1999-08-113914REPS835501999-08-11Mr SPEAKER(Mr Neil Andrew) took the chair at 9.30 a.m., and read prayers.Bills8355r8968355Bill presented by Mr Slipper, and read a first time.835509:31:008355Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLP10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.Mr Speaker, this bill amends the investment rules for superannuation funds, in line with the announcement in the 1998-99 budget.The investment rules are designed to limit the risks to superannuation savings and to ensure that superannuation is preserved for retirement income.The existing investment rules restrict investments in employers and associates, prohibit superannuation funds from borrowing, prevent lending to members, prevent the acquisition of assets from members and require that transactions be undertaken on an arms-length basis.It has become clear that the legislation needs to be strengthened in order to preserve the integrity of the investment rules.Some superannuation funds have been investing in related trusts. This effectively allows superannuation savings to be transferred into entities that are controlled by the employer or a member, and which are not subject to the investment rules or other superannuation regulation.The investment rules prohibit superannuation funds from borrowing. This limits the risk to superannuation savings from geared investments. This objective of limiting risk is not achieved if superannuation savings are simply transferred into a related trust that borrows. The existing legislation does not prevent superannuation funds from leasing assets to related parties, nor does it prevent superannuation money being used in related trusts that lease assets to employers and members. In effect, this allows superannuation savings to be committed to the employer's business or used by the members for current day support.In the absence of legislative change, such arrangements could be expected to increase over time.The provisions in the bill address these arrangements by applying the in-house asset limit (which limits in-house assets to five per cent of total fund assets by 2000-01).The in-house limit will now cover investments in and loans to employers, members and their associates. The in-house limit will also cover investments in trusts that are controlled by an employer-sponsor or a member of the fund. Assets leased by a superannuation fund to a related party will also be treated as in-house assets.The anti-avoidance provisions for the in-house asset rules will be strengthened.The rule that prevents a superannuation fund from acquiring assets from a member or relative will be extended to cover the acquisition of assets from an employer or other related parties.The measures will help ensure that superannuation savings are preserved for retirement income. There are benefits to the community as a whole in maintaining the integrity of the superannuation system and ensuring that the billions of dollars of superannuation tax concessions provided each year are used for the intended purpose, thereby reducing the burden on future age pension outlays.Superannuation funds with fewer than five members will be able to use up to 100 per cent of their assets to invest in real property leased to employers or members for business purposes. This provision recognises that land and buildings generally have an underlying value independent of the employer's business.The legislation also contains a number of transitional arrangements to assist superannuation funds in adapting to the new arrangements. Investments and loans undertaken before 12 May 1998 and assets leased before that time are grandfathered. Transitional rules allow additional payments on partly paid shares and units and for reinvestment of earnings until 30 June 2009.Investments, loans and leases undertaken between the budget announcement and the time the bill receives Royal Assent will not be treated as in-house assets until 1 July 2001 if they would not have been in-house assets under the existing legislation.The government has taken account of concerns raised during consultation about the need for transitional arrangements for related entities with geared investments.In response to these concerns, superannuation funds with fewer than five members will be able to make additional investments and loans into a related company or unit trust until 30 June 2009 up to the amount of the entity's outstanding debt at 12 May 1998.The measures are not expected to impact on budget revenues or outlays in the forward estimates years. However, longer term benefits can be expected, including savings on future age pension outlays.In conclusion, the goal of the government in introducing this bill is to reduce the risk to superannuation savings and to ensure that superannuation is used for the intended purpose of retirement income.I present the explanatory memorandum to the bill and I commend the bill to the House.Debate (on motion by Mr Horne) adjourned.Bills8356r7848356Debate resumed from 30 March, on motion by Mr Bruce Scott:That the bill be now read a second time.09:37:008356Gash, Joanna, MPMrs GASHAK6GilmoreLP10—I rise to speak on the Defence Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1999 . As outlined in the bill's accompanying documentation, there are three areas in which this draft legislation proposes amendments. The first area includes amendments to the Defence Act 1903 to implement processes for the random sampling and urinalysis of members of the Defence Force who undertake combat and combat related duties, and to introduce the associated disciplinary measures and procedures.The second area covers amendments to the Defence Act 1903 and the Naval Defence Act 1910 to allow senior staff on limited tenure promotion to transfer to their respective reserve units, and to allow the Chief of Army and Chief of Navy to delegate their authority to retire officers or to terminate their appointment. The third area promotes legislative efficiency and consistency by repealing the Supply and Development Act 1939, making consequential amendments to other Commonwealth legislation, and amending the Defence Force (Home Loans Assistance) Act 1990 and the Defence Legislation Amendment Act (No. 1) 1997 to remove inconsistencies.As the member for Gilmore, I represent a large number of people who actively serve in the defence forces, who undertake joint contracts with the Department of Defence, and who provide services to the department, its officers, staff, their contractors and all of their families. Consequently, anything to do with defence is big news in Gilmore.This bill is a handbag—a grab-all, if you like—of provisions to promote efficiency, consistency, flexibility and transparent administrative procedures. One of the major points of interest contained in this legislation is the introduction of urinalysis for operational Defence Force members and associated personnel.Approximately 60 per cent of our leaner, meaner, fitter and cleaner Defence Force has to be able to be deployed in an operational sense these days, so almost everyone will find themselves rotated through operational and/or associated positions at some point. This means that virtually all serving members of the Defence Force may become subject to urinalysis at some stage in their careers.This might seem overzealous, but I look at it this way: holders of public licences, people who transport the public for money—taxi drivers, bus drivers and the like—are required to meet and maintain higher standards. Various authorities require them to have a particu lar standard of dress, a polite manner, a helpful attitude, a level of professional skill and sober habits, to use an old-fashioned term. The last item, sober habits, is enforceable under the random breath test regime to a higher standard than that demanded of ordinary citizens on the same roads. This higher standard is required of drivers who regularly hold the lives of a few members of the public in their hands.Our Defence Force holds the security of all Australians in its departmental hands. Of course a higher standard is required of the people with that kind of responsibility. And those standards are not changing. There have always been