceful capitulation in terms of a mate. How can he come into this House and say that he is satisfied that Senator Parer has complied with his requirements?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member has now exceeded the time. I suggest that he comes to the conclusion of his indulgence. If he wishes to move a motion, that is for him.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—Thank you, Mr Speaker. I will draw to a conclusion.WI4REITHMr Reith—He will need to. He ran out of puff about 10 minutes ago.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—There is no lost puff in this, I assure you. We will be going after you and you will be in there with the smile wiped off that stupid face.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member will draw his remarks to a close.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—It has been said by the Prime Minister again in his answer that the minister and his wife received no dividend stream benefit in 1995-96. Where did the distribution go? It would simply have been washed through the family trust and benefited his own family directly. There are many more questions to be answered. The Prime Minister should be in here doing that. Most of all, he should have demanded the resignation of Senator Parer.5V5SMITHMr Stephen Smith—On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I asked the Prime Minister three questions today at question time. He has come into the House. He has not directly answered.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—That is no basis for a point of order.Bills1038r3881038Debate resumed.19:22:001038Prosser, Geoff, MPMr PROSSERRI4ForrestLP10—In many countries where privatisation of government business enterprises is under way, the process is seen not merely as an element of economic policy but central to government initiatives to establish and nurture democracy. In Australia, the privatisation of government business enterprises has contributed significantly to the budget outcomes of the federal and state governments. In the case of Victoria, the privatisation of government businesses has increased the state government's revenue through asset sales and efficiency savings following the successful privatisation of poorly run government enterprises.The proceeds of the privatisation of Victoria's electricity industry alone have reached some $22.9 billion. This revenue has been used to lower Victoria's state debt from $32.3 billion in 1992 to $12.4 billion in 1997. Put another way, Victoria has reduced its net debt from $7,000 for each Victorian to $2,500. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, this is the largest decrease of debt for any state or territory in history. The Victorian government has also saved $2 billion in state taxes and charges since 1993 as a direct result of these privatisation measures.A good example is the Victorian state government's car pool, where the number of vehicles dropped from 24,000 to 10,000 after the government contracted the car pool out to the private sector. These and other savings gained from successful privatisation programs in Victoria have enabled the government to provide capital for long-term projects such as the four-year $100 million turning the tide drug strategy and the $25 million suicide prevention program. (Quorum formed) As a government, we pursue the privatisation of government business enterprises because we realise the improved efficiency that introducing competition brings.We believe that allowing the market and shareholders to assess the performance of previously state owned enterprises confers greater benefits to the Australian public. We pursue the privatisation of government business enterprises because we believe that the government should not run businesses that can be run more efficiently by the private sector. ANL is one such case. Under the previous Labor government, ANL performed poorly. In 1991 ANL's accumulated losses were $41 million. In 1993 these losses had grown to $57 million. The following year, these losses were more than tripled to $187 million, giving ANL a debt to equity ratio of some 160 per cent.In 1994, a due diligence report conducted by Price Waterhouse and the Salomon Brothers for the Commonwealth Task Force on Asset Sales said:ANL has represented a poor investment over the past twelve years for the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth injected $160.5 million in equity between 1983 and 1985 yet received only $20.7 million in dividends between 1983 and the present day.In 1994, the CEO's report stated:There are various reasons for these losses which reflect ANL's position as a relatively small container shipping line in world trade terms. ANL has to compete with rapidly emerging round-the-world `mega-carriers' whose east-west services are supported by north-south feeder services to hub ports, not to mention other international lines many times its size. The economies of scale enjoyed by these lines, particularly in the areas of equipment utilisation and repositioning, cannot be replicated by ANL without changing its international relationship.Neither the due diligence report nor the chief executive officer's comments were convincing enough for the Labor government to act. Labor continued to throw taxpayers' money at ANL instead of taking the tough political decision of reducing the public's debt burden by selling ANL.The due diligence report was also highly critical of ANL's financial forecasting. The December 1993 business plan for ANL forecast earnings before interest and tax of $7.9 million for the year ending 30 June 1994, whereas ANL's estimate for that year, as contained in the June 1994 strategic plan, was negative $12.6 million, representing an underperformance of some $20.5 million. ANL's forecast on a pre-tax basis has been at least as poor. As at August 1994, ANL's assessment of its consolidated pre-tax results for 1993-94 is a loss of some $23.5 million against a budgeted loss of $2.4 million. They lost $23.5 million; they budgeted to lose $2.4 million. Why on earth, on that basis, did Labor fail to sell the ANL?0V5SLIPPERMr Slipper—Tell us.RI4Prosser, Geoff, MPMr PROSSER—Labor failed to sell ANL because they could not tackle the waterfront union. That is why they failed to sell the ANL.ZI4ROCHERMr Rocher—Laurie said he would give it away.RI4Prosser, Geoff, MPMr PROSSER—The member for Curtin is quite right. The former transport minister, Laurie Brereton, said, `You could not sell ANL; you actually could not give it away.' You actually could not give it away, because these guys drove it through poor management into the ground. It is because they would not take the tough decisions. They would not take the decisions that needed to be made.Adjournment103910000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 7.30 p.m., I propose the question:That the House do now adjourn. I call the honourable member for Curtin. If there is a backbencher standing, I won't call somebody on the front bench.104019:30:001040Rocher, Allan, MPMr ROCHERZI4CurtinIND00—I want to urge the government with all the sincerity I can to clarify an issue involving tax deductible expenditure, with all the energy and speed they can muster. The issue was raised by me by way of a question without notice to the Treasurer (Mr Costello) on Monday. Members may recall that I asked a two-barrelled question which reads:Can the Treasurer advise if his government will allow as tax deductible expenditure the costs of businesses converting systems to cope with the so-called millennium bug? Will the decision be taken by the government or by the Australian Taxation Office?In his answer, the Treasurer quite properly pointed out that the tax treatment to be meted out will depend on the threshold question as to whether the costs incurred by businesses are deemed either to be operational or in the nature of capital expenditure. While I am no longer sure under modern accounting practices, running or operational costs used to qualify as allowable expenses before a taxable profit was arrived at in the accounts of all businesses. Hopefully, that is still the case. If it is not, or if by some strange quirk of logic the costs of conversions required to cope with the millennium bug are deemed capital expenditure, a great injustice will be perpetrated.My immediate interest was spurred by press reports that indicated that the tax treatment of such costs was to be determined by the Australian Taxation Office, the ATO, acting alone. My relief knew no bounds when the Treasurer, in answer to the second barrel of my question, said in part:. . . I think it is proper that the government does take the decision on this. The honourable member for Curtin will know that the government has established a very high powered committee, and ministerial responsibility for that is with the Minister for Finance and Administration and the Minister for Industry, Science and Tourism. One of the terms of reference of that committee is to look at the taxation consequences and make recommendations to the government, which I will be very happy to receive. In other words, the ATO will not have the last say on this matter. That is very much to be welcomed. It is part of an important opening gambit.My expression of support carries with it a natural assumption that the ministerial committee will consult both urgently and widely with a view to reporting to the Treasurer at the very earliest practical date. In turn, I urge the Treasurer to make known the government's intentions, as a matter of urgency, to ensure confidence and certainty in the private sector. The fact that the government has organised a ministerial committee to investigate the taxation consequences of the deductibility of the cost of conversion is certainly a step in the right direction but, with 1 January 2000 deadline now less than two years away, business expects a rapid response from the government and not, of course, endless meetings.It is of interest to note that the Australian Bureau of Statistics estimates that, as at June 1994, more than 210,000 Australian small businesses relied on personal computers to improve the efficiency of their enterprises. Unless the government decides to allow as a tax deduction the costs of converting computer systems to avoid the Y2K bug, every one of these small businesses will be hit by an additional impost of serious proportions. Of course, it is not only small businesses which will be smitten; businesses small and large, private and public, will all be affected.I have a feeling of trepidation about this, notwithstanding my remarks so far. Because the costs to industry are potentially huge, depending on which prediction one listens to from time to time, my fear is that the decision will be taken on the detrimental effect on business tax revenues rather than on accepted accounting practices, and that that decision will prevail. If that fear is realised, the burden of the cost of the actual conversions will be compounded by disallowance of expenditure in the tax year in which it is incurred. If it comes to fruition, that will be the worst of all worlds for Australian industry at a time when it is or should be gearing up to compete on its merits for exports and against imports. (Time expired)104119:35:001041Bailey, Fran, MPMrs BAILEYJT4McEwanLP10—Mr Speaker, this is the first opportunity I have had to formally congratulate you on being elected Speaker in this House, and I do so now with great pride. I rise tonight because I want to bring to the attention of this House a quiet revolution that is happening in research into cancer, both in the laboratory and in clinical trials. This quiet revolution is happening at the largest branch of the internationally renowned Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research located at the Austin and Repatriation Medical Centre in Melbourne. The Ludwig Institute was founded by Daniel Ludwig in 1974. In establishing the institute, Daniel Ludwig said:Success in any complex enterprise consists of bringing together the best minds to bear on each problem, in providing the best resources possible and in putting each concept into practice whenever and wherever the opportunities are most favourable. I believe firmly in the value of applying these principles in grappling with tasks as momentous as finding ways to relieve the human suffering caused by cancer.Today, the original concept of Daniel Ludwig is being fulfilled by 10 research centres throughout the world, the largest being the Australian centre in Melbourne. Each of the centres conducts its own specific research but, in keeping with the original guidelines set in place by Daniel Ludwig, there is a sharing of research in order to achieve the best possible result. It is important that the Melbourne centre is located at a major University and teaching hospital, because it gains by having access to all departments and is better able to conduct clinical trials as well as having such a strong emphasis on academic research.So much more is known about cancer and the way to treat this invasive disease and for a person to be diagnosed with cancer today does not necessarily mean there is no prognosis and a complete lack of quality of life. Research conducted by institutes like the Ludwig have meant that many forms of cancer can be successfully treated and many people can pursue a normal life free of pain. However, there are still some forms of cancer that destroy healthy cells at a rapacious rate and can make life intolerable.The Melbourne Ludwig Institute is leading the way in innovative research in two major areas. These are a tumour targeting program and a vaccine program which are conducted both in the laboratory and in clinical trials where patients choose to volunteer for this particular form of treatment, either in conjunction with their current treatment or by itself.In the tumour targeting program, antibodies are developed on site in the Ludwig Laboratory and injected to target specific tumours. Progress is monitored by using positron emission tomography—or PET technology—which, I am pleased to say, has been funded by this government. This means that patients can be monitored using the very latest in technology in a non-invasive manner, thereby avoiding further stress and ensuring that our scientists can be assured that their research is being assessed by the highest technical quality of instrumentation.The program is supported by collaboration with both other Australian as well as overseas research institutes and, importantly, private industry. The vaccine program is designed to achieve immunity for specific cancers. Laboratory research concentrates on identifying the relationship between different cancers and the immune system. Currently, clinical trials are being conducted on patients with advanced malignant melanomas and many other forms of cancer.It is vital that research of this calibre is conducted. I would like to place on record my thanks and appreciation to the Director of the Melbourne Branch of the Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research, Professor Antony Burgess; the Director of the Clinical Program at the Austin and Repatriation Medical Centre, Associate Professor Jonathan Cebon; the Director of the tumour targeting program, Dr Andrew Scott; and the laboratory head of the cancer vaccine program, Dr Eugene Maraskovsky. My thanks and appreciation to all the very talented staff working in the Melbourne Ludwig Institute for their sheer brilliance, tenacity and dedication.104119:40:001041Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH5V5PerthALP00—Thank you, Mr Speaker. Third time lucky!0V5SLIPPERMr Slipper—I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. A moment ago you pointed out that you would give precedence to backbenchers over frontbenchers. The member for Perth is a frontbencher, and backbenchers were on their feet.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Unfortunately, I mean backbenchers from that side. While I am delighted that you are on that side of the House, I think it is appropriate that I call the honourable member for Perth. 5V5Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH—In question time today I asked the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) three questions. The Prime Minister came into the House shortly after 7 o'clock and gave a very tawdry explanation as to why there was no basis for Senator Parer to resign.The Prime Minister did not respond to one of the questions, either in the particular or in the general. I asked the Prime Minister the following question: `Is the Prime Minister aware that Senator Parer personally holds shares in a subsidiary of Queensland Coal Mine Management but has not disclosed this on his register of interests? Prime Minister, does this not also breach your guidelines on both disclosure and conflict of interest'?I subsequently sought leave to table the information contained in the relevant corporate report of the company, which is QCMM Group (ESP) Pty Ltd, which shows that, effective from January of this year, Senator Parer personally holds 44 shares in that company. That is clearly and expressly in breach of the requirements of the Senate as far as registration is concerned, and it is clearly and expressly in breach of the Prime Minister's code of conduct which says:Ministers should not have an interest in an area in respect of which their portfolio operates.0V5SLIPPERMr Slipper—I raise a further point of order, Mr Speaker. I wish to draw your attention to standing order 76, which refers to imputations of improper motives and all personal reflections. The comments made by the honourable member for Perth are clearly a reflection on the minister, and I would ask that he desist from doing so.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Thank you. I am listening carefully to what the honourable member for Perth is saying, and he is not transgressing.5V5Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH—Thank you, Mr Speaker. So we have one clear example: 44 shares held personally in express breach of the Senate requirements—44 shares held personally in a company which is involved in a group of companies operating in Queensland Coal. It is an express breach of the Prime Minister's code of conduct—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I suggest you be very careful in the use of those words.5V5Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH—that ministers are not to engage themselves in interests in portfolio areas in respect of which they have responsibility. But where are the other conflicts of interest and breaches of the Senate requirements? Firstly, Investment Management Pty Ltd, in which Senator Parer has eight shares and his wife has one: Senator Parer is a director that company. It is a requirement of the Senate register provisions, effective from March of 1997, that if a family company or business or trust is controlled by an individual senator or members of his or her family then the share interests that that company holds are required to be disclosed. Senator Parer did not disclose to the Senate the interests that that company holds in Queensland Coal Mine Management Pty Ltd. Senator Parer was a director of that company. He resigned from that company when he became a minister in March 1996, and he disclosed that on his register. What he failed or refused to do on that occasion was to either dispose of those shareholdings or to put them on the public register. He did neither. That is clearly in breach of the Senate share register requirements.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Again, I urge the honourable member to be very careful in making assertions. If he wishes to do so, he must do so by substantive motion, and the assertions you are now making are running very close to contravening the standing orders.5V5Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH—Very close but not, Mr Speaker—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I am not sure. I would have said they were if you want to question me. I am letting you go, but be careful where you go.5V5Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH—I was about to say, Mr Speaker, that I have listened very carefully on two occasions to what you are saying—0V5SLIPPERMr Slipper—Mr Speaker, I wish to take a point of order. I wish to point out that as you yourself said the honourable member for Perth is in fact casting a personal reflection on the minister. You yourself in the chair said that he was, and I would ask you to uphold standing order 76, which says that he ought to desist from doing so. I would ask that you sit down the member for Perth.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member will resume his seat. The honourable member for Perth will not cast any adverse insinuations against a member of this parliament.5V5Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH—I would not dream of it, Mr Speaker.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I suggest you do not or you will be sitting down.5V5Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH—Let me come to the Prime Minister's explanation. He said that none of this breaches the ministerial guidelines or the Senate share register. Firstly, he makes the point that the shares are non-voting. That is not an excuse. The Senate share register refers to shares, not non-voting shares. Secondly, he said that these were arrangements entered into a considerable time before Senator Parer became a minister. It is not an excuse that they were not entered into at, before or after the time he became a minister. The point is this: he became a minister of the Crown and he is clearly in breach of the prime ministerial guidelines. As a consequence, he ought to resign.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—You can make aspersions but you cannot make them in the adjournment, I am afraid. The honourable member will resume his seat.104319:45:001043Barresi, Phil, MPMr BARRESIZJ6DeakinLP10—As Australians, all of us can be proud that in the face of crisis, emergency or national need we traditionally band together to work for the common good. On Sunday, 1 March we saw it again. Over half a million Australians participated in the war on trash through involvement in the clean up Australia campaign. The campaign has steadily gathered steam since Ian Kiernan decide that Sydney Harbour needed a good clean and enlisted the aid of volunteers in 1989. Nearly a decade since, each of us has become more environmentally conscious, particularly those of us who have children. Certainly we give more thought to the kind of place we will hand over to our children.But it is more than that. Children today are taught from an early age the value of ecologically sound practices such as recycling and they constantly remind their parents to do their bit. Today a typical Aussie home would be incomplete without paper, glass or plastic recycling containers and, in most cases, in the corner of the backyard, thousands of little worms eating away at the smorgasbord offered by the compost bin.In every survey of issues that matter to young Australians, the environment is at or near the top of the ladder. Not surprisingly then, the involvement of school aged children in clean up Australia was heavy. The importance of the environment is underlined by the Howard government's commitment of over $1 billion through the Natural Heritage Trust, the biggest environmental package in our nation's history. Many would say that Deakin, the heart and soul of Melbourne, has no national environmental treasures such as the Grampians, Wilsons Prom, the Great Ocean Road or the Murray-Darling basin, which is to our north.DT4CREANMr Crean—They've got you.ZJ6Barresi, Phil, MPMr BARRESI—You are right, Simon; they have me. With the government doing its share on massive projects of national importance and on the international stage such as the Kyoto conference, we need to maintain the momentum on a more local level. In Natural Heritage Trust terms we miss out, but we have ample urban based sites of environmental sensitivity. To many of us the slogan `Think globally, act locally' is very pertinent. I am proud to say that in Deakin many people are doing exactly that. About 3,000 people participated in various projects associated with Clean Up Australia, involving 33 community groups.I had the pleasure along with my young son Paul to be part of that volunteer army who participated in the environmentally sensitive regions of Blackburn Lake Sanctuary and later at Loughies Bushland in North Ringwood. I congratulate the organisers at those two sites as I congratulate the organisers and volunteers at the other 33 sites. When most city slickers think about clean ups, I suspect that in their mind they see ice-cream wrappers, cigarette butts and empty beer bottles. There were plenty of those in Melbourne's beautiful eastern suburbs, but there was more—a lot more. Among the rubbish removed from various local sites were tyres, car body parts, mobile phones, money, unopened bottles of wine, knives, surgical catheter tubes, road signs, shopping trolleys and, I understand, four bongs.In the electorate there are significant green belt areas, areas that are much favoured by home buyers and home builders. Ironically, Loughies Bushland is one such place. It was in areas such as this that I witnessed one of the great contradictions between environmental behaviour and environmental attitude. There we found refuse left, I presume, by builders erecting homes presumably purchased by people seeking to live in leafy, unspoilt environs, much of it tossed over the fence into bushland reserve.While we were dragging unwanted fishing tackle from the water at Blackburn Lake, we were interrupted by those who arrived to stake out their favourite spot right alongside the sign that says in big, bold letters `No fishing'. Obviously we all need to do better to ensure that this senseless dumping of materials ceases and that there are laws against it. With greater vigilance from local government by-laws officers, users and especially from those who will immediately benefit from moving into more pristine surroundings, the next clean up should be a routine exercise.While most of us can talk about environmental sensitivity, there are still far too many Australians who are unaware that their actions are causing ongoing damage. I trust that those in our community who demand greater re sources for the management and upkeep of their creeks, nature trails, wetlands and parks are not the same urban based dwellers who are less than vigilant with their own backyards. But it is not all bad news. Around Australia on that weekend over 500,000 Australians felt it important to contribute their time to cleaning up. Australians picked up 17,000 tonnes of trash on that Sunday. It is a commendable effort. I congratulate the people of Deakin for their continued concern for our environmental community.104419:50:001044Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—I rise in this adjournment to indicate that the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) still has a lot of answering to do in this House, but what is clear from tonight's performance is that his ministerial code of conduct is in tatters. What he cannot tear up, however, are the requirements in the Senate for ministers to register properly. We will continue to demonstrate how Senator Parer has failed to do that as well as, we say, failing to honour the Prime Minister's code of conduct.Today we have witnessed the eighth minister in this parliament being questioned about their conduct, the eighth minister within two years. Seven have gone, two staffers have gone with them and now there is another one on the rack. But what is the Prime Minister's response to all of this? It is the same as all of them. He hopes the problem goes away. He is not up to acting and enforcing the code that he himself laid down. He is a weak Prime Minister, he is a pathetic Prime Minister and he is a shame to this House.0V5SLIPPERMr Slipper—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. The honourable member for Hotham has cast improper reflections or aspersions on the Prime Minister. He has accused the Prime Minister of not upholding the ministerial conduct. The Prime Minister came into the chamber to point out that Senator Parer had in fact observed the requirements of ministers. Also, the member for Hotham has cast reflections on the minister. I would ask you to ask him to desist.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I am listening very carefully to what the honourable member for Hotham is saying. At this stage he has not transgressed.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—What did the Prime Minister come in and say in the defence of Senator Parer tonight? The first was: he has had this trust for 28 years. Isn't that great! Isn't it great that, if something has existed for 28 years, the fact that it happens to be continued without declaration when he comes into the ministry is irrelevant.KH4JONESMr Barry Jones—The grandfather clause.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—This is the grandfather provision. He has obviously grandfathered his own ministerial code of conduct, trying to draw the line. Now, apparently, if you have the family trust in operation before you come into the parliament or before you are on the front bench, that is okay, regardless of what it does. What a pathetic explanation!The second was: the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, Senator Parer, actually declared these interests, the 16 shares, to the Prime Minister. If that is the case, we want to know why the Prime Minister did not act to enforce his own code of conduct. What questions did the Prime Minister ask of Senator Parer when he said, `By the way, Prime Minister, I have a parcel of shares in a coalmining company'? Don't you think the little old alarm bell would have rung for the Prime Minister, who actually said he was going to lift the standards in the place, who himself said on 15 October 1996 that ministers cannot hold shares in their own portfolio? Apparently not. But we want to know that answer from the Prime Minister.Also, the Prime Minister came in and argued the fact that these were non-voting shares. So what! So what if they were non-voting shares. These were shares beneficially held by Senator Parer. That is on the public record. That is not assertion; it is on the public record. They do not have to be voting shares. They simply have to be beneficially held, and all that needs to be demonstrated in terms of the conflict of interest is that he obtained benefit and that the benefit was associated with the fact that there was the conflict of interest between his holdings and his role as a minister.We then had the Prime Minister say, `The minister did not receive a dividend.' Where did that dividend go? We understand in 1996 that almost $300,000 was paid in dividend. That was in one year alone. He says it did not go to the minister and his wife. Where did it go? To the kids? Is it being held beneficially for when Senator Parer retires? In any event, what does it matter where the dividend has gone? If in fact the company is continuing to grow, he gets the capital accretion associated with it.Let me just point out that, in terms of the information that we have, this is the company that in one year, 1995-96, grew from a $15 million to a $153 million asset company—tenfold! Don't you think the worst shares are worth something in that regard? There are a lot of questions to be answered, and we will be pursuing them. (Time expired)104519:55:001045Draper, Trish, MPMrs DRAPER0L6MakinLP10—We have just witnessed hypocrisy beyond belief. Though I rise tonight to speak about the visit of the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) to my electorate on 29 January 1998, I would like to mention again the disgraceful actions of the shadow Attorney-General, Senator Nick Bolkus, relating to the deliberate leak of information from a confidential Federal Court document linked with Christopher Skase. Senator Bolkus, a man who has, without doubt, committed an act akin to treason against the Australian people—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I would suggest to the honourable member that `akin to' is all right, but be very careful.0L6Draper, Trish, MPMrs DRAPER—I believe that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Beazley) should call for the senator's sacking immediately. As the Minister for Justice, Senator Amanda Vanstone, announced recently, Senator Bolkus has been caught red-handed leaking this information in a media conference earlier this year.DT4CREANMr Crean—Mr Speaker, on a point of order: you have ruled and we have had constant points of order taken against—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I have said that `akin to' is just in.DT4CREANMr Crean—Come off it!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I did the same thing with the honourable member for Perth. I am treating it in the same way.DT4CREANMr Crean—She said he has been caught red-handed. Mr Speaker, can I ask you—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I say to the honourable gentleman that I have seen a photograph that is purported to be—DT4CREANMr Crean—I see!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—That is the direction that I presume to be red-handed. I presume that is what the honourable member is referring to. The honourable member is in order at the moment.DT4CREANMr Crean—No, Mr Speaker.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Do you have another point of order?KH4JONESMr Barry Jones—On the point of order: `akin' means `related to'. It is not `analogous to'; it is `related to'. `Kin' is `relationship'.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member will withdraw the remark, and I suggest that she takes very careful note that she cannot say anything that reflects on a member in another place. Will the honourable member withdraw that remark?0L6Draper, Trish, MPMrs DRAPER—I am happy to withdraw it.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Thank you; please continue.0L6Draper, Trish, MPMrs DRAPER—As I was saying, and as Senator Amanda Vanstone has said, in referring to a confidential Federal Court document relating to the case, Senator Bolkus said:`I can't give this document out, but maybe if I just read it out off the record, this is the proceedings in the court.'Mr Speaker, as you can see, this demonstrates, once again, exactly how many members of the Labor Party feel that they can undermine the national interest for personal political purposes. Senator Bolkus is a shining example of this.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member is talking in general.5V5SMITHMr Stephen Smith—Mr Speaker, my point of order is this: you made it quite clear to me earlier tonight—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—And you continued in the same category as the honourable member—5V5SMITHMr Stephen Smith—And you sat me down. She has made a direct and specific allegation that members on this side are doing things against the national interest.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—No, she did not use the specific person.5V5SMITHMr Stephen Smith—She said: `members of the Labor Party'.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—She is in exactly the same category as you.5V5SMITHMr Stephen Smith—And you sat me down, Mr Speaker. You sat me down, and you should sit her down.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I allowed you to get away with more than that during your speech.0L6Draper, Trish, MPMrs DRAPER—Senator Vanstone announced on Monday last week that the trustee of Mr Skase's bankrupt estate, Mr Max Donnelly, described the material published from the document as the most damaging of all information that had been released to the media. Here we have the federal government trying valiantly to recover the debts of one of this country's most wanted men, while people like Senator Bolkus attempt to intervene for the benefit of Australia's most wanted man, Christopher Skase. The process will see Mr Skase finally brought to justice over this ongoing, outrageous and flagrant abuse of the Australian people and our justice system.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 8 p.m., the debate is interrupted.EZ5ABBOTTMr Abbott—Mr Speaker, I require that the debate be extended.104620:01:001046Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLP10—This evening we have had the unedifying spectacle of various opposition frontbenchers coming in here with confected outrage, with manufactured righteousness, slobbering like schoolboys over a dirty maga zine, and all over what? Their problem is that Senator Parer has shares. That is their problem. Has there been any suggestion that Senator Parer has used his portfolio for private gain? No. (Quorum formed) Is there any evidence that this minister has made decisions on the basis of this alleged shareholding? No. Is there any suggestion that this minister has been anything other than a conscientious and sincere minister? Absolutely not. Has the minister failed to declare his shareholding to the Prime Minister (Mr Howard)? No. In fact, as far as one can work out from what members opposite have said, he does not actually own the shares at all; they are in the hands of a family trust or company.Did the member for Hotham (Mr Crean) say anything about the former Prime Minister's piggery shareholdings when he served in cabinet and the former Prime Minister was engaged in business dealings? Did the member for Hotham say anything about the purchases of shares by Senators McKiernan and Crowley, notwithstanding the fact that they have been buying shares in Telstra? What has the member for Hotham said about Senator Bolkus's continued presence on the opposition front bench, notwithstanding his breach of court confidentiality?The fact is that there is nothing objectively wrong with holding shares. Holding shares is an intrinsic good. There is everything objectively wrong with compromising the integrity of the legal processes of our country. Yet Senator Bolkus stays on the opposition front bench. The Prime Minister has acted with perfect integrity. He has considered the matter and he has declared that Senator Parer has done the right thing. What has Kim Beazley done? Absolutely nothing, because he is a weak and pathetic leader.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The parliamentary secretary's time has expired. No other minister having risen, the parliamentary secretary may continue.EZ5Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTT—What is Senator Parer's real crime? Senator Parer's real crime is that he is successful. Why has the member for Hotham chosen to come in here and grandstand and engage in cheap smear? Apart from the fact that he will always take every opportunity to upstage his weak leader, the fact is that the member for Hotham is simply slipping into his old role—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Government members will resume their seats.DT4CREANMr Crean—Mr Speaker, on a point of order: there is unruly banter and they should be asked to sit down.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member for Hotham will sit down. If you had been listening, you would note that I have already done so.EZ5Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTT—The member for Hotham, the former failed trade union official, is putting on his cloth cap and slipping back into the only conduct he really understands—the conduct of the class war. Australians have gone a long way past that. Why is the opposition waging this vendetta against shareholders? Why is the opposition waging this vendetta about success? Why is the opposition engaging in this tactic of the cheap smear? Because that is all they have got. They have got no policies, they have got no guts, and they have got no answers for the problems facing Australia. The opposition live in a glass house on this matter, and people in glass houses should not throw stones. The opposition should be very careful exactly where they take this one.20:07:001047House adjourned at 8.07 p.m.Notices1047The following notices were given:Mr Filing to move:That this House calls on the Government, as part of a tax reform program, to urgently implement greater devolution of revenue raising from the Commonwealth to the States so as to enable them to obtain a fairer share of the proceeds of economic growth and play a greater role in Australia's economic development.Mr Costello to present a bill for an act to amend the International Monetary Agreements Act 1947, and for related purposes.Dr Wooldridge to present a bill for an act to amend the Health Insurance Act 1973 and the National Health Act 1953, and for related purposes.Mr Miles to present a bill for an act to amend the law relating to child support, and for related purposes.Mr Somlyay to move:That, in accordance with section 5 of the Parliament Act 1974 , the House approves the following proposal for work in the Parliamentary Zone which was presented to the House on 2 March 1998, namely: Additional drinking fountains in the public gardens and on the tennis court pavilions of Parliament House.Documents1048The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 11 March 1998:Australian Communications Authority Act, Radiocommunications Act, Radiocommunications (Receiver Licence Tax) Act and Radiocommunications (Transmitter Licence Tax) Act—Radiocommunications (Definitions) Determination No. 2 of 1993—Amendment No. 9.Civil Aviation Act—Civil Aviation Regulations—Exemptions 1998 Nos. CASA 07, CASA 08.Customs Act—Instrument of approval 1997 No. 39.Defence Act—Determination under section 58B 1998 No. 9.Lands Acquisition Act—Statements under section 40.Radiocommunications Act—Determinations—Radiocommunications (Transmitter and Receiver Licences) 1998 Amendment No. 1.Radiocommunications Licence Conditions (MDS Licence) 1998 No. 1.Radiocommunications (Receiver Licence Tax) Act—Determination—Radiocommunications (Receiver Licence Tax) No. 1 of 1996—1998 Amendment No. 1.Radiocommunications (Transmitter Licence Tax) Act—Determination—Radiocommunications (Transmitter Licence Tax) No. 1 of 1996—1998 Amendment No. 1.Social Security Act—Determination—Pensions Loans Scheme (Social Secuirity)—Rate of compound interest 1997 No. 2.Veterans' Entitlements Act—Determination—Pensions Loans Scheme (Veterans' Entitlements)—Rate of compound interest 1997 No. 2.1998-03-11Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr G.B. Nehl) took the chair at 10.00 a.m.Bills1049r3971049Debate resumed from 26 November 1997, on motion by Mr Truss:That the bill be now read a second time.10:00:001049Martin, Stephen, MPMr MARTIN8I4CunninghamALP00—At the outset, I again commend the Minister for Customs and Consumer Affairs (Mr Truss) for the way in which he has provided information to the opposition in respect of the Intellectual Property Laws Amendment Bill 1997 . Even though it is non-controversial—and, despite the title, at first blush is nothing that tests one's intellect—it is always good to know that the government is prepared to provide the opposition with the opportunity to get a full briefing on the issues surrounding it. Of course, that also goes to the fact that there is an amendment to be moved by the government today that picks up one of the concerns that I did have, which I will remark on in a moment. The fact that the government's people were providing information to us fairly late last night is something which we certainly appreciate on our side of the House.The Intellectual Property Laws Amendment Bill 1997 has three major issues within it. The first, of course, is to implement the government's decision to allow an extension of the patent term to a total of 25 years for patents relating to pharmaceutical substances. The second is to provide for the introduction of a new regime for regulation of the patent attorney profession and to deregulate professional practice in trademarks and designs. The third is to make some minor changes to the patent regime of a technical nature, making it easier for applicants to transact business before the office.I might say that we have absolutely no objections to any of these—nor, indeed, to the issue that has subsequently been raised by the government as an amendment to their own legislation, in respect of the regulations specifying qualifications necessary for the registration of patent attorneys. These will include provisions to ensure existing practitioners, both patent attorneys and lawyers, will have the right to seek registration as trademark attorneys. The wording, of course, was a little inexact and, as a consequence, those amendments have been moved.On that issue, the concern I did have was that potentially, where an industry had been regulated somewhat and qualifications were expected for people to actually have a role as a patent attorney, that might have been in some way watered down. I think that has now been overcome here. The bill and the changes that have been moved by the government make it clear that these were issues that were of concern to the government, as well. We do not want to see watered down in any way in that profession—where a fair degree of technical expertise is required in determining whether a patent should be awarded to a product—the technical expertise that gives people the ability to dictate whether a patent should be awarded. I think the government is aware that that is the case.I know from time to time that people ask, `When we are talking about pharmaceutical products in particular, what is the point of actually having the patents there—and the rights of people in terms of registration of those trademarks and so on—when government provides R&D concessions and government gives support, and the industry is large enough and profitable enough to be looking after its own ways?' I think that is not really appropriate in this circumstance and I am pleased that the government, as I said, has picked up the recommendations, largely in response to the Industry Commission report No. 51, on the pharmaceutical industry. In fact, this does reflect much of the work that Labor was doing in its later years in government.I also want to say this, though. Whilst we are talking about pharmaceuticals and the way in which generic products subsequently are developed by pharmaceuticals producers, and whilst we are talking about the fact that on many occasions you do have a brand name substance that, in a generic form, is often manufactured by the same company or a similar company and then put on the market at a marginally cheaper price, there is still some confusion in the community about how this comes about. I know, Mr Deputy Speaker Nehl, that you probably would have recently received, as I have, quite a number of representations by the elderly in our respective communities that they were concerned that a number of products that were just to give them quality of life increased in price as a result of the government's decision on pharmaceutical benefits.I am talking about the sorts of pharmaceutical drugs that are required for reflux, ulcers, keeping blood pressure under control and stemming perhaps the potential for heart attacks, and so on. All of these products have increased from a range of a dollar up to $4.10. I think it is rather mean spirited of the minister to simply dismiss this out of hand and say, `Well, in some cases, this only represents an increase of the price of a packet of cigarettes.' That actually dismisses out of hand concerns that many of the elderly, and particularly those on fixed incomes, for example, pensioners, have about their quality of life.These drugs that we are talking about are not really there because people want to take them; they are there because they have to take them. They are there because people do have problems; they want to control their blood pressure. They are there because people want to take some of the stress out of their life. They are there because of lifestyle issues. As I have said, and as I have remarked to pensioner organisations in my own constituency, it is rather sad when governments—always with one eye fixed on the bottom line in a budget sense—turn to perhaps the least defensible to try and work out ways in which they can claw back some of those funds.Whilst this Intellectual Property Laws Amendment Bill 1997 in itself is not controversial, and the opposition will not be delaying its passage in any substantial way, it is important to note, when we start to talk about the cash flows necessary to finance development of new drugs and when we start to talk about new patents that are generated in the industry for new drugs, that the benefits that subsequently flow from that are in fact passed on to people in the broader community.I have remarked also to many of my constituents, when this issue has been raised, that what they should be doing is seeking the advice of their own medical practitioners as to which may be the best drugs to treat the conditions that they have. I simply repeat that again today. Many constituents will say to you, `Look, I am on Zantac because I need it for quality of life.' Others will say, `Well, there's another product that's there that probably is just as good,' and they save 50c. But, if they do not go to a doctor and they do not get a referral, or at least some recommendations about which of those generic products are better for them, they would never know that they in fact can save some money in respect of that. I just simply say to those people again: be careful and always check with medical practitioners about those.The whole issue about R&D funding, and about whether or not it is important for the patenting arrangement to be in place for a longer period of time, does raise, I guess, some issues about the way in which newly developed products and generic products can come onto the market. With patents being in place for an extended period, as we are talking about here, it means that those pharmaceutical companies—I confess that they invest multimillions of dollars in developing those particular products—will have an additional lifeline extended to them, where they will be protected to some extent from some competition.Notwithstanding that, of course, the fact that generic products are now coming onto the market and that they also must go through fairly rigorous testing by pharmaceutical companies—and, indeed, the national health organisations to give them the tick of approval—is an important element of this as well.I am not going to delay the consideration of this legislation through the Main Committee this morning. It is, as I say, legislation which is welcome. The opposition has no difficulties with it at all. Once again, I would like to thank the officers from the minister's personal staff and those from the department, or the Australian Customs Service, who have provided background information to me and my staff to provide us with a full and frank understanding of the issues before us. Thank you.10:10:001051Kelly, Jackie, MPMiss JACKIE KELLYGK6LindsayLP10—I was at an installation of our new bishop at St Thomas Church in Mulgoa. David Lloyd is the new reverend for all the parishioners out that way. At his installation we had Bishop King from Parramatta come and visit us. A comment he made struck me as very relevant to what is happening here in relation to the Intellectual Property Laws Amendment Bill 1997 today. He said that 60 per cent of children in year 3 today will have careers in areas that their parents have not even thought of.0V5SLIPPERMr Slipper—That is amazing.GK6Kelly, Jackie, MPMiss JACKIE KELLY—It is a pretty phenomenal thought. I think a lot of people do worry about the loss of employment in areas like agriculture and manufacturing, but there are always new careers being created. We are creating one today in the Intellectual Property Laws Amendment Bill 1997 , which amends the Copyright Act 1968, the Designs Act 1906, the Patents Act 1990 and the Trade Marks Act 1995. It actually creates a new employment option for people who wish to go on to further studies as a trademark attorney.We are taking away a number of smaller or other responsibilities within the patent attorney field and giving them to a new group of people who will be registered as trademark attorneys. This collection of bills basically establishes the regulation of two professions. The first profession is that of patent attorney and the second is that of trademark attorneys. Both of those have quite distinct roles in this intellectual property area.For quite some time, patent attorneys have had a monopoly in this area. It has cost something like $7,000 just to look into getting a patent registered, which has often negated a lot of people taking any action that could possibly have benefited them in the end. I do remember distinctly one case from my career in the RAAF. A lot of our RAAF engineers at Richmond had spent time and significant effort and cost developing a product which would make low altitude parachute extractions from our C130 Hercules far easier, safer and accurate. They contracted out to a commercial contractor to have this widget built.0V5SLIPPERMr Slipper—A what?GK6Kelly, Jackie, MPMiss JACKIE KELLY—It was some sort of contraption. I am not a patent attorney, but it was quite a novel thing. The next time that those engineers saw that new design or invention was in the commercial magazines with this company now producing them for worldwide distribution to Hercules for LAPEs. The Commonwealth on that occasion missed out quite substantially because there were no resources for me at that stage to spend $7,000 registering these poor engineers' designs. I suppose they really could not have gone on into commercial production with it, but they were very upset that their intellectual property had been used in that way with no recompense for the time, effort and cost that government had gone to. That is something that this government is moving towards in this fast growing area. If you look at a number of our outsourcing contracts at the moment, government is a huge repository of intellectual property, and that is a resource—0V5SLIPPERMr Slipper—There is a lot of intellect in this government.GK6Kelly, Jackie, MPMiss JACKIE KELLY—Very much so, Peter. There are you and I. There is the scope for creating wealth in this country from the intellectual property held by government, and sought by government to be expanded upon, as we become more efficient in the information industries. There is the type of software programming that we are going to and the type of designs that we seek.An example would be the Australian Taxation Office. Government has spent an enormous amount of money in developing the electronic lodgment forms where an average or a not so average or a brilliant accountant—as in the case of the member for Fisher (Mr Slipper)—has the ability to set up a small business on electronic lodgments because this service is provided by government and a considerable amount of small businesses have gone ahead in leaps and bounds because of government's funding of that technology or pursuit of that type of source. We have seen something similar recently with the new jobsearch network, where a computer network has been established right across Australia where all jobs can be logged. I am quite confident that, as that sort of technology takes off, there will be all sorts of industries and enterprises created on that network. It is a very valuable source of wealth creation for this nation, something this government is aware of. It looks towards the future when it considers any of its outsourcing or any of its new internal developments.I think it is important for us to recognise intellectual property and not to make the high jump bar so high that your average designer or your small to medium enterprise cannot really access this sort of economic protection. The main reason for having patents, copyright or this sort of protection today is that we are seeking protection of economic investment and creative effort.It does take an enormous amount of money today to develop some of these systems. In pharmaceuticals, for instance, the ethics standards that we have to observe today in order to test substances are extraordinarily high. So they should be, but there is an associated cost with that. In order to get any of your experiments to pass ethics boards, there is a tremendous cost that was not there in the past. Today we are not just doing basic discoveries; we are extending that beyond the microscope and beyond imaging technology and really getting right down to some very high-tech research which comes at enormous cost for the machines involved and the type of electron microscopy that is used. The cost of research today has gone exponentially from simply a few ground pieces of glass looking through a microscope. It has become an enormous investment in order to pursue or further the research that is available and, at some stage, you wish to recoup that investment over time.This bill also takes it that further step in allowing those who invest in the research on pharmaceutical substances and in the creation of new pharmaceutical substances to extend their patents for an extra five years. This should result in some great economic benefits and create a forum within Australia which attracts investment in innovators in this area to Australia. That is the type of protection that corporations are looking for before they invest heavily in any region. This bill certainly gives them that protection.It is not without cost. It certainly will cost the government by the year 2001 and 2003. There are some costs to government in that a number of products which would be available on the generic list at that time will no longer be available. But we have felt that it is a worthwhile cost for government to bear in order to promote this type of technology in the future because that is where the jobs of those people in year 3 today are coming from. Those jobs for our children are coming in different and varied areas that we probably have not even understood yet.Trademark attorneys will now be able to go to university. The course will be a lot shorter than perhaps it was when the member for Fisher and I went through law at university. To become a trademark attorney or a patent attorney requires an enormous effort in research and study, and an investment in time. A lot of the simpler tasks with regard to design and trademarks can now be done by a trademark attorney. In fact, it can be done by employees, in some circumstances. So, again, it is getting the costs of this type of economic protection right down.It is a very complex area for patents and, certainly, the standards required with patents are maintained so that you will have sufficient protection in that very fuzzy area of preparing patent submissions and patent amendments. Overall, it is a non-contentious bill. It recognises the very fast evolving way of the world today with respect to intellectual property and the continued growth in this area as a wealth generator for the country. I commend the bill to the House.22:21:001053Evans, Martyn, MPMr MARTYN EVANSN36BonythonALP00—I think there is broad bipartisan agreement for the major provisions of the Intellectual Property Laws Amendment Bill 1997 . Indeed, the Member for Cunningham (Mr Martin), who preceded me in the debate on this side, and the member for Lindsay (Miss Jackie Kelly) have touched on many of those. The bill, of course, makes a number of relatively minor changes to legislation such as the Copyright Act, the Patents Act, the Trade Marks Act and the Designs Act, which are principally concerned with creation of the profession of trademark attorneys and the regulation of patent attorneys. While those changes are important to the people involved, they probably do not have much application beyond those immediate professional interests.There are two other principal areas which I would like to speak more broadly about. The first relates to the springboarding activity where companies—for example, Fauldings, which is in my electorate in South Australia—are able to take a drug or compound which was previously subject to a patent and, when that patent expires, produce a generic version of that drug, often at a substantially cheaper price than was available during the protected period for the drug.Of course, companies can undertake that work once the patent has expired but, if they have to wait that long, it is much more difficult for them to get the product to market in a timely way. Therefore, it is indeed appropriate that we should allow them to begin preparations, if you like, for that eventual marketing of the drug prior to the actual expiry of the patent— although, of course, they will be constrained to wait until the patent expires before commencing any commercially related activities.I believe it will be a useful addition and in some ways it goes to counterbalance the additional time which we are going to grant in the other provision, which I would like to speak about, relating to the additional five-year period on drug patents. Although I do not think it is a deliberate trade-off, the reality is that the provision on springboarding, and the way in which that allows generic drugs to be worked on prior to the actual expiry of the patent, will partially offset the additional costs which will flow to the Commonwealth—for example, in the PBS—from extending the principal patent period on a drug by an additional five years.Both of those provisions have substantial merit and I certainly support them. Indeed, the five-year extension is a significant change: we are granting an exclusive licence period to a company or individual to have the sole rights to commercially exploit a particular drug, usually one which has substantial advantages to the patient and to the community in general. To grant anyone an exclusive licence, and particularly to extend that licence by an extra five years, is a significant step by the parliament and by the laws of any country. Therefore, I think that it is important that we understand just why that should happen.Patents have been around for a very long time. They feature in the original US constitution where the framers of the US constitution understood that patents would be necessary to extend the inventiveness of the population, and to ensure that it was possible for a commercial capture of the value of any innovation. They foresaw that that would stimulate innovation, would stimulate invention, and would ensure that people would invest the time, the money, the hard work and research that is necessary to be inventive.Invention, it has often been said—and I think it is quite right—is very much 99 per cent perspiration and only one per cent inspiration, and for that 99 per cent of perspiration inventors are entitled to be appropriately rewarded.If we look at this whole question of patents, particularly of pharmaceutical drugs—which this bill principally focuses on—there are a number of issues, though, which are alive in the community at the moment. One of those is certainly genetic engineering and the patenting of gene technology and the pharmaceuticals which will undoubtedly flow from that.We have seen dramatic changes in the information technology environment in recent years. In the last two decades computers have brought wholesale change to our lives, they have revolutionised many parts of the workplace and, indeed, they are doing so in the communications mediums as we sit here. But the reality is that that revolution is nothing compared with the revolution which biotechnology, genetic engineering and molecular biology will bring to the next century. If we thought we lived through an era of rapid change in IT, we have not seen anything until we get to biotechnology in the next century. It is therefore very important that we should have our legal and ethical framework appropriately set in advance of those revolutions taking place, although they are under way at this very time.There are those—and principally a few of them reside in the other chamber—who are very much opposed to the notion that we should patent anything to do with the human genome. They say that for anyone to have control or a patent over genes or gene related sequences of DNA would be inherently wrong, that it would be unethical and improper.There is a certain fundamental attractiveness to that notion. It is a very simplistic and naive notion but it does have some fundamental positives about it and I can see why people would be attracted to that view. After all, we are unique living organisms, we have a unique DNA and why should we allow that to be patented? `Why should we allow life to be patented?' they say.But the reality which lies behind that initial interpretation is quite different, and it is very important that we should look at that and have such views analysed closely on the record. The reality is that for an invention to be patentable under the laws of Australia and, indeed, under the laws of most Western countries—all of which are very much integrated and closely tied together—an invention must contain novel and inventive steps. You cannot have an invention without a leap of spirit, without a leap of intellect to ensure that there is something worth patenting at the end of that process.If one simply has a gene sequence, if one simply knows the sequence of amino acids or nucleotides which constitute the gene, one does not have an inventive step, one does not have a patentable thing, and that is a reality which many of those who argue on the other side of this debate have chosen to ignore. You cannot simply patent information which is readily available to anyone who wants to look, and although it is a tedious process chemically to sequence an area of DNA, the reality is that any competent laboratory technician can sequence a given length of DNA and tell you the code which makes up that sequence.There is no inventive step in that, so one cannot simply go to the Patent Office and say, `I have a sequence here; I wish to patent it.' They will very politely and kindly show you the door and ask you to come back when you have made an inventive leap, when you understand what that gene sequence does, when you understand how it does it and when you understand what the beneficial effect of that will be for humankind.In order to have a patent it is essential that you have that inventive jump of faith as well. And of course once the patent has been gained, once you have identified not only the sequence but the way in which that sequence can be used, what that sequence does, what its functions are and how it can be applied for the benefit of humankind—once you understand that—then you are in a position to seek a patent for that material or for that sequence of DNA.But the reality is that that patent will not give you ownership of that DNA. It will not give you ownership of the processes of life; it will not give you a title, if you like, over nature itself. Some, for example, have complained of the company Chiron, who obtained a patent over the hepatitis C virus, but of course that patent does not give that company any rights over the ownership of the virus. It simply gives them an exclusive licence to profit from the commercial technology which they have described and which is part of their undertaking.Indeed, I understand that that patent is now before the courts and will be the subject of further scrutiny because it may well have been too broad in the first place. But even if we allow that as a worst case decision—and that is something which further argument would have to be had on—it does not give the company Chiron any ownership rights to exclude others from undertaking public interest research into that virus.Many, many laboratories are now investigating hepatitis C, notwithstanding the existence of those patent rights, challenged though they are. The reality is that the number of scientific papers published on that virus is very substantial and has not been much altered by the existence of the patent. Anyone who stopped work on that virus because of the patent is wrongly informed about our patent laws.Another argument is that one should not grant a patent because something occurs in nature. Because our DNA is a naturally occurring thing, one should not permit something occurring in nature to be patented. But the reality is that many other natural things are patented and we have permitted that for a great length of time.If one looks at other innovations, like the extraction of Taxol from the yew tree, this was a very major step in cancer treatment. Taxol is a very promising molecule in the treatment of some types of cancer, and it is a naturally occurring substance. It is extracted from the yew tree. Unfortunately, there are not too many of those trees and they were at risk by the discovery that their bark contains Taxol. Fortunately, an artificial synthesis has been undertaken and the tree has therefore been spared the fate of being sacrificed in the interests of medical science.The reality is that Taxol is a naturally occurring substance. A great deal of research and effort and money had to be expended in discovering the effectiveness of that molecule, in discovering a way of extracting that molecule, in discovering the way in which that molecule works to effect a cancer treatment, and then in bringing that product out of that development phase and to market. As the member for Lindsay said, a lot of money has to be invested in this process, something of the order of $US300 million to $US400 million, and something like eight to 12 years of work to bring a drug to market.Just because Taxol occurs in nature, should we therefore forbid its patenting? I think not. We did not, and we should not have forbidden it because if we had, why would anyone else go to the trouble of spending $US300 million or $US400 million and take eight to 12 years of their lives to discover a treatment of cancer which they then could not patent? They would not invest the money, they would not invest the time, and humankind would have been denied the benefits which that drug will bring. It is important to remember they were only able to patent that drug because they identified it, they identified its nature and they identified the useful functionality which that drug has available to it.Patents are absolutely essential in that context when we look at those incredible periods of time and money which are involved. Patents protect people who take that inventive step and who invest their lives and resources in discovery. Ultimately, those discoveries are made known to us. Indeed, it is far better that people should undertake to patent those drugs and gain a monopoly over their use for 20 or 25 years, depending on whether this bill is passed, than it is that they should take the alternative step, because the alternative step to profiting from a drug like that would be to keep it secret.That is the mechanism that Coca-Cola used at the turn of the century. Coca-Cola had a secret formula, a bit like Kentucky Fried Chicken, and they wanted to keep that formula secret because they felt it was better than patenting it. If no-one knew what it was then they could retain the formula for generations rather than for simply the 20 years which the patent mechanism provided.If you seek a patent, within 18 months of that patent being granted the Patent Office people will publish the full details of your patent. They will tell the world exactly what you have discovered, how you discovered it, what the best mechanism is to produce that drug, and all of the information that you are required to table at the Patent Office to ensure that you get your patent.Therefore, rather than having the formula kept secret—as is the case with Coca-Cola and Kentucky Fried Chicken—the world is able to profit after 20 or 25 years from the full knowledge being in the public domain of all of the relevant details of that drug. Everyone is then free to use it and after the 20- or 25-year period has elapsed, as other provisions of this bill say, we can then have generic versions of that drug at a much, much lower cost.In the interim, however, the full knowledge is in the public domain and other researchers are still able to work on those drugs. Notwithstanding that they are unable to use them for commercial gain, they are able to undertake medical and scientific research and publish papers in scientific journals. They can profit from the intellectual knowledge which is contained within the patent, even if they cannot profit from the commercial knowledge of it. After the period has elapsed, anyone can do as they wish with the knowledge which is now in the public domain.I think that those who would argue against this are aware of these things but choose instead to focus on a very narrow and, dare I say it, politically attractive notion which they then attempt to sell publicly, but which I believe is actually counterproductive to the public interest in the long term, as the alternative of keeping those inventions secret—which is the only alternative which would be available to people—would be much worse.If Australia were to exclude genes and gene technology from patentability, by some ill-conceived act—one which it would be fairly difficult to enforce because of the problems which flow around the definitions—and were we to overcome those problems and pass legislation like that, we would isolate ourselves in Western society. The United States, Europe, Japan, Canada, the other major patenting nations, all accept that these technologies can be patented. Australian researchers would then be forced to lodge patents, not in Australia, because it would be unavailable to them, but rather in the United States, or in Europe or in Japan, to gain international protection for their products.Australia would then be in the position of either having to honour those patents internationally or being in breach of our international undertakings. I do not think Australian researchers, Australian pharmaceutical companies, would be willing to invest their time and effort, only to be forced then to go overseas to see those inventions protected and in order to gain some commercial short-term benefit from their work and their life's effort.The reality is that, even if it were not for the very strong arguments which I believe exist in favour of allowing patents for these things, Australia would still be forced into the position by international treaties, by international law, of having to offer patent protection for these things. Otherwise people would simply take their inventions and discoveries elsewhere.The House of Representatives Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology also looked at this very issue some eight years ago now. In June 1990, prior to my membership of the committee, it was given a reference by the then minister to examine many of the issues associated with gene technology. The committee looked at this very issue of patentability of genes and associated material. It took evidence right around Australia; it had extensive public hearings and heard from a wide variety of experts on the subject. The committee's conclusion was very strongly in favour of permitting patents on this material, for very much the kind of reasons which I have enunciated today.I will not take the time of the committee by going into any detail of those findings, but they are on the record for anyone to peruse. They are just as relevant now as they were back in 1990 and we would be wise to heed the advice of our own committee at the time. The committee certainly understood the value which flows from patents; it understood the moral and commercial imperative of allowing patents and of ensuring that inventors can profit from their discoveries, that they can profit from the effort and time and money which they invest in those things. The committee understood that, ultimately, although the inventors are the short-term winners, we the public are the long-term victors in this battle, because after 20 or 25 years all of that material is in the public domain. All of the options then exist for generic drugs. The public, in the meantime, very much from day one, have the full intellectual benefit of the knowledge which those people have gained—which they can then freely make available for medical research use, because they know they have the protection of the patent system for a limited period.It is worth remembering that it is because of the eight to 12 years that it takes to bring a patent to fruition, to bring a drug on line, that we are considering extending the time. If you have already invested 12 years in that process, you then have very little time left to enjoy your patent. The period available to you at the moment is only 20 years, but we assume it will be extended to 25 years.To block patents on genes or gene technologies, although it is fundamentally and naively attractive at first blush, would be of long-term detriment to Australia. It would certainly be of detriment to the public in the long run. I would strongly counsel the parliament and the public against taking that view.10:39:001058Rocher, Allan, MPMr ROCHERZI4CurtinIND00—The decision to extend the term scheme for patents by an additional five years is a significant one for the Howard government. It was the first indication that the coalition is not prepared to follow in the footsteps of former governments and continue with a failed minimalist approach when it comes to the protection of Australian intellectual property. In this instance the government has elected to look beyond the short-term revenue implications for these measures to the long-term benefits of investing in technology development, and it should be commended for so doing.The financial impact statement suggests that the measures in the Intellectual Property Laws Amendment Bill 1997 will add to the cost of the pharmaceutical benefits scheme by around $6 million in the financial year 2001-02, and up to $160 million by the year 2005-06. Few would dispute that this is a significant cost to the revenue. However industry experts predict that the long-term increase in sales of pharmaceutical products will far outweigh these figures, and the taxation benefits alone would probably go some way towards offsetting those costs to the pharmaceutical benefits scheme.The bill seeks to bring about change to three substantial areas of the principal act, including the deregulation of the professional practice in trademarks and designs and the introduction of a new regime for regulation of the patent attorney profession.Feedback I have received suggests that the domestic pharmaceutical industry will benefit from these changes. It has been pointed out to me that the standard of patent attorneys in Australia is often low, with few able to keep up with technological advances. Also, junior and non-profit companies have been burdened by disproportionately high patent costs under the current system, as well as by the expensive and cumbersome patent litigation regime. It is to be hoped that these amendments will bring about increased competition amongst the legal profession and therefore lower the cost of the patent process.Several minor technical changes to the patent regime are also proposed in this legislation. However, the most significant amendments are those that I mentioned in my opening remarks which will see extended by five years the standard 20-year term of a patent in the United States of America, Japan and the European Union.After an extended period of uncertainty, the Australian pharmaceutical industry can finally look to the future with the knowledge that this government is acting to bring our intellectual property regime into line with our international competitors. Support for the research and development industry and the protection of intellectual property are inextricably linked. In a recent publication, the Industry Research and Development Board noted that research and development in each industry is characterised by a few leading edge companies which, by their choices and abilities, create the technology trajectories that others will follow. It is precisely for this reason that government support of research and development is not enough to maximise the economic and social benefits that will result from world-class medical research resources.Professor Phillip Reece, Director of Research and Development at Biota Holdings Ltd observed that the discovery of revolutionary pharmaceutical treatments comes to nothing `without diligent patenting of new discoveries and patent legislation which guarantees an adequate return for investors'.It may come as a surprise to some to learn that the discovery and marketing of pharmaceutical products is no guarantee of financial success for the pioneering company. In fact, the costs involved in discovering a new chemical entity, an NCE, average in the vicinity of $300 million to $400 million. As Professor Reece also noted:The only way such investments can be justified is if there is a reasonable guarantee of a return from the occasional product that makes it through development.He goes on to suggest that `the discovery oriented pharmaceutical industry relies on protection of its intellectual property for its existence', and that `returns from the commercialisation of NCEs are directly linked to the life of patents'.In addition to the massive financial costs involved with the discovery of pharmaceutical products, there is the long lead time between the research and development stage and commercialisation of an NCE, commonly a 10- to 12-year period. Lengthy lead times are a necessary evil for Australian pharmaceutical companies to come to grips with, and they can have a devastating financial effect on them if patent protection is not in keeping with that of their rivals. The government acknowledged as much in its explanatory memorandum when it stated that its aim in putting forward these amendments was to provide an effective patent life to assist companies in earning a return on their investments.The commercialisation of a new pharmaceutical product is no guarantee of a windfall for these companies, with only four in 10 products which make it to the market stage perhaps producing a profit for the parliament company. In an edition of the Australian Financial Review in February, Professor Ronald Quinn and Mr Christer Testen were reported as saying:With odds like that, it is essential that there be an adequate period of patent protection to recoup costs and make a profit.It may be true that Australia's reliance on extractive industries has served us well in the past, but such industries simply cannot keep pace with the industry of knowledge. That is where our future must lie if we are to remain competitive in the international economy.However, Australian pharmaceutical companies have had to sit by and watch as Japan, Europe and the United States have moved to extend the effective patent life for both new and existing pharmaceuticals, while past Australian governments have failed to do the same. At the same time, those in the pharmaceutical business have had to contend with the present government, led by Treasury, in their savaging of the R&D program on the basis that it was not cost effective. Professor Quinn and Mr Testen noted that until Australia showed international parity with its patent laws, investment, infrastructure and expertise would go nowhere. They went on to say:We will lose out on the development of a viable research based, value added export industry.The similarities between the mineral and pharmaceutical industries, while perhaps not obvious, are manifold.In a recent media publication, Ms Judy Webber, Chief Executive Officer of the Australian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, outlined the reasons for Australian success in mining and mineral processing. She noted that the combination of resource deposits, technology, personnel, and political and administrative stability were critical factors in persuading companies to invest in long-term exploration projects.It should be a source of regret to all in this place that while successive governments have been prepared to support the mining industry in a manner that has helped it become a world leader, that same level of support has not been extended to industries such as the pharmaceutical industry.In his article in the Australian Financial Review on 22 July last year, journalist Brian Toohey noted:An economy structured to participate in the fastest growing sectors of the global marketplace will do better than one which relies heavily on the supply of raw materials.The benefits to the wider community from the discovery of new pharmaceutical products cannot be overstated. As journalist Peter Roberts reported in February this year, TNA Australia, a packaging and machinery manufacturer, and IDT Australia, Australia's sole manufacturer of active ingredients for pharmaceuticals, have both gained valuable opportunities from the expanding industry.The benefits extend way beyond those suppliers. In its Scoreboard 97 publication, the IR&D Board noted that approximately 50 per cent of the direct benefits of industrial research and development spills over from the exploring firm to the rest of society. It also noted that, in the long term, the spill-over effects `determined the future competitiveness of the nation in a world trade which is increasingly technology based.'Information published by the IR&D Board demonstrates that the level of exports of innovative Australian companies is five times that of firms which do not invest in research and development. According to the IR&D Board, 43 per cent of firms investing in R&D are export oriented business as opposed to only 10 per cent of non-innovative firms. In the years between 1990 and 1996, exports of pharmaceutical products from Australia have more than trebled from $270 million to $1 billion. However, in comparison to our international competitors, Australia remains a small market for pharmaceuticals. As one international pharmaceutical company with a base in my electorate of Curtin notes, Australia's share of the total global market of pharmaceuticals sits between 0.5 per cent and 1.3 per cent, depending on product class.Increased levels of R&D and greater protection of our intellectual property are essential ingredients if we are to increase our market share. It is fair to say that those multinationals which establish bases in Australia do so because of our proximity to Asia and because of our competent work force. However, we are not competitive with our Asian, European or American counterparts when it comes to industry incentives, efficiencies or manufacturing climate. These issues will not be determined through the measures contained in this legislation alone, of course; but, at the same time, they cannot be ignored by the coalition.Australia's research based companies require the support of government and the financial sector to improve access to venture capital and to ensure that our universities and other centres of advanced learning are well funded, in order to prevent the brain drain phenomenon. Highly innovative industries also produce greater sales rates than do their non-R&D cousins. The value of sales per employee is markedly higher amongst R&D companies, with sales for non-innovative companies averaging around $120,000 per annum in contrast to more than $245,000 for research and development firms.Two other barometer readings of an industry's commitment to innovation are the spending on R&D per employee and the expenditure on R&D as a proportion of sales. In both readings, Biota Holdings Ltd, the pharmaceutical company I have already referred to, ranks in the top 10 Australian companies spending on research and development. As the IR&D Board notes:Firms with very high R&D levels per employee are designed around a strategy of a highly skilled, highly adaptable and highly paid workforce.It goes on:These high value-added companies are a timely example, in a period of national concern about jobs and wage levels.While the export figures I have quoted are not specific to the pharmaceutical industry, they are especially significant, given Australia's overreliance on imported drugs. As I outlined in a grievance debate last year, this overdependence on foreign drug treatments, combined with our ageing population, will further burden our current account balance sheet if the trend is not reversed and exports and imports of pharmaceuticals are brought closer to balance and—who knows?—maybe into surplus one day.True economic growth is only possible through genuine competitive advances. In the absence of an ongoing commitment to innovation in pharmaceutical products, our pharmaceutical industry will not continue to lift its performance and will not remain competitive in the long term. However, inadequate patent protection and recent cuts to research and development in Australia have been shown to be a disincentive to domestic pharmaceutical companies to continue operating in Australia, and have certainly not encouraged foreign firms to establish bases here.It is true that more than $1 billion has been invested in research and development in Australia by the drug industry since 1986. But this figure, which equates to around five per cent of turnover, is still far short of the international average and needs to be improved if we are to remain competitive with our Asian and OECD competitors.In Scoreboard 97, the Industry Research and Development Board also noted that, for an innovative firm to be successful, it must ensure that it is the first to market with its new product. However, once the patent for that product has expired, generic companies are able to sell a like product with the least amount of development expenditure. Professor Reece noted:No preclinical pharmacology, toxicology, or phase 1, 2 or 3 studies are necessary, since these have been done by the originator.This is why it is absolutely critical that our domestic intellectual property laws are on a par with those of our international competitors.Shortly after her retirement as the chairman of CSIRO, Ms Adrienne Clarke suggested that there are some issues that are of such importance and have such long-term ramifications for Australia that we need bipartisan support in dealing with them. I suggest that the proposals we are dealing with today are of that nature. The government deserves full marks for the introduction of this legislation.However, the extension of standard patents should not be viewed as the sole solution to promoting our pharmaceutical industry abroad. Equally as important is the reinstatement of an R&D incentive that promotes increased levels of innovation, improved access to venture capital for research and development firms, and better funding to universities for pure research and, perhaps, development.In closing, I quote Mr Pat Clear, Chief Executive of the Australian Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association, who sums up very well the feeling of his industry about this bill. He says:(This) decision is a satisfactory outcome for our industry. The government has sent a strong message, both domestically and internationally, that it is committed to a stable, consistent and positive environment for the industry in Australia.10:58:001062Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSSGT4Wide BayNPCustoms and Consumer Affairs10—in reply—I thank the honourable members for Cunningham (Mr Martin), Lindsay (Miss Jackie Kelly), Bonython (Mr Martyn Evans) and Curtin (Mr Rocher) for the interest they have taken in the Intellectual Property Laws Amendment Bill 1997 and also for their supportive comments.The bill fulfils government commitments in three areas. The first is the extension of patent term for up to five years for pharmaceuticals. This recognises that the long-term development time, combined with the considerable regulatory process to register and market a new product, erodes the patent term available in which to gain return on their investment. The bill will provide an effective patent life which is closer to that available to innovations in other areas of innovation.These arrangements also make provision for springboarding. This allows manufacturers of generic drugs to undertake certain activities, prior to the expiry of the patent, solely for the purposes of meeting premarketing regulatory approval requirements. Springboarding will be permitted any time after the extension has been granted.The second area provides for reforms in the regulation of patent attorneys, allowing greater choice of providers of professional services in the areas of patents and trademarks. The government has been concerned to ensure that the profession continues to offer a high quality service while being subject to competitive pressures. It wishes to ensure that there are no undue barriers to competition in professional practice. Technical qualifications will not be required for registration as a trademarks attorney.In these areas of lesser specialisation, the government considers that there should be greater competition. Restrictions on practice in patents will be retained, recognising the technical and demanding nature of patent law and the potential high cost of poor quality applications. Access to the profession will be opened up by moving the education and examination functions of the Patent Attorneys Professional Standards Board to the universities.The third area of change will improve the ability of patent office officials to provide better and more cost-effective service. These amendments will enable the government to meet its objectives of balancing a strong intellectual property system with competent professional advice against the benefits of greater competition.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.1063Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.11:01:001063Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSSGT4Wide BayNPCustoms and Consumer Affairs10—by leave—I move:(1) Schedule 2, item 38, page 22 (line 5), omit "or a patent attorney".(2) Schedule 2, item 38, page 22 (line 9), omit "and patent attorney ".The Intellectual Property Laws Amendment Bill 1997 was introduced into the House on 26 November 1997. The bill establishes a new classification of trademark attorney. Qualifications for registration as a trademark attorney will be less rigorous than those required for registration as a patent attorney. No technical qualification will be required. Since the introduction of the bill, the Law Council of Australia has expressed concern that the bill appears to treat lawyers differently to patent attorneys. These amendments will mean that lawyers and patent attorneys will have the same rights to seek registration as trademark attorneys. I commend the amendments to the House and present a supplementary explanatory memorandum.Amendments agreed to.Bill, as amended, agreed to.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Andrews)—The question is that this bill be reported to the House with amendments.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills1063r3861063Debate resumed from 26 November 1997, on motion by Mr Truss:That the bill be now read a second time.11:03:001063Beddall, David, MPMr BEDDALLQE4RankinALP00—The Gas Pipelines Access (Commonwealth) Bill 1997 is to provide for the application of the national legislative framework for third-party access to natural gas pipelines to areas within the Commonwealth's jurisdiction. This bill, as detailed in the minister's second reading speech, essentially outlines competition in the natural gas sector. As a former resources minister, I know only too well how important the gas industry is to the overall Australian economy.It has only been over a relatively short period that we have utilised this important resource, although great strides have been made in that period, as is manifested by some of the offshore developments in Western Australia. Indeed, it was only in 1969 that my home city of Brisbane commenced commercial reticulation of natural gas from the Mooney oilfields.In the period that I was resource minister, a great deal of change occurred within the industry. As we have heard previously, in 1991 the Hawke government adopted its national strategy for the natural gas industry. This strategy was adopted under the then minister and my former colleague Alan Griffiths, the member for Maribyrnong. This strategy started the national policy thrust to introduce a competitive Australian natural gas industry and was part of an overall thrust by the then government to ensure competition between energy sectors so that decisions were made on the best possible outcomes. As we have heard during this debate in a previous time, the production of gas has remained a private sector activity whereas pipelines and distribution historically have both private and state government involvement.The Council of Australian Governments meeting in 1994 agreed on a range of measures to introduce free and fair trading for Australia's gas industry. As a result, the Keating government formed the gas reform task force in June 1995. An important area that the task force looked at was the development and implementation of the vital third party access code. This was to enable fair access to the pipelines for third parties.The code was developed with a great deal of consultation with industry bodies including the Australian Gas Association, APPEA—the Australian Petroleum Producers and Exploration Association—and the Australian Pipeline Industry Association. This ultimately led to the signing of the natural gas pipeline access agreement in November of last year. It is important to note, however, that national coverage and consistency in regulatory approach is very important to achieving competition as well as reform. I can only reiterate, as former speakers have said in previous debates, that establishing and maintaining a consistent and uniform regulatory framework is crucial to ensuring that maximum benefits are received from the reform process.This bill before the Main Committee will go a long way to achieving this. In particular, the bill extends access to areas where legislation of the states and territories could not operate without the Commonwealth's assistance. In particular, this refers to the external territories and the Moomba to Sydney gas pipeline. I was minister for resources when this gas pipeline was sold and saw, for the first time, that competition in this industry could lead to competitive pressures in the Sydney gas market and the creation of jobs as well as import substitution from products that were produced from gas from the Moomba field. This pipeline is a major gas pipeline and is integral to the development of an integrated eastern state pipeline network.I would like to place on record just how important the gas industry is to the Australian economy. The Australian gas industry has annual sales of around $5 billion, both domestic and international covering liquefied natural gas—that is LNG—and appliances for distribution.The distribution alone contributes $1.7 billion in value added GDP to the Australian economy on an annual basis. Also, LNG exports are Australia's largest energy export behind coal and crude oil. Many members including the member for Bendigo (Mr Reid) have had the opportunity to visit the North West Shelf which is an extraordinary world-class operation and one that does Australian industry proud although we would all like to see Australian industry participation at a higher rate in those projects.As an employer, the gas industry employs around 5,800 people in pipeline and gas utility operations and supports indirect employment in thousands of commercial enterprises who use gas as their main energy source. Increasingly, we are seeing the importance of gas, particularly in power generation, but also for smaller energy uses. The gas industry is also a substantial investor in gas production, distribution, transmission and exports. The projected capital investment is as much as $37,000 million over the next six years.Gas can also play a significant role in improving Australia's greenhouse environmental performance. It is a cleaner form of fossil fuel and one that is in abundance in Australia and is being extracted in ever-increasing amounts. Environmental considerations support economic substitution of gas for other fossil fuels.I would like to turn to the amendments to the Trade Practices Act 1974. Amendments will enable Commonwealth bodies to perform regulatory functions under the national access agreements. The agreements to the Trade Practices Act will also remove any uncertainty surrounding the application of the competition principles agreement. The ACCC will also provide greater flexibility to authorise conduct which could be seen as anti-competitive behaviour in other circumstances. There is, however, some concern in the industry as a result of the economic crisis now facing our Asian neighbours.As recently as yesterday in the Financial Review in an article by Ian Howarth, who probably knows this industry better than any other journalist, it was reported that the expansion of the North West Shelf gas project in Western Australia could be delayed for up to six months as a result of uncertainties over the impact from a shaky Asian market on LNG demand. But, with energy shortages occurring in sections of Asia, sales are expected to double over the next decade.In particular, we hope that the Korean economy can recover quickly. Korea is probably the largest potential market for Australian LNG, and the Koreans see LNG as a source of energy for themselves in the future and would underwrite most of the expansion that is being contemplated in the North West Shelf. During its economic boom, Korea has suffered considerable energy shortages and gas turbine power stations are quite rightly seen as an efficient and quick way to remedy the shortfall.The bill we are discussing supports the industry and is not being opposed by the opposition. The shadow minister, the member for Perth (Mr Stephen Smith), will make it clear when he speaks on this debate that Labor supports this very important industry. As Labor did in government, we recognise that this bill provides the structure for the continuation of a competitive natural gas industry. Labor has committed itself to supporting the above goals and further downstream processing in Australia. We have seen that the primary natural gas supply as a percentage of total energy supply in Australia has risen to currently about 18 per cent. Natural gas is expected to be Australia's fastest growing energy source. By the year 2030, it is forecast to account for more than 28 per cent of Australia's primary energy needs.As someone who has watched with great interest the development of this industry over many years, I fully support all measures which ensure that the gas industry continues to grow and to prosper. Over those years, I have had the pleasure of meeting with many gas industry representatives and workers in the field. It is clear that support at the government level, particularly the Commonwealth government level, is needed to ensure that a unified direction in policy is achieved.The reform of the gas industry is crucial, as have been the reforms that have taken place around Australia in the last decade in the electricity industry and in the many other areas where competitive pressures are now applying and producing outcomes for consumers, as well as providing opportunities for industry development. These measures are good measures and the opposition supports them. I commend the bill to the Main Committee.11:12:001065Kelly, Jackie, MPMiss JACKIE KELLYGK6LindsayLP10—The Gas Pipelines Access (Commonwealth) Bill 1997 delivers on an election promise by the government to introduce competition reforms that would establish a national market of free and fair trade in gas. We are now delivering on that promise, as we delivered on the promise to sell one-third of Telstra. We did not sell a half, we did not sell the whole thing, we sold a third. We have also delivered on our promise to give $1 billion to the Natural Heritage Trust Fund. We promised to cut the deficit and to take any further tax reform or any action with regard to Medicare to the people for election.This contrasts sharply with Bob Carr in my state. He has failed to deliver on a number of promises regarding the M4, the Warragamba Dam, the Nepean Hospital and air conditioning in school buildings in my area. He has also failed to do anything to address his budget deficit. When it comes to credibility, this government is very high in those stakes.It is of key interest to me that we are now making some progress towards a national infrastructure for gas pipelines. It is something that I felt was not dealt with sufficiently at the Constitutional Convention. It was precluded from the debate. But I have always found it very frustrating in this House that, in this day and age, we are limited by section 51 of the constitution from generally legislating on transport matters and national infrastructure matters. It is appropriate that the Commonwealth play a leading role in train systems, road systems, aircraft systems, pipeline systems and transport systems right across this nation. Yet it is very difficult to do this without the compliance of the states, due to the way that our constitution is written.The powers that the states gave us in 1901 were such that we are unable to just legislate to bring this into being. We are relying on South Australia to implement its bill and then having the other states implement a similar bill by legislating for the South Australian bill to take effect in those states, although I understand Western Australia is actually going to have a separate bill which is essentially the same as the South Australian bill. The regulation of this act and this area will come under the realms of the Commonwealth competition policy, ACCC and the Commonwealth regulatory bodies.It is a very cumbersome way of delivery. It is not as easy as one would think to deliver on a promise—it often isn't—but we have achieved it in this instance with cooperation from the states. It is something that maybe future changes to section 51 of our constitution will give us the power to do unilaterally.There are a number of gas basins in Australia. There is the Carnarvon basin, off Dampier; the Browse basin, off Broome; the Bonaparte basin, west of Darwin; and the Amadeus basin, near Alice Springs. There are about three different basins in Bass Strait and a number of basins right across south-west Queensland, western New South Wales and north-eastern South Australia. Those last mentioned basins are around Moomba and are part of the very essential Moomba pipeline that links all the supply centres with the demand centres. Given that our supplies are largely offshore or in the centre of Australia, it is imperative that we have some mechanism for transporting that product to the demand centres, the largest of which is Melbourne, and then Perth and then Sydney.Currently existing pipelines run from Dampier to Perth and south to Bunbury, and from Dampier to Mount Newman and out to Kalgoorlie. A pipeline also currently exists from the Amadeus basin to Darwin; there is one proposed from the Cooper basin to Mount Isa; and there is already one in existence from that basin, the Moomba pipeline, which extends to Adelaide, Canberra, Melbourne and Sydney. It is also proposed to put in a pipeline from Papua New Guinea, coming down through Townsville to Gladstone, and also one from the Gippsland basin in the Bass Strait to Sydney.We are making leaps and bounds in this area to get natural gas to our centres of demand, and there are some very good environmental reasons for that. The amount of carbon dioxide from natural gas is quite low relative to the amount from other fossil fuels. The level of particulates, which are the solid matter that is released into the atmosphere, is also low in natural gases. The lead that is required as an octane enhancer in petrol and diesel vehicles is not required in natural gas vehicles. In addition, a lot of aromatic and other nitrous oxide emissions are reduced.Estimates by the Australian Institute of Petroleum indicate that, by converting half of Australia's road vehicles to natural gas, savings of two per cent would be made on the total Australian emission of greenhouse gases. That would have a significant impact, especially in a city like Sydney where 95 per cent of the smog and pollution in our air comes from road traffic. I always encourage the constituents in my electorate to look at using bicycles, if they can, or a train, or finding some other method of getting around rather than in vehicles that use fossil fuels. But if we are using fossil fuels, then natural gas is the leader to which we all should be moving.Primary natural gas supply as a percentage of total energy supply in Australia has risen from six per cent in 1973 to 17 per cent in 1994 and to 18 per cent today. The industrial sector accounts for 40 per cent of the total primary demand for natural gas, so it is also being used in industry. After coal and oil, natural gas is the third most important energy source for Australia. It contributes $5.8 billion to our GDP. That is looking at natural gas as a return from electricity and also from the gas reform. So, it is quite a significant economic mover in today's energy industries.It is significant that we have actually managed to get general consensus right across the states and right across Australia for some common use of pipelines so that the monopolies are forced to look at competition, so that suppliers and end users can organise for different modes of transport between each other, and we get some sort of legally enforceable rights for users, suppliers and retailers so that they can negotiate haulage on fair and reasonable terms. It really opens up the whole aspect of delivery of gas to competition, which is something that has not been done.We need to move in this direction to keep prices down because natural gas in the city is distinctly cheaper than other fossil fuels as it has an exemption from fuel excise tariffs. That is the one thing that gives it a clear competitive advantage and provides an economic incentive for people to convert to gas, depending on how much mileage they do and if they have figured things out. It is incredibly important to keep the cost of natural gas competitive against other fossil fuels and to encourage Australians to use it. One way of doing that is by encouraging competition in the area of supply, which this bill goes on to do.It is also indicative of where the Commonwealth government needs to go on a number of national networks. I have mentioned a few. Obviously, the airport is one as it is close to my home. We are always looking to improve the air quality in my area. Given the unfortunate geographic circumstances where there is a pooling of poor air quality around the Bringelly basin, one way we can do that is to get emissions from fossil fuels down to a level that will make the air quality in our region similar to that which exists in the rest of Sydney, or perhaps even down to a level that exists in smaller cities in Australia.It is a major challenge and I keep moving to get Sydney to change the direction in which it is going to take some sort of state or local government attitude on this. Certainly, this legislation will go a long way to assisting the promotion of gas as a future option. I hope to see the use of gas in Australia expanded over the next 10 to 15 years.This is a non-contentious bill. The opposition has brought it to this chamber because it sees the light, I suppose, and sees that this in where we should be going. I commend the bill to the House.11:25:001068Randall, Don, MPMr RANDALLPK6SwanLP10—I am very happy to speak today on the Gas Pipelines Access (Commonwealth) Bill 1997 . It is timely that I begin by congratulating the state government of Western Australia on the most successful privatisation in that state's history—the sale of the Dampier to Bunbury natural gas pipeline, the DBNGP, which was announced on Tuesday, 3 March by the Premier of Western Australia, Mr Richard Court. This sale is great news for Western Australia and potentially brings a lot of other development to our state. It will of course have benefits for the rest of the country.I will elaborate on this a bit later, but I want to say that I welcome this legislation which is proposed to provide for the application of the national legislative framework for third party access to natural gas pipelines. Australia is one of the countries of the developed world which are promoting competition in the energy sector. A national legislative framework—or gas reform—has become necessary for many reasons and not the least because the Australian natural gas industry has had considerable regulation at all levels of production, transmission and distribution.This legislation is designed to provide for the minor variation, revocation and substitution of authorisations for restrictive trade practices. Restrictive trade practices are not conducive to the development of this great natural resource which is plentiful in Australia and, of course, as has been said by the previous speaker, the member for Lindsay (Miss Jackie Kelly) particularly in Western Australia. Western Australia is taking over in energy supply as the gas energy from the Bass Strait area gradually winds down. The North West Shelf is the new frontier for plentiful energy supply in Australia.This is an industry which needs the support of the federal government by way of this legislation, to enable private companies to fully maximise the potential of this resource. Natural gas is Australia's fastest growing energy source. It currently supplies about 18 per cent of Australia's primary energy demand, and that is expected to rise by another 10 per cent to 28 per cent by 2101. At present over 2.8 million Australian households use natural gas for energy, so gas prices do have a significant impact on the real incomes of Australian households and the competitiveness of the Australian gas industry. Investment proposals to improve the competitiveness of the industry are awaiting completion of industry reforms, which include this legislation. Investment is proposed for liquefied natural gas plants, pipelines, power stations and gas storage facilities.As I have said, the most plentiful natural gas resources are found in the north-west of Western Australia. Adequate pipelines and access to pipelines will be needed at some point down the track to carry gas from our state to other states. The member for Lindsay referred to the gas reserves in the Carnarvon basin in Western Australia, offshore from the Port Hedland-Karratha region. These are the largest, at about 54 per cent of reserves; the Browse and Bonaparte gas field regions, which are also in north-west Western Australia, offshore from Broome, hold around 10 to 20 per cent of reserves respectively. These figures are approximate but Western Australia does have over 80 per cent of the reserves, so my state clearly has a significant contribution to make to the natural gas industry in Australia.The proposed pipeline from Western Australia to other states will only be viable when the natural gas supplies in other states are nearing economic depletion. It is important to note, though, that other pipelines within the eastern states, particularly the proposed Chevron natural gas pipeline from Papua New Guinea to Queensland, are likely to delay the requirement for a pipeline from Western Australia to the eastern states in the immediate future.If we are looking at states providing energy to other states, and pipelines providing gas to states other than that of origin, natural gas is a resource which needs to be managed with a certain degree of uniformity. For example, uniformity in construction of pipelines is important for the efficient carriage of gases from one area to another, or from one state to another. The need for uniformity is demonstrated by the lack of uniformity in the rail lines that originally were designed for Australia. We do not want to go down that route again. The economics of the more remote gas fields is also said to be more likely to improve with the increased pipeline network and with improved access to pipelines.The opposition, of course, are all for an interstate trade on a free and fair basis and they see that as a key to the future development of an efficient competitive industry. I am pleased that—as has been said by members opposite already—they do support this legislation because it is quite sensible in the development of this industry in Australia.They will not disagree with the legislation which will open this access to pipelines on non-discriminating commercial terms and ensure optimum interstate gas competition. As we know, the reforms to the gas industry were central to the recommendations in the Hilmer report on the national competition policy review.The reforms to the gas industry are expected to bring a full and wide-ranging range of benefits. These include: increased competition between alternative fuels and the consumer price competition; lower unit gas supply costs; more effective gas pricing to end users as cost subsidies are phased out; lower greenhouse gas emissions and pollutants, generally, and gains in microeconomic activity which will see higher investment, higher production and higher employment.Australia is already participating in gas industry reforms to a large degree in terms of governments relieving themselves of the provision of this product. In the past, governments have supported anti-competitive arrangements to facilitate development of the industry through allowing monopoly of the industry. However now the Commonwealth government has sold the Moomba to Sydney pipeline, and the South Australian government has sold the Moomba to Adelaide pipeline—and, incidentally, there are new owners, as I said for the Dampier to Bunbury pipeline and these same owners also own the Moomba to Adelaide pipeline—and the Queensland government has sold the Wallumbilla pipeline. My point there is that the sale of pipelines is nothing new, but there needs to be this legislative framework so that there is uniformity.Distribution of gas in New South Wales, Queensland, South Australia, Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory are all carried out by private companies. Until recently, only Western Australia and Victoria were served gas by government utilities. As I mentioned, though, Epic Energy will now provide gas through the Dampier to Bunbury pipeline in Western Australia.Under the privatisation of gas pipeline, Western Australian gas consumers will enjoy lower gas tariffs. In 1998, under the transitional access regime, tariffs will fall 20 per cent from $1.19 to $1.00 in the year 2000, and from the year 2000, the national access code will be adopted in Western Australia. The national access code will provide people, or firms, with a right to negotiate access to gas pipeline services on reasonable terms and conditions approved by an independent regulator with a right to binding arbitration to resolve disputes.Customers will be able to buy gas directly from a gas producer of their choice and purchase gas transportation separately from a gas pipeline company, or through a gas retailer. The aim is to encourage competition between gas producers and retailers which should result in a better service provision and cheaper prices to consumers. This legislation is central to the success of the code through removing barriers and restrictions, constructing new infrastructure to increase links between major producers and markets, and removing anti-competitive regulation which will set the stage for a nationally competitive market for gas.The environmental aspect has already been touched on, but the environmental benefits of gas are well known. As we have said, there is a reduction in carbon dioxide and many other gas emissions compared to fossil fuels. It has already been said that lead is not required for natural gas vehicles as an octane enhancer. Coal produces around 50 per cent more emissions of carbon dioxide than does natural gas per unit of energy. In the context of air quality and greenhouse gas emissions there are obvious benefits in substituting coal with natural gas where possible. At present, around 60 per cent of natural gas consumption is by the manufacturing sector which is closely linked to the 15 per cent or so used in the mining sector, so the domestic or residential sector uses around 20 per cent.Increased access to pipelines means development can happen more cheaply along pipelines where there is already access to existing energy sources. By that I mean literally tapping into the gas pipeline which goes past, which is cheaper than transporting those forms of energy. This can be seen in the Dampier to Kalgoorlie pipeline, where towns along the way which used to operate with old diesel generating facilities to produce energy, electricity, et cetera, are now able to tap into this environmentally superior and cheaper form of energy. This is the case for all those towns that are on the route from Dampier to Kalgoorlie, many of them potential mining towns or mining towns in situ.The potential is tremendous. As has been said, it means this cheaper form of energy is able to be used for mineral deposits, and they may be given the impetus to spring up even more because this alternative energy source is there. This existing infrastructure will encourage further development of sites and the industry spin-offs that these sites would attract. Employment-wise, this is also potentially a good thing. Although a lot of the land in Western Australia is currently subject to native title claims and the problems that caused in putting in the pipes, and the uncertainty is thwarting development in the resources industry, hopefully this situation will be cleared up, one way or another.I would like to come back to the Dampier to Bunbury natural gas pipeline in Western Australia which has been sold, as I said earlier, to Epic Energy Australia for over $2.4 billion. There are reports that the price paid was some $300 million more than was expected, which is a great bonus for the investment made by the state government, and the people of Western Australia in particular, in this project. Of that amount, $104 million is state government stamp duty. The proceeds of the sale will be used to repay the debt associated with the Dampier to Bunbury pipeline and the costs involved in the sale. There have already been a lot of speculative statements about how the government will spend the surplus.The state opposition leader in Western Australia, never one to miss the opportunity to cast gloom on triumph for the people of Western Australia, is harping about the surpluses not being used for pork-barrelling. He reminds me of the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Beazley, trying to cast gloom on the day thousands of Australian mums and dads were involved in a privatisation. But they got huge returns on their investment in Telstra shares, Mr Deputy Speaker, didn't they, including, I believe, Mr Bob Brown? It has been put to me recently that his family have invested in Telstra shares. That is a new one to come out of the woodwork, isn't it?XJ6ANTHONYMr Anthony—Which Mr Bob Brown?PK6Randall, Don, MPMr RANDALL—The member for Charlton. We do know that was a successful privatisation, and this Liberal coalition government are not the only privatisers. We know that the great privatisers were the former Keating Labor government: Australian Airlines, the Commonwealth Bank—we could go through a whole range. We know that this is not opposed. It is well known that the state government has some major capital works projects in mind. Whatever the outcome of the budget, I am certain Western Australians will see their dividends and that they will get a fair return on their investment on this gas pipeline.The state government gas utility in Western Australia, called Alinta Gas, managed the construction of the pipeline. The good news for Alinta Gas employees, who were involved in the operation and maintenance of that pipeline, is that under the sale conditions they are assured of employment with the new owners, and this is guaranteed for two years.Epic Energy Australia is an Australian based company, owned by four Australian based shareholding companies and two US based shareholding companies. In total, one-third of Epic Energy Australia is owned by the Australian shareholders. Their Australian operations will be housed in the headquarters to be established in Perth. Importantly, Epic Energy has guaranteed to spend another $874 million in the next 10 years to double the capacity of the pipeline, and I have already outlined the benefits which will come from the increased access to an existing pipeline, such as possible future development sites and so on.I am pleased to see the progress of the reform of the gas industry and to see it going in a similar way to Telstra, which once had a monopoly on telecommunications in both the provision and the servicing of products. Reform of the gas industry is going to see some competitive players come in and it will enable the opening up of developments around Australia—which, in terms of industry exports and employment, will be welcomed.One of the reasons I was keen to speak on the Gas Pipelines Access (Commonwealth) Bill 1997 was that there is a certain romance in living in my state of Western Australia with pipelines. As a boy, I was brought up in a town which would not have been a town unless there had been a pipeline going through it, and that was the town of Merredin. A visionary called C.Y. O'Connor had, many years before, planned the water pipeline to run from the hills of Perth all the way to Kalgoorlie, over 400 miles away. He was told that it was a stupid project and would never happen and that they would never get the water to Kalgoorlie. His critics were so vehement in their attacks on him that, unfortunately, C.Y. O'Connor killed himself before the completion of the project.Without the provision of the water pipeline from Perth to Kalgoorlie, there would be no Kalgoorlie as we know it today. There would not be the towns that benefit through the wheat belt, nor the large network of towns that have benefited from the fresh water pipeline in Western Australia. Pipelines are nothing new but they are a marvellous infrastructure that brings development and expansion to country and outlying areas. As a result, the expansion of the gas pipeline network in Australia is certainly welcomed, and the privatisation and the competition that are brought with it are certainly welcomed as well. I commend the bill to the House.11:45:001072Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONYXJ6RichmondNP10—I certainly congratulate the Member for Swan (Mr Randall) on a very interesting speech on the merits of the Gas Pipelines Access (Commonwealth) Bill 1997 and also on his own personal stories about the romance Western Australians had with pipelines—and particularly, as he mentioned, in Kalgoorlie—in the opening up of Western Australia. I rise today to support the Bill. As we all know, natural gas is now our third most important energy resource after oil and coal. Eighteen per cent of Australia's energy usage is now natural gas. This represents a three-fold increase over the past quarter of a century. Natural gas was all but ignored in the country until the early 1970s, but that situation changed quickly. For example, most of the Northern Territory's electricity is generated by gas turbines, these days.There are two principal reasons for the growing use of gas in Australia. Firstly, there have been enormous technological advances that make it easier and safer not only to discover but also, most importantly, to transport and to use natural gas. As we know, gas is now powering a growing number of cars and other vehicles, through the use of LPG. Secondly, there is a growing concern for environmental issues. Natural gas pollutes significantly less than does oil or coal. Basically, the burning of gas releases less carbon dioxide than does the burning of any other fossil fuel: about 20 per cent less, in the case of a natural gas vehicle. If we were able to convert all our cars to gas, in Australia alone we would knock off about two per cent from our greenhouse gas emissions.The supply of natural gas in Australia does not lend itself easily to competition. Our biggest reserves are in northern Western Australia, particularly offshore, and there is no pipeline connecting these fields to consumers in the east. The bulk of our pipelines connect state fields to the capitals of their states. The Moomba-Sydney and Moomba-Brisbane pipelines are the only interstate natural gas pipelines currently operating in Australia, and our natural gas industry has thus evolved as a series of separate state-supplied entities, although clearly there have been a number of major privatisations. As was mentioned by the member for Swan, the pipeline that has been built from Dampier down to Bunbury—which will be a major economic boost for that route and for that region of Western Australia—has recently been privatised, with over $2.4 billion coming back to the taxpayer in Western Australia.The general trend to promote competition in the energy sector through much of the developed world commenced in the 1980s. I will give credit where credit is due: the Labor federal government introduced a national strategy for the natural gas industry in 1991, stating its position on natural gas pipelines. I would also like to note that, in the early part of the 1980s, there was another member called Anthony—in another parliament—who had a large degree of responsibility for the opening up of the North West Shelf. Congratulations to him, if he ever reads this speech.The strategy indicates that the industry perceives `interstate trade on a free and fair basis as the key to future development of an efficient and competitive industry' and stated that `open access to pipelines on non-discriminating commercial terms is essential for optimal interstate gas competition'. This is particularly important as we go through national competition reform.What is owing now is a $16 million carrot to the states to ensure that there is adequate competition and access—in this case, to gas pipelines—in a whole regime of areas, whether it be electricity, rail or commerce. The bill is another step stemming from the initial strategy. Other parts of the strategy include state and federal privatisation of pipelines across the nation.The production of gas has always remained a private sector activity, whereas pipelines and distribution historically have had both private and state government involvement. The next step along the deregulation line is to encourage trade in natural gas, particularly across state borders. This development will take place in spite of concerns of some of the states with regard to the supply.This will be a good thing, because one of the problems that was faced recently in Queensland was that there were a number of disruptions to their electricity generators, of which I was a recipient in northern New South Wales. Having free access to both gas and, ultimately, electricity will mean that this can move throughout states and be far more efficient when there are peak loads or problems in particular regions.Let us look at the pipeline access agreement. The Council of Australian Governments met in February 1994 and agreed to the removal of legislative barriers to free trade in natural gas. The key elements of the agreement included: the removal of legislative and regulatory barriers to gas trade; the promotion of market access through a cohesive national regulatory framework; the decoupling of gas transmission and distribution or retailing activities; the development of a national pipeline grid; the removal of cross-subsidies; and the implementation of gas franchise arrangements for local distribution.The natural gas pipeline access agreement was signed by COAG on 7 November 1997. The implementation of reforms to the gas industry should bring a range of benefits. These are quite logical, including: greater security of supply through a competitive system; increased competition between alternative fuels and, particularly, consumer price competition; lower unit gas supply costs; more cost-effective gas pricing to end users as cross-subsidies are phased out; lower greenhouse gas emissions, which I have mentioned before, and pollutants generally; and gains in microeconomic activity, through investment, higher production and enhanced employment opportunities. Certainly, those gas pipelines, particularly in Queensland and New South Wales, have provided great benefits to the major metropolitan areas, as is now happening in Western Australia.The principal effect of the bill is to provide for the application of a national legislative framework for third party access to natural gas pipelines to areas within the Commonwealth's jurisdiction. This is where we play our key role in this bill.The bill is eminently sensible. I was particularly pleased to see that the member for Perth (Mr Stephen Smith), who is the shadow minister for resources and energy, has for once, and I have noticed a few times, put party politics aside. He is in the chamber now, and I am glad to see that he is boning up on his speech and has agreed to support the government's legislation.We do need to pass legislation like this quickly so that, in the words of the Financial Review:. . . the new marketplace . . . is a dramatic improvement, with big price reductions for consumers, large and small, starting to flow through the system.Let us look at the future of gas. The future developments in the natural gas industry are likely to centre around the partial substitution of natural gas for liquid petroleum, increased residential reticulation and the possible development of natural gas fired power stations.Gas is also big news for countries to our north in Asia, who will increasingly use gas as they double their electricity production over the next 12 years. The region's reserves are estimated to be 10 trillion cubic metres. We are seeing now a strategy in place among many of our neighbours to the north where coal is still the principle generator of electricity, followed by nuclear power. But gas is having a dramatic increase as both coal and, to a lesser extent, nuclear power start to peter out as we move into the next century.Australia, not to be outdone by our competitors, will continue to grow in this area. The Australian Gas Association estimates that gas will meet between a quarter and one-third of Australia's energy needs by the year 2030. It is quite extraordinary that there is a major shift from coal power and petroleum products to the use of gas. This will involve $6 billion of new infrastructure investment and over 11,000 kilometres of new pipeline. Imagine if we had 11,000 kilometres of new highways. It is a major investment. This is in addition to the estimated $30 billion of investment over the next decade on offshore projects, most particularly in the North West Shelf of Australia coupled with the continuing exploration programs in Bass Strait. Certainly, the North West Shelf is not only of strategic importance to Australia, but has an enormous economic boost to the region, to our national GDP and ultimately sending gas to Asia which will improve their efficiencies and, most importantly, their natural environment.In conclusion, this bill is an important and necessary step in the government's efforts to provide consumers, both domestic and business, with cheaper and cleaner energy as we move into the 21st century. I certainly urge members on both sides of the House to support this bill. It will be good for the Australian gas industry, good for consumers—whether they be residential or industry—and most importantly, good for the environment as we use a cleaner energy source.11:53:001074Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH5V5PerthALP00—I apologise for disturbing the Speaker's list. I was on my feet in the chamber itself when I was due to speak here.I indicate formally on behalf of the opposition that we support the Gas Pipelines Access (Commonwealth) Bill 1997 . I will come to the reasons subsequently. The committee would be aware that amendments have been circulated. I have had the opportunity of an oral briefing on these amendments from the office of the Minister for Resources, Senator Parer. I put one minor caveat on them when I express our support—that is, I am not sure that the detailed industry and state consultation which occurred in the crafting of the access arrangements have taken place in respect of those amendments, which on their face seem minor. I cannot see any cause for concern as there is none expressed by any of the relevant industry groups which have been involved in the long-time crafting of these arrangements, in the consultation of the COAG agreement and in the bill itself. Nor do I see any difficulty if the various states and the territory which are affected and running complementary legislation have none.What is the thrust of this bill? The thrust of this bill is to introduce competition into our gas markets to prevent the abuse of market power or monopoly power. This is a process which we on this side support. We support it in the first instance because we started this process with the 1991 natural gas industry strategy when Alan Griffiths was minister. It was the subject of a range of important COAG decisions in 1994 and 1995 when we were in office. To its credit, the government has continued that process, culminating with a COAG decision in November 1997 which set the scene for this legislation to be introduced and complementary legislation to be introduced in the various states and one territory.The notion of competition in this area is not competition for competition's sake. What is the importance? What is sought to be achieved here is competition to ensure that the cost of our energy, particularly the cost of our gas, is regionally and internationally competitive. Why is that important? That is important because that gives industry the best chance of being internationally and regionally competitive, particularly in areas of downstream processing. If you look at any resource or downstream processing project that has been successful in Australia, or is currently being proposed, there is a rule of thumb: a third of the cost of the project will go to manpower; a third of the cost of the project will go to infrastructure and other; and a third of the cost of the project will go to energy. If you can drive energy down, you have a greater chance of downstream processing and resource development projects occurring in Australia.Why is that important? Firstly, we want to turn this country of ours into a great downstream processing and value adding country. The great challenge for our minerals and petroleum resource industries, and for policy makers, is to ensure that the great tradition we have had in Australia of being a bulk commodity exporter turns to being a great downstream processor and adder of value. That means you need to turn iron ore into hot briquettes and/or steel, to turn nickel ore into nickel concentrate, to turn bauxite into alumina and aluminium, and down the road you go. Energy is a very important part of that process.How is the competition introduced? The competition is introduced here by ensuring that producers of gas have fair and reasonable access on commercial terms to the pipeliners or the transmitters of gas. There are three parts of the gas cycle: wellhead production, transmission and distribution. There is a goodly proportion of competition at the production end, particularly offshore, largely because the granting of petroleum exploration and production licences is the subject of competitive bidding. It has been, across the states, since our inception as a nation, invariably the case, replicated differently in the states and territories, of monopolies, public or private, over the transmission of gas. In my state of Western Australia, that monopoly transmission occurs in the form of the Dampier to Bunbury natural gas pipeline, which, as the member for Richmond (Mr Anthony) alluded to, has recently been privatised by the state government of Western Australia at what is regarded in the marketplace as a high premium asset disposal price of $2.4 billion.There is a need to introduce competition into the transmission of gas so that the transmitters of gas—if they are in a market advantage or a monopoly position—are effectively compelled under these arrangements to let a range of producers have access to the pipeline at fair and transparent rates.It is interesting to note, Mr Deputy Speaker, that when you actually address the international and regional competitiveness of our gas arrangements and you dissect the levels of competition in the wellhead production area, the transmission area and the distribution area, historically, one of the great hidden areas of mark-up here has been in the distribution and retail areas. I think the next step of the competition process needs to ensure that we have got plenty of competition on the distribution or the retail end. Alinta in Western Australia used to be the monopoly transmitter and the monopoly distributor. It now ceases to have that monopoly transmitter role, it no longer being the owner of the pipeline, but it still continues to have effectively a monopoly distribution and retail position.The bill reflects all those things. There are a range of technical matters which go to the COAG agreement which are best dealt with under the following heading. I will give one example. In this area, the principles are easy to discern but the devil is in the detail. Under the access arrangement, it is open to the states to have a state regulator in this area if they so choose and it is open to the state regulator to determine the reference tariffs on a particular pipeline, having regard to a range of areas.One of the items that the state regulator can have regard to in the setting of the reference tariff is the disposal price of any pipeline. I raise that matter of detail in the context that in Western Australia, the Minister for Resources Development and Energy, Colin Barnett, has been implacably and violently opposed to the construction of a second pipeline in Western Australia. Most of the industry and community response to that, and the state opposition's and my response to that, has been that if the market sustains a second pipeline in Western Australia so be it. But Mr Barnett has been implacably opposed to that and he is doing everything he can to prevent or avoid it occurring.Why is that relevant in this context? The whole notion of this legislation is to make the cost of energy competitive. In the access agreement it is open to the state regulator to have as one of his or her reference points the disposal price of an asset. So while Mr Barnett on the one hand preens himself with an unexpected $2.4 billion disposal price, the good community of Western Australia, and industry, particularly in the south-west, need to be aware that the higher the disposal price the higher the danger that the tariff price will remain high. One needs to pay very careful attention to the detail here because one does not want to pass this legislation and discover that, via the back door, a range of non-competitive public policy approaches at the state level, or attempts at non-competitive approaches at the company level, defeat the object of the exercise. The ACCC is the regulator in this area and I just hang one thing out for consideration.I note on the forward list of bills to be considered by the parliament during this session or this year the gas industry regulation levy bill. That bill seeks to impose, as the name suggests, a levy on the industry for the payment of the cost of the regulator. There are two points to be made on that. First, I am absolutely sure that the industry have not been subject to the same degree of consultation on the levy bill as they have with this bill, and I think it is incumbent on the government to make sure that that does occur.The second point is that, whilst industry will no doubt pay, and want to pay, an assiduous interest in the levy bill arrangements, it is of course in their own interests that the regulator in this area be properly and adequately resourced. Whilst there will be a need in this House, and in the parliament generally, to pay particular attention to the detail of that levy bill, in the end the regulator will need to be adequately resourced and I am sure that is a factor that the industry is aware of.The opposition supports this bill if only because we started the process and we would like to see it finished. With the very modest caveat that I drew in respect of the amendments, we also support the amendments.12:03:001076Marek, Paul, MPMr MAREKLK6CapricorniaNP10—Australia has abundant reserves of natural gas so it is important that the Commonwealth promote and develop the operation of a national market and allow open competition of this form of energy. The Gas Pipelines Access (Commonwealth) Bill 1997 will lead to more competitively priced gas. The winners will be the domestic and industrial consumers as well as the environment. Gas reform will not only promote the further development of energy infrastructure in this country, but also see the development of a number of new projects for downstream processing of resources, especially in areas which have not had access to natural gas such as Far North Queensland.The industrial revolution has caused the world a number of significant problems that most of us cannot even contemplate. However, we cannot just turn away from what has been the established norm. We cannot throw out a system, overnight, that has been our established way of life. We have a responsibility to get a better balance and to gradually phase out and change our methods of generating energy. This legislation helps Australia to achieve some of those objectives.Natural gas is an environmentally friendly fuel. Over time, it will help to significantly reduce Australia's greenhouse gas emissions and, of course, to meet world standards. While the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) and the Minister for the Environment (Senator Hill) achieved a magnificent result for this country in Kyoto, we must continually look towards better options to provide this nation's energy requirements, and we must continue to develop and implement alternative, renewable energy resources.Natural gas power plants are not only cleaner; they are smaller, cheaper and more flexible to run and can be located closer to the consumer. This, along with open competition, will provide the consumer with a cheaper form of energy all round, and that means that industrial consumers will be able to manufacture the same product more cost effectively, which will result in more jobs and increased economic activity in the industrial sector.The legislation will encourage competition between producers as well as between other fuel providers. The days of coal and oil as the only forms of energy are gone. That is not to say that they do not have an important role to play in today's society—far from it—but we do have to be realistic. We have to address our environmental concerns, and I believe this government is committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. We have to encourage other forms of competition, and most of all we must be seen to be acting in the best interests of the consumer. It is absolutely imperative that the people out there in today's society, in the greater Australian community, know that the government is putting forward the best programs and working on the best projects to give them the best results.Energy demands will double in the next 30 years, and the recent problems experienced by the electricity industry in Queensland and in Auckland, New Zealand, where consumers have been left stranded, should not be allowed to happen. With alternative providers of electricity generation, there will be the opportunity to switch to another provider so that the consumer will not be so drastically affected as we have seen recently.Uniformity is essential to implementing a national approach to access to gas pipelines. This Commonwealth legislation is critical to providing this. It will provide greater predictability in interpretation and decision making.In line with the development of the new pipeline, I think it is also imperative, if we are going to go down the road of putting all this new infrastructure in place, that we look at the ability to build other things as well. We are about to build this large pipeline, so why not also look at water infrastructure? We have a great opportunity here: the people are going to be out there putting this pipeline down, so why not put down an additional pipeline so that we can transfer water from the northern parts of the country to the more desolate areas? It would be a great initiative for federation funding or for work for the dole programs.Once again, I must say that the legislation is good. The gas pipeline will be a great initiative for Australia but, while we are doing that, let us have a look at spending a few extra dollars and possibly bringing some water down for the Central Queensland regions as well.12:08:001078Scott, Bruce, MPMr BRUCE SCOTTYT4MaranoaNPVeterans' Affairs10—Firstly, I thank members for their contribution to the debate on the Gas Pipelines Access (Commonwealth) Bill 1997 . The bill is essentially for the establishment of the national third party gas pipeline access regime agreed to by the Council of Australian Governments on 7 November 1997.The regime agreed to by COAG will pave the way for the development of an integrated natural gas market, with gas freely traded across state and territory boundaries through an interconnected pipeline grid. There will be competition between producers of gas and between retailers across a pipeline network where owners will be permitted a fair return and incentives to grow the market for gas.The regime will replicate the outcomes of a competitive market in the monopoly pipeline business by establishing a transparent, industry-specific third party access framework, thereby facilitating increased competition in the production and retail ends of the natural gas sector.Increased competition in the gas sector will lead to considerable economic and environmental benefits for all Australians. By making gas carriage arrangements transparent and gas markets contestable, competition will encourage lower delivered gas prices and enhance demand for this energy source, as well as increase activity in exploration and development and pipeline construction to service this demand.To facilitate the national coverage of the regime, this bill will allow the use of national bodies, ensure the regime applies to offshore waters and to relevant external territories, and clear the way for the states to apply the regime to the Moomba-Sydney pipeline.The agreement to use the ACCC as the regulator for transmission pipelines in all jurisdictions that are likely to be covered by the interconnected eastern pipeline network has been a victory for commonsense. With all jurisdictions other than Western Australia using the ACCC, there is the potential for a strong level of consistency in the interpretation of the gas access code, which will facilitate the development of a national market without artificial barriers.The national regime reflects a fine balance of interests across all nine jurisdictions, gas producers, pipeliners and gas users. It enjoys broad based support from all these competing interests. As such, it is a fine example of what can be achieved when diverse interests are brought together in a process of genuine consultation to achieve, in the interests of all Australians, outcomes laid down by this government.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.1078Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.12:12:001078Scott, Bruce, MPMr BRUCE SCOTTYT4MaranoaNPVeterans' Affairs10—by leave—I move:(1) Clause 15, page 15 (lines 4 to 7), omit subclause (1), substitute: (1) The Code Registrar has: (a) the functions and powers conferred or expressed to be conferred on the Code Registrar under the Gas Pipelines Access (Commonwealth) Law or under the National Gas Agreement; and (b) any other functions and powers conferred on the Code Registrar by unanimous resolution of the relevant Ministers of the scheme participants.(2) Schedule 1, item 14, page 28 (line 28), omit "consistent", substitute "not inconsistent".(3) Schedule 1, item 27, page 31 (before line 11), insert:(1A) In this Division: industry code of practice means a code regulating the conduct of participants in an industry towards other participants in the industry or towards consumers in the industry. minor variation , in relation to an authorization, is a single variation that does not involve a material change in the effect of the authorization.Note: The heading to section 87D is altered by omitting "Definition " and substituting "Definitions ".(4) Schedule 1, item 48, page 37 (line 32), after "single", insert "minor".(5) Schedule 1, item 48, page 38 (lines 1 to 4), omit subsection (9).I also present the explanatory memorandum to the bill.Amendments agreed to.Bill, as amended, agreed to.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon N. M. Dondas)—The bill has been agreed to with amendments. The question now is that the bill be reported to the House with amendments.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills1079r3891079Debate resumed from 26 November, on motion by Mrs Sullivan:That the bill be now read a second time.12:13:001079Brereton, Laurie, MPMr BRERETON5T4Kingsford-SmithALP00—This bill is entitled the Chemical Weapons (Prohibition) Amendment Bill 1997 and it provides for amendments to the Chemical Weapons (Prohibition) Act 1994 in order to rectify a number of problems identified in the original implementation of that act.Very briefly, a key element of the amending bill is the provision to automate the annual permit renewal process of the Chemical Weapons (Prohibition) Act. This will simplify the compliance obligations for each company or organisation requiring a permit but maintain the annual reporting cycle required to fulfil Australia's obligations under the chemical weapons convention.The amending bill refines the secrecy provisions of the Chemical Weapons (Prohibition) Act, streamlines some of the administrative procedures and provides for applications, notices or reports to be made by way of electronic lodgment. The amending bill also clarifies some outstanding issues to be implemented through regulation, including a more precise definition of the terms `production', `processing' and `consumption'. The effect of the amendments is to clarify the definition of those chemical facilities subject to the permit and notification requirements of the act.The amendments are uncontroversial and Labor supports the bill, consistent with our strong record of support for international efforts to combat the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction—nuclear, chemical and biological weapons—and ballistic missiles capable of delivering such weapons. Australia's leading role in the negotiation of the chemical weapons convention was one of the foreign policy highlights of the former Labor government. The convention, which entered into force on 29 April last year, is the first comprehensively verifiable multilateral treaty which bans an entire class of weapons of mass destruction. It prohibits all aspects of chemical weapon development—production, acquisition, possession, transfer and use—and provides for the destruction of existing stockpiles and production facilities. It sets fundamental benchmarks in the field of verification, through its provision for declarations and on-site inspections.Australia has given strong support to the chemical weapons convention because this treaty directly affects our national security. The convention holds the promise of achieving the abolition for all time of a class of weapon which has killed tens of thousands of people in this century. The chemical weapons convention also represents the best means of preventing the spread of chemical weapons to our region and other parts of the world where Australia has a significant interest in the maintenance of peace and security.The chemical weapons convention is only one part of international efforts to address the problems of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Under Labor, Australia made significant contributions to these efforts, negotiating the South Pacific nuclear-free zone treaty; convening the Australia Group on chemical weapons; working hard to secure the indefinite extension of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and to strengthen the International Atomic Agency safeguards; making significant contributions to the negotiation of the comprehensive test ban treaty and, of course, establishing the Canberra Commission on the Elimination of Nuclear Weapons. This is a record of which Labor is justifiably proud and it is a tradition that we are determined to continue, both in the national interest and to advance the common good. We will do so on returning to office.This is a field of diplomatic activity which enjoys broadly bipartisan support, and the grave dangers posed by weapons of mass destruction have been highlighted by the recent crises over UN inspections in Iraq. For my part, I readily acknowledge the Howard government's contribution to the conclusion of the comprehensive test ban treaty negotiations and the government's general support for non-proliferation objectives. Regrettably, the government's work in relation to the CTBT—the comprehensive test ban treaty—has not been matched by any serious effort to promote the report of the Canberra Commission as a framework for forwarding thinking on disarmament and non-proliferation.This failure has involved, I must say, a significant lost opportunity for Australia to push the envelope in advancing disarmament and non-proliferation. Without the efforts of the middle powers, including Australia, in applying intellectual and diplomatic resources to move the agenda forward, discussions and negotiations in the United Nations all too often get bogged down in ritual confrontation between the nuclear weapon states, on the one hand, and the non-aligned movement, on the other.That said, I take this opportunity to welcome the government's recent commitment to continuing Australia's work on the negotiation of a verification protocol to the biological weapons convention. This is an important foreign policy objective and a major contribution to international security: as honourable members should be aware, biological weapons can be as devastating as nuclear weapons.In recent weeks we have heard much about Iraq's biological weapons program. The principal agent developed and produced by Iraq, indeed loaded into ballistic missile warheads, was anthrax. This is a comparatively cheap, low technology weapon of mass destruction. It does not require any large infrastructure or any great investment. Nor is it a new weapon. On the contrary, it is technology more than half a century old; the United Kingdom first developed anthrax as a possible biological weapon during the Second World War. But the potential effect of anthrax is still diabolical. As has been pointed out in recent weeks, one single ounce of anthrax in the airconditioning system of a sports stadium could infect tens of thousands of people, with very high rates of fatalities. Iraq possessed, at one time, weaponised anthrax sufficient, in theory, to kill the entire population of the world several times over.Beyond this lie very real new dangers arising from rapid advances that are taking place in the field of biotechnology, in particular genetic manipulation of disease organisms. These developments, by-products of legitimate scientific inquiry, present frightening new possibilities for biological weapons, such as genetically engineered plague, resistant to known antibiotics. Biological agents have been called the poor man's atomic bomb. They have also been recently identified as the weapon of the 21st century and they pose a threat equal to that of nuclear weapons. This is an issue that the international community must address through prevention rather than cure.For more than a quarter of a century, in the form of the biological weapons convention, there has been an emphatic international prohibition on the development, production and stockpiling of biological weapons. Despite this prohibition, at least two states continue to engage in the development of such weapons: Iraq and, less well-known but equally significantly, the former Soviet Union. We have also seen some evidence of terrorist interest in the use of biological weapons in Japan and the United States. All this underlines the necessity for intensifying current negotiations in the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva and for putting in place a stringent verification regime which will ensure that the world is free from the threat of biological weapons.I note in this regard that the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Downer) has said that the government hopes that negotiations on a verification protocol to the biological weapons convention would be completed by the end of this year. If the track record of the Conference on Disarmament is any guide, this may prove to be somewhat optimistic, but I certainly share his desire for the earliest possible conclusion of negotiations on a protocol that will provide an effective verification regime comparable to that established by the chemical weapons convention. I look forward to the day when this parliament will give consideration to legislation implementing Australia's obligations arising from such a protocol as another vital step in making the world safe from these horrific weapons.12:23:001081Smith, Tony, MPMr TONY SMITHSK6DicksonIND00—This bill has come about because problems were identified with the principal act, especially during initial implementation, and so amendments have been made to the principal act to both rectify those problems and refine the administration. Small businesses in my electorate constantly complain to me about the regulation of their businesses. They are bedevilled by regulation, and I am pleased to see that this bill does address some of the regulatory problems that arise.The problems that have been identified include: a potential for non-compliance with permit provisions of the act where activities of a company fluctuate around permit thresholds; permit renewal provisions provide for unnecessarily complex compliance and administration requirements; inconsistency and inflexibility in the operation of certain procedures in the act for gathering information required for declarations under the convention, and an unnecessary requirement for all notifiers to provide reports, so that reports may not be required from certain classes of notifiers and, hence, there is potential for non-compliance with permit transfer provisions. Basically, the bill addresses the problems by improving the operation of the act based on the experience that has already been gleaned from its operation to date, and simplifying administration surrounding the act so as to ultimately and more effectively improve Australia's obligations under the convention.In recent times—probably for 15 or so years—it is fair to say that arguably many conventions have been signed without proper consideration. I say that of the period preceding 30 May 1996. There was an inordinate rush, in my view, to sign international treaties, frequently without the slightest idea of the effect of those treaties both on Australian political life and on Australian legal and common law life as a result of the implications at law of the signing of those treaties.Obviously the Commonwealth has a power under section 51 of the constitution to sign treaties. The executive has done that for many years—since we have become a federation, indeed—but there have been a great plethora of those treaties in more recent times. To its great credit, the government established the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties on 30 May 1996, the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Downer) having announced to the parliament that this would occur, along with announcements in relation to more consultation at COAG level and also the establishment of a Treaties Council, involving the Prime Minister (Mr Howard), the premiers, and the chief ministers of the territories, which would meet at least once a year.There needs to be care in relation to treaties. We have in recent times heard criticism of the MAI, and we have the example of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which created great controversy in the period when it was signed. The impact on Australian political and legal life from the signing of these treaties was never envisaged by our founding fathers. But its impact has been clearly enunciated in the High Court decision of Teoh and the Minister for Immigration. Essentially, the legal principle is stated as this:Although a Convention ratified by Australia does not become part of Australian law unless its provisions have been validly incorporated into municipal law by statute, the ratification was an adequate foundation for a legitimate expectation, absent statutory or executive indications to the contrary, that administrative decision-makers would act conformably with the Convention. It is not necessarily that a person seeking to set up such a legitimate expectation be aware of the Convention or personally entertain the expectation.The judges went on to say:But the fact that the convention has not yet incorporated into Australian law does not mean that its ratification holds no significance for Australian law . . . This is important in relation to interpretation—Where a statute or subordinate legislation is ambiguous, the court should favour that construction which accords with Australia's obligation under a treaty . . . That, of course, is an established principle of international law. So there is a significant legal outcome and a significant political outcome, because our domestic situation can be undermined by the existence of the supervision, or the purview perhaps is the best way to put it, of an outside body, such as a United Nations committee, which can look at whether Australia is performing to its expectations, given its interpretation of the treaty.That is a reason we had a case like Teoh, which drew on the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and, very recently, the decision in Lam and the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, a single judge decision. Both cases related to illegal immigrants who were trafficking in hard drugs, such as heroin. In the recent case of Lam, there was almost 1½ kilograms of heroin, with an estimated street value of $3 million, and Mr Justice Sackville drew on the convention, and also Teoh's case, to permit this illegal immigrant to stay in the country. Those sorts of impacts must be very carefully considered when we think about international conventions.I should say that the chemical weapons convention, from which the principal act and the legislation derived, was ratified by Australia in May 1994. It is the first comprehensively multilateral treaty that bans an entire class of weapons. It prohibits all aspects of weapons development, including production, acquisition, possessing, transfer and use, et cetera, and also provides for the destruction of any existing stocks and so forth. The Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Downer), in his press release of 30 April 1997, said:Australia has taken a close interest in the CWC because this treaty directly affects our national security. The Convention promises the abolition for all time of a weapon of mass destruction which has killed tens of thousands of people this century, including many Australians who were the victims of these weapons in World War I. The CWC also represents the best means of preventing the spread of chemical weapons to our region.He went on to talk about the speed at which the convention has gained support. I am pleased to say that, in my view, the minister's department has acted at all times with due probity in relation to this particular matter. I also say that it is a source of great comfort both to service and to former service personnel in my own electorate. Many families with people in the services and also ex-service people that have suffered in the past from chemical weapons accept that this sort of convention is important in regulating what are diabolical weapons that really have no place in any civilised world.The Minister for Foreign Affairs also referred to a recent initiative in a press release of 2 March 1998 in relation to biological weapons. I commend him also in relation to that. The initiative aimed at fast-tracking negotiations on a verification system for a biological weapons convention, and various other matters. There is certainly a determination on the part of the government to be an innovator in this area. It has in the past encouraged countries—in particular, I understand, the United States—ultimately to become a party to this.The nature of treaties frequently means that a country such as Australia, with an impeccable human rights record and a long history of determined commitment to democracy, seems at times to be bearing unnecessary burdens, it could be said. And some people do say that, because Australia is such a good citizen and, of course, we do not produce weapons of the type that this convention seeks to eliminate. It is a pity in some ways: all who tend to sign these things could arguably be said to be good citizens, while those who do not sign are not. Iraq is one well-known offender that has neither signed nor ratified the convention.Under the cease-fire arrangements at the end of the Gulf War in 1991, Iraq was required to become a state party to the biological weapons convention—which it did. However, as the negotiations for this particular convention had not at that stage been completed and the convention obviously had not been finalised, no provision for Iraqi adherence to the convention was included. Cease-fire arrangements themselves did require Iraq to get rid of its chemical weapons stocks and production equipment—hence the follow-up to that with UNSCOM, and the very near outbreak of war in that area again, as a result of the recalcitrance of this international outlaw in Iraq. Of course, there are a few others around that deserve similar condemnation, and one suspects North Korea might be one of them.However, turning to the provisions of the bill itself, the effect of item 4, for example, is to enable the electronic lodgment of permit applications. Another provision provides for automatic renewal of permits up to a maximum of four times, making one permit valid for five years and so on, and that has been very well received in terms of trying to streamline the process for businesses who are in the business of making chemicals—not for the purposes of war of course; they are frequently for innocent purposes. We have a very large herbicide and insecticide industry for our farming and primary productions areas and, obviously, there are compliance factors to consider there.The minister said that the convention is a complex document; there are a lot of technical issues involved. It is true to say that the primary organisation to deal with this—the international organisation—was the organisation for the prohibition of chemical weapons, OPCW. It came into being with the treaty itself and, of course, in the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, we have another section to deal with that.The ultimate outcome of all of this is that we have an important convention here in place. We are trying to streamline the principal act to make it more user-friendly in the Australian context, but at the same time adhering to our international obligations under what is a very serious and significant treaty, one that, I think, all Australians would be proud to support the government on.12:36:001084Sercombe, Bob,MPMr SERCOMBEQK6MaribyrnongALP00—This bill, the Chemical Weapons (Prohibition) Amendment Bill 1997 , seeks, as has been indicated by other speakers, to improve the administration of the Chemical Weapons Prohibition Act which implements Australia's obligations under the chemical weapons convention. As the shadow minister for foreign affairs indicated, the opposition fully supports those steps.I would say—this was noted, I think, in the minister's second reading speech—that something like 100 Australian companies and organisations may be directly affected by the routine requirements of the legislation and, as the member for Dickson (Mr Tony Smith) indicated, the primary intention of the legislation is to iron out bugs and issues that arise from the implementation of the obligations with respect to those companies.I did arrange, over recent days, for a member of my staff to ring a number of chemical companies just to check what their reaction to the particular legislation was. I would not claim that the survey was done with any great degree of scientific precision, but it did concern me that a number of companies were contacted at relatively senior levels and the level of knowledge and information with respect to the legislation is particularly poor.The companies that were contacted include Wesfarmers in WA, Allbright and Wilson, Orica, which of course is the new name for ICI, and Du Pont. Each of those companies, as I understand it, is heavily involved in the chemical industry. One would have expected a higher degree of awareness of this legislation and its implications. That did not seem to me to be the finding of my staff member. It would seem to me that, on that basis, there is a significant educational job still in front of the government in relation to this matter.Certainly—and it is probably not fair to refer particular comments to particular companies—there was some awareness on the part of at least one of them, of the benefits of the electronic lodgment system that the bill envisages. Others `vaguely remembered'—these are my staff member's quotes—some information being circulated about the bill but could not remember any problems or issues with it; and others said that they had been involved with the original bill but were not sure whether anything had been circulated since, and so on.I am not, as I indicated a moment ago, claiming that my officer's telephone around was, in any sense, a properly conducted survey. But it was sufficiently alarming to want to inform the parliament and suggest that the appropriate officials might have a close look at whether the level of communication to the chemical industry is in fact what it ought to be.As the member for Kingsford-Smith (Mr Brereton) indicated, Australia does have a proud record in relation to playing outside its league—well above its league; well above its weight—in terms of the international community and efforts with respect to disarmament issues. This chemical weapons convention is an important part of that. He referred to Australia's role in relation to the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and the lead that the former government took with the Canberra Commission.We are all aware of the role that Australia has played with respect to UNSCOM. It is worth noting, that an Australian, Dr Gee, was appointed deputy director of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. Other speakers have not referred to the role played by the former foreign minister in the International Court of Justice with respect to testing the legality of nuclear weapons of mass destruction. I think it is very important to take occasions like this as an opportunity to not rest on our laurels. Australia does have the capacity to play well above its weight because of its reputation in this area and those opportunities ought to be vigorously pursued.It is important, in the context of nuclear weaponry, for Australia to continue to exercise its leverage on the nuclear powers, particularly the United States and Russia, with respect to realistically building the START III process—the strategic arms reduction talks. It is important for Australia to be considering what role it might play in matters relating to the production and stockpiling of fissile material, with the prospect of a role where some sort of international agreement can be produced with relation to the way in which fissile material—plutonium and highly enriched uranium—has significant limitations put on its production or stockpile. That is the next important issue that needs to be taken in taking forward the arms control process with respect to nuclear weapons.Other speakers have spoken about the horror of biological weapons and the need for beefing up the biological weapons convention and perhaps building on some of the achievements with respect to the chemical weapons convention in that area. As I understand it, there is no developed verification regime with respect to the biological weapons convention. There is no effective secretariat. In fact, there may be no secretariat at all operating with respect to the international convention on biological weapons and those vital tasks to build on the achievements that have been made with the chemical weapons area into an area which is equally, if not more, frightening.As the member for Kingsford-Smith indicated, the advances in biology are such that the capacity of those weapons in terms of the horror they can generate are magnified and need to be taken into consideration. We are not only talking here about nation states having access to these sorts of weapons. The capacity of terrorist organisations and even criminal organisations to obtain access to these technologies is very frightening. One only has to remember the experience with the Aum Shinri Kyo sect in Japan that launched an attack on the Tokyo subway using sarin gas—a chemical weapon. I understand that sect had some experience with biological agents as well. One only has to note those sorts of circumstances to understand the importance of a country like Australia actively taking forward a role with relation to weapons of mass destruction.I would argue it is not only in relation to weapons of mass destruction that Australia ought to be playing a role. The world is faced with a rising tide of small arms. Whilst those small arms in themselves, and in individual circumstances, do not do the damage of weapons of mass destruction, nonetheless they are a massive problem. Australia, through the approach it has taken on the issue of landmines, has shown a way in which somewhat smaller scale weapons than those of mass destruction can be addressed effectively in the international community.I would suggest that, in relation to small arms, there are important steps that need to be taken. It is not just rogue operators that are the difficulty. Nation states, particularly the larger ones of Russia and the United States, do have particular problems in relation to the supply and availability of the huge tide of small arms that are available.In 1997, I am advised that something like $3 billion in small arms and light weapons were shipped across international boundaries. These weapons are relatively affordable. They do not require complex technology. An AK47, for example, has only got something like 16 moving parts as compared to a jet fighter with something like 60,000 small components. We are not talking about high levels of technical sophistication being required here. I understand there are something like 300 companies in the world that manufacture small arms for the international market so we are talking about a huge problem. If one looks at the effect of the flood of small arms, in a country like Albania when last year there was a breakdown in internal security something like 800,000 small arms were knocked off from weapons depots. We look in horror at the moment at press reports of the possibility of a further break-out of fighting and war in the Balkans. One would suggest that the availability of small arms from Albania may have no small part in those circumstances as they evolve.One is aware of the huge volume of arms that were supplied to the Mujaheddin in Afghanistan in the fight there against the former Soviet Union and subsequently in the civil war. Something like $6 billion to $9 billion worth of military materiel was apparently supplied.It is widely seen that those small arms are now popping up all over the world in countries like Bosnia, Algeria and Sri Lanka. We are not talking here just about unsophisticated small arms; we are talking about things like Stinger surface to air missiles. The breakdown of the military in the former Soviet Union where the military is regarded as almost at starvation level has created a circumstance where large stockpiles of materiel can in fact come onto the market.There is an important set of problems here that Australia ought to be at the forefront of bringing forward for discussion in the international community. The former Secretary-General of the United Nations, Boutros Boutros-Ghali, established a panel of government experts on small arms in 1992. There needs to be some transparency in relation to small arms trade. In 1993, the United Nations established a register of conventional arms which sought to establish a register of seven types of major weapon systems and apparently an increasing number of governments have been participating in that. There have been suggestions about regional registries of national production and stockpiling and requirements to prenotify for the transfer of small arms across international boundaries.The Organisation of American States apparently has indicated a view on that, as has ASEAN in our own region. That type of transparency does create the possibility of building further. For example, the Nobel Peace Prize winner and former President of Costa Rica, Oscar Arias Sanchez, has recently proposed a system whereby small arms are not available by international convention to governments that fail human rights standards, that do not respect international arms embargoes and that do not participate in UN arms registers. I think that these are matters the Australian government could well consider and take forward in terms of the credibility this country has in this area. Australia needs to be at the forefront of improving customs arrangements throughout the world to limit the transfer of small arms.We also need to address the very tough question of the production of objectionable types of small arms. As I have indicated, Australia has played its role, along with countries like Canada and Britain, in the very important area of landmines. I think there is a whole range of areas—assault rifles and various types of automatic and semi-automatic weaponry—that the international community does need to address in order to take forward and take seriously, within the international citizenship, some obligations for doing something, not only with respect to weapons of mass destruction as this legislation does, but with respect to the problems that are created for the world by this huge volume of trade in relation to small arms.12:49:001087Taylor, Bill, MPMr TAYLOROJ4GroomLP10—Before I address the specifics of this legislation, let me make a couple of comments on three items raised by those opposite. The first item relates to the BWC protocol, the biological weapons convention protocol. The government supports what those opposite and the honourable member for Kingsford-Smith (Mr Brereton) had to say previously on this and we look forward, in due course, to having a look at the detail of that. On the second item, the comprehensive test ban treaty, I disagree with the honourable member for Kingsford-Smith that this government has done nothing. There are substantial initiatives going on in the CTBT office in Vienna and, having been there quite recently, I can attest to that. I feel sure that we will see further progress, albeit with some difficulty in some areas, in the coming months and years.On the third item of antipersonnel landmines, can I say to the honourable member opposite that the issues of the transfer of landmines and the cut-off for fissile material are both now being pursued through the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva. Just after I left Geneva, quite recently, those issues were raised by our ambassador at the opening of the CD session and were reiterated a few weeks later by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Downer). I can assure the opposition that all of these issues are being taken very seriously and are being pursued by the present government.The legislation we have before us is unexceptional, and I do not intend to go into the detail of the amendments to the 1994 legislation other than to say that the chemical weapons convention had a 20-year gestation period. It did not come easily: there was the signature in 1993; the ratification by Australia in 1994, as the sixth nation to do so; and, domestically, the development of the Chemical Weapons (Prohibition) Act 1994. From that act, some amendments were required to the customs regulations in terms of import and export arrangements. Then, of course, there was the coming into force of the chemical weapons convention, the CWC, in April 1997. So it took almost three years from our ratification to the coming into force, and the rules under the convention were that it be 180 days after the ratification by 65 members. So it took a long time—as, indeed, some of these conventions do.The development of the 1994 legislation and the amendment in this legislation to that principal act have led to the formation of the CWC office in the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, and I understand we have got one or two officials here. I take the opportunity to acknowledge what they have done in relation to the administration of this. I had my office and the Parliamentary Library pull out from the home page some of the very substantial information that is provided to the industry and I give the CWC office credit for the substantial efforts that they have gone to.Although, as previous speakers have said, Australia has no weapons or facilities which have to be destroyed under this convention, there is substantial work to be done in relation to industry. It is interesting that the CWC office surveyed about 3,000 companies of which about 100 declared activities. At the moment, as I understand it, about 20 hold permits under the 1994 legislation, and, therefore, under the 1998 legislation as undoubtedly it will be. In the process there were five trial inspections. The point to make about that for Australian industry is that there was no disruption to production and no undue problems for the management in some of those companies. I make the point that we should give full credit to the DFAT officials who have the task of implementing the 1994 legislation and for the further improvements to that legislation as the result of the amendments in this bill.I want to take the opportunity in the very short time available to me to pay tribute to one or two other people. In the political processes, it is very difficult at times to give credit where credit is due when it happens to be on the other side of the House, but I am going to take this opportunity this afternoon to acknowledge the efforts of the previous minister for foreign affairs, now the member for Holt (Mr Gareth Evans). If Senator Evans, as he was at time, is to be remembered for one thing in terms of his efforts as foreign minister, it is the effort that he put into the chemical weapons convention. He did a lot of good work in terms of nuclear nonproliferation and the NPT extension, et cetera, and I think we should pay tribute to him today for the effort that went into it.I know it seems to be a day for singling out people in DFAT, but there are one or two now senior officials in that department who were very heavily involved in the CWC, and I want to take the opportunity to acknowledge them. Kym Jones and John Dauth, both of whom are now deputy secretaries, played a very large part in it. Paul O'Sullivan, who is now the deputy to Andrew Peacock in Washington, was very heavily involved as the ambassador in Geneva in the conference on disarmament—and of course CD played the leading role in the development of the CWC. Finally, I want to acknowledge the part played by Richard Butler. Richard Butler was heavily involved in the early days, and it is ironic that we now see him heavily involved in UNSCOM and all that goes with the problems in Iraq.One comment that my colleague the member for Dickson (Mr Tony Smith) made was that we are dealing in this legislation with an inhumane weapon, but his word was a `diabolical' weapon, and I think there is no other word for it. These CW and BW agents are diabolical weapons. We should not back away from that, and we should do everything to rid the world of those particular scourges.I referred back to the comments by the then Senator Evans, and I turned up the Hansard in 1994 dealing with the then 1993 prohibition bill, which was translated into the 1994 act. It is worth finishing my contribution to this debate by quoting a short extract from the end of his speech. He states:Some questions have been asked about the likely efficacy of the verification process in the bill. I simply want to say that that was obviously the crucial and difficult issue that made the negotiations so long and difficult. I genuinely believe that we now have in the convention a workable regime—not only the best that could be negotiated, but a genuinely good regime that will be workable in practice and one which will ensure that we succeed in our objective ultimately of removing altogether from this planet the possession as well as the use of this particularly horrific brand of weapon of mass destruction. It had to be a good regime because no-one had been in any doubt about the peculiarly horrifying character of this weapon and, particularly in the light of the awful experience in the Iran-Iraq war in recent times, building on our earlier historical experience, the awful evidence of just how terrible a weapon it is.How ironic those comments are in the light of what has happened in recent months in terms of Iraq and the extent to which Saddam Hussein has poked his tongue at the rest of the world in terms of the potential threat of that country.I only hope, as indeed everybody in this country and everybody around the world should hope, that Secretary-General Annan's approach is accepted, not just as a matter of rhetoric but as a matter of fact that the UNSCOM inspections will be allowed to go ahead unimpeded. My understanding is that the initial inspections have proceeded reasonably well, but at the same time we should maintain the diplomatic pressure on Saddam—not the people of Iraq, but on Saddam himself—and we should continue to do this until such time as we are able to rid the world of both CW and BW agents. I would like to finish my contribution at that point, and I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted; debate adjourned.Main Committee adjourned at 1.01 p.m.Answers to Questions in Writing1090The following answers to questions were circulated:1090(Question No. 2149)21491090Lee, Michael, MPMr LeeMG4DobellALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Development, upon notice, on 26 August 1997:(1) Further to the answer to question No. 1971, (Hansard , 25 August 1997, page 6794), did the Government reduce federal assistance for flood mitigation after the 1996 election.(2) Was federal funding restored to some councils, including Gosford Council, for 1996-97;(3) What criteria were used to determine which councils would receive flood mitigation funding in 1996-97;(4) Did Wyong Council's request for restoration of flood mitigation funding fail to meet the criteria; if so, in what respects.1090Vaile, Mark, MPMr VaileSU5LyneNPTransport and Regional Development10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Funding for all new projects under former regional and urban programs, including the prospective Urban Flood Mitigation Program, was withdrawn in the 1996-97 Budget as part of the Government's deficit reduction strategy.(2) Following the announcement of the withdrawal of funding for the former programs, and consideration of numerous representations received by the Government, it was decided that the bulk of a separate and new allocation of $10m for regional projects made in the 1996-97 Budget would be spent on sensitive projects that would not otherwise have been able to be funded. These included a number of urban flood mitigation projects.The priority urban flood mitigation projects that received funding in 1996-97 are:. South Grafton. Fairy Creek, Wollongong. Darling Mills Creek, Parramatta. Gosford. Smith's Creek, Campbelltown. Prospect Creek, Fairfield.(3) and (4) Following the abolition of urban and regional programs in the 1996-97 Budget, consultations took place between the Commonwealth and NSW Governments in August-September 1996 to identify priority projects that could be funded. In the course of those consultations, the NSW Government provided a list of flood mitigation projects (listed below) that it was considering for funding and for which Commonwealth funding would be welcome.In considering the list of projects provided by the NSW Government and determining those projects that could receive Commonwealth assistance, key considerations were:. whether the projects were new, would continue for some years, or were close to completion, and. scope for the projects to receive funding from other sources.Within the limited funding available, the Wyong River project was considered to be a lower priority than those projects that received funding, as it was a new project rather than a continuing project.ProjectOn-goingNewNLP1996/97 $7.0m Alloc.1996/97 $10.0m Alloc.Deniliquin levee*@4040Maitland rehabilitation works*@200200Metropolitan voluntary purchase*600600South Grafton levee*400400Non-metropolitan voluntary purchase*@640700 Prospect Creek mitigation works*750750Fairy Creek mitigation works*100140Berkely Vale mitigation works*99Gosford flood mitigation*400400Campbelltown flood mitigation*400450Lithgow mitigation works*@4141Bourke levee*@600600Hunter River levee bank*@4040Port Macquarie mitigation works*150250Various FPM studies*@4501000Fairfield mitigation works*180180South Creek mitigation works*200200Darling Mills creek mitigation works*12501250Tamworth mitigation works*@400400Lismore mitigation works*150150Warren Levee#@800Inverell FM#@300Mardi Ck FM#100South Albury FM#@600Tuggerah Lakes FM#100Bathurst Flood mitigation#@50Ironbark Creek House Raising#@170Woronora FM#250Moruya Access#@180Wyong River FM#50Hat Head Levee#@200Total NSW Flooding7,000,00010,600,001092(Question No. 2539)25391092McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Minister for Finance and Administration, upon notice, on 20 November 1997:(1) Has the Minister's department engaged consultants since 2 March 1996; if so, (a) which consultants have been engaged, (b) what was the nature of the work undertaken in each case and (c) what sum was paid in each case.(2) What is the estimated cost of consultancy work being undertaken for the Minister' s Department for which no payment has been made.1092Fahey, John, MPMr FaheyHQ5MacarthurLPFinance and Administration10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Information on consultants engaged during the financial years 1995-96 and 1996-97 was forwarded to you separately in late December 1997. The information contained in the attached table, therefore, only covers the period from 1 July 1997 to 20 November 1997.(2) The estimated cost of consultancy work being undertaken for the department for which no payment had been made as at 20 November 1997 was $3,828,610DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATIONHOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES QUESTION 2539CONSULTANTS PAID—1 JULY 1997 TO 20 NOVEMBER 1997The consultants listed below include those from the former Department of Finance and the former Department of Administrative Services for the period 1 July 1997 to 8 October 1997.ConsultantProject DescriptionAmount Paid 1997-98Accounting/Financial ServicesAccountancy Aid Australia P/LFinancial analyst$25,378.00Andersen ContractingProduce new finance pay systems manuals.$17,902.00Bendzulla Tasmania P/LActuarial report on Australian National members of Tasmania State Pension Fund$1,500.00Claymore Structured Finance LtdFinancial Consultant$84,000.00Coopers & LybrandReport on Tuggeranong Office Park Sinking Fund$5,455.00Coopers & LybrandPreparation of DoF's 1996-97 Financial Statements$48,255.00Coopers & Lybrand1996-97 FBT Return.$7,380.00Coopers & LybrandComplete an activity based analysis and costing project for the FIRM and PAY Management Sections.$8,375.00Harding Consulting Pty LtdFMA Consulting$1,760.00KPMG Peat Marwick Financial Services LtdPreparation of financial statements.$92,652.00Price Waterhouse UrwickScoping study on banking market.$2,600.00The Power of TenChart of Accounts revision. Rollover of FMIS balances to new financial year.$16,276.00The Power of TenSupport for departmental FMISs$58,000.00Wizard—Finance OneEnhance FMIS$2,800.00Accommodation/ Furniture David Carr Architect Builder Pty LtdAdvise, coordinate and finalise the major re-organisation of work areas$10,000.00JJ FrithDesign and procurement of workstations$17,700.00Information Technology ServicesAzimuth Consulting (ACT) LtdAssist with development of evaluation framework for IBMGSA proposal for outsourcing of DOF IT function$3,976.00Communications Design & ManagementReview & report on electorate office electronic communications$38,960.00Computer Power P/LProvide programming for IT systems applications$5,765.00Computer Power P/LDevelopment of PAY and FIRM interfaces and documentation for Data Entry for Finance Transactions (DEFT)$35,700.00Computer Power P/LTest new versions of mainframe software in technical facilities$31,490.00Computer Power P/LHelp Desk support$22,567.50Coopers & LybrandIT Specialist Services$12,500.00Dealbeck P/LProvide programming for IT systems applications$9,358.00DGR ConsultingDevelopment of joint IT plan for parliament.$24,250.00Electronic Dimensions P/LPE-68 HMTL Generator$2,160.00Electronic Dimensions P/LManagement of Purchasing Australia Internet site May to August 97$6,300.00Electronic Trading Concepts P/LCECS implementation tasks$8,171.25Green WordsIT services$2,010.00MC Computer Services (ACT) P/LApplication Services$38,250.00MC Computer Services (ACT) P/LProvide programming for IT systems applications$8,164.00Patacat P/LProvide assistance in the communications and LAN sections of DOF and connections to Parliament House$21,082.00Patacat Pty LtdCommunication services$11,587.72Platinum TechnologyRMS Redevelopment—Removals Aust$122,214.00Praxa LimitedDesktop implementation$201,646.00Praxa LimitedTechnical support$17,435.00Praxa LtdDesktop Migration 97$13,375.00Price WaterhouseBaseline costing$14,755.60Unisys Australia LtdYear 2000 Plan$15,000.00Wizard Information ServicesUpdate Finance system reports (re Profit & Loss)—Removals Aust$793 00Wizard Information Services P/LModification to Endorsed Supplier Application (ESA) disc$10,470.00Wizard Information Services P/LTechnical support for Period Contract Awareness Service (PCAS)$49,222.25OtherAcumen AllianceRefinement and implementation of communication/change management strategy associated with the Government's move to an accrual based management framework$29,173.00A R Luband & AssociatesProvide Assistance for Developing Group Development Initiatives$3,162.00Australian Business OnlineDAS/NPB Purchasing Project$94,750.00Brian Dale & PartnersDevelopment of a Communications Strategy$6,000.00Careers UnlimitedSupport services.$4,554.00Coopers & LybrandReview of management reporting processes$16,520.00Coopers & LybrandGraduate Recruitment Program$30,000.00DASCEM Holdings LtdEnvironmental and building management sciences$129,937.00Deloitte & Touche Consulting GroupService level consultancy$40,300 00EASACTEmployee assistance program$2,400.00Ernst & YoungConsultancy for provision of audit$7,320.00Falls Corporate ResearchUndertake 1997 Staff Corporate Health Survey$2,273.40Fellows Medlock & AssocGrievance Issues$11,108.00Floorcovering Technical ServicesProvide technical advice on carpet for contract purposes$3,125.00IRSS Pty LtdImaging services$55,624.00Kodiak Consulting P/LImplementing obligations of the CECS Deed of Agreement$10,874.00KPMG Peat Marwick Financial Services LtdAdvice on administration of Parliamentarians overseas entitlements$2,635.00Krautkramer Pty LtdTender evaluation$2,000.00Lloyd's Register Quality AssuranceSurveillance Audit—August 1997$8,219.46Michael Gill & AssociatesTransigo Review report$1,700.00New FocusCustomer Satisfaction Index—Removals Aust$45,827.00PALM ManagementFacilitate planning day for Procurement Practice and Policy branches$5,625.00PALM ManagementIndependent member of Transigo Management Committee$11,193.50Price WaterhouseReport on Business Opportunities for Small and Medium Enterprises$1,000.00Quantum Ideas BureauAccural Budgeting Project$4,640.00Robert McEntyre & Associates Pty LtdFacilitation of SES planning day$2,829.09Robert McEntyre & Associates Pty LtdFacilitate business planning day$2,812.98 Robin Bishop & AssociatesReview public sector competency standards and training package short form contract$12,000.00T R ConsultingAssist with evaluation of tenders of photographic equipment for Audio visual and projection equipment CUA$2,230.00Tradegate ECAParticipation in the NetEDI Project$3,000.00Watt Business SystemsReview and recommend on application interfaces to Transigo Electronic Commerce system$640.00Watt Business SystemsDevelopment of business models and interface standards arising from the National Electronic Procurement Program (NEPP)$1,360.00White House ConsultingOrganisational review and implementation$24,982.00Policy AdviceAlan HepnerAdvise and report on a variety of public sector reform initiatives$37,445.18Deloitte & AssociatesDevelopment of Corporate Plan$5,000.00Ernst & YoungReview of Commonwealth procurement charging procedures$16,600.00Ernst & YoungDevelop new job family and performance management framework$11,400.00Heaney Blaylock & AssociatesWorkplace agreement—provide expert technical industrial relations advice and drafting expertise.$10,425.00Travelsearch (Aust) Pty LtdProvide strategic advice on Commonwealth travel$22,500.00Property ServicesAlan Pomeray & AssocReview against Disability Discrimination Act$500.00Allan Lovel Marquis-KyleHeritage assessment & report$24,600.00Bligh Voller ArchitectsInterior Design Services$3,150 00Brook & MarshSurveying$6,425.00Collie Planning & DevelopmentPlanning advice$13,076.00Desman AustMinor works (relocation/makegood) project management—amalgamation of DOF & DAS$7,195.00Fire Safety ServicesAdministration Building refurbishment—building surveyor$8,000.00Fitzwalter & AssocProperty Reports$146,863.00Godden MackayHeritage Assessment Anzac Rifle Range Malabar$124,400 00JG SeniceACT Working Party$34,100.00JG SeniceProperty due diligence$105,032.00Knight Frank SAProperty Information$14,980.00 Knight Frank WAProperty Information$15,693.00KPMG Peat Marwick Financial Services LtdCameron Offices Feasibility$8,000.00MPL Occupational EnvironmentProperty advice$700.00Peter Root & AssocHeritage consultancy to develop options for future of 4 Treasury Place Melbourne.$25,000.00Scott Wilson Evin johnstonEngineering reports$20,735.00Suters ArchitectsHeritage & technical study at Newcastle NSW$69,790.00Publication ServicesAnne WakefieldDesign services for Purchasing Australia/Transigo Bookmark$645.00Anne WakefieldDesign services for better Buying Newsletter$735.00Art GraphicProvide graphics for The DAS CTC Roadmap$1,650.00Dorothy Outram & AssociatesEditing of Government Tendering—Traps for the Unwary$840.00Dorothy Outram & AssociatesReformat and edit The DAS CTC Roadmap$4,800.00Jack Hilary & AssociatesPrepare and edit document for issue 7 of Better Buying Newsletter$975.00NanabellesFormat Commonwealth Procurement Guidelines for Compact Disc$800.00National Capital PrintingAssist with the production of 1996-97 DOF Annual Report$31,637.00Paragon PressPreparation, Publication & distribution of CFB 1996-97 Annual Report$3,988.00Picture thisDownload Better Buying Artwork$90.00Picture thisBetter Buying No. 6$1,235.00Western Pacific Consulting GroupReview of The DAS CTC Roadmap document$720.00WordsWorth WritingEdit Guide to the Government Marketplace$1,901.25Sale and Outsourcing ServicesBob MissinghamSale of AGPS$9,666.05Breakaway ConsultingASLAV project$29,166.65Carroll & O'Dea SolicitorsBusiness Sales Advice$8,818.68Chamberlains Law FIRMBusiness Sales Advice$3,180.00Chinook InvestmentsOutsourcing of DAS Support Services$8,400.00Chinook InvestmentsReview Services$17,700 00Chinook InvestmentsSale of AGPS$42,398.47Chris Adams & AssociatesSeminar Presentation$3,000 00 Cogent Business solutionsDevelopment of tender specifications for Infrastructure Services Unit (ISU) and Human Resource Branch$96,537.00Cogent Business SolutionsAdvice concerning internal audit$5,722.50Coltmans Price BrentBusiness Sales Advice$14,888 60Coopers & LybrandBusiness Sales Advice$15,000.00Coopers & LybrandAssist in the development of the ISU costing models$27,025.00Coopers & LybrandRisk analysis$39,525.00Coopers & LybrandOutsource project$20,800.00Cosgrief Logistics SeniceASLAV project$29,765.90DBM Australia LtdCareer decision management including workshops$121,904.00Deacon Graham JamesSale of AGPS$196,423.23Derek PowellASLAV project$30,273.00Dowling Corporate ConsultingBusiness Sales Advice$3,434.68Equalisers Pty LtdSale of AGPS$38,700 00EqualisersResearch, analysis, representation and preparation of correspondence and reports in connection with the Evaluation Committee$18,900 00Equalizers Pty LtdManagement Consulting Services$10,800.00FDGASLAV (Australian Special Light Armoured Vehicle) project$29,166.65IBM AustraliaSale of AGPS$77,684.22Jiden Pty LtdASLAV project$33,514.35KPMG Peat Marwick Financial Services LtdSale of NOMAD HRM Licence & Support$67,634.54Macquarie BankOffice Sales Management$470,459.00Mauden Pty LtdASLAV project$29,166.65OmnisuccessSale and outsourcing of DAS Support Services$27,646.35State Valuation OfficeValuation of Anzac Rifle Range Malabar NSW$8,000.00Systems HouseASLAV project$280,579.68Wagdy Hanna & AssocProperty due diligence$389,655.00Scribing ServicesCP Resourcing Pty LtdScribe services for recruitment$2,000.00Effective People Pty LtdScribe services for recruitment$1,966.25Fellows Medlock & AssocScribe services for recruitment$1,844.80Greg Ryan & AssociatesScribe services for recruitment$4,495.00Sothertons Corporate ServicesScribe services for recruitment$850.00Training and Seminar Services BRW Financial TrainingDesign, development auld delivery of the financial management awareness training.$18,600.00Business Control ImprovementsTraining—Change Management$3,980.00Business Control Improvements P/LPreparation and delivery of three seminars on government corporate control$3,850.00Cameron and AssociatesSeminar Presentation$3,000.00GBF Information Services P/LFacilitate course `Forming consortia to take advantage of outsoursing$1,416.00GBF Information Services P/LDevelopment of courseware for `Forming Strategic Alliances'$5,000.00Gilbert TobinFacilitate two Intellectual Property seminars$2,834.83Interactive Consultants Pty LtdPilot seminar `Selling services to government'$880.00Interactive Consultants Pty LtdFacilitate seminar `Selling services to government'$2,115.00John Little and AssociatesPersonal development training—Action Learning Program$11,220.00Management SolutionsReview course material for Supplier Development Program$750.00SDS Consultants Pty LtdFacilitate government seminars—Supplier Development program$1,144.08SDS Consultants Pty LtdDevelop training material for Supplier Development program$3,165.00Tapper Communications P/LRun strategic value mgt workshops Re: future use of AGAL Sydney & Melb Lab/Office$11,766.00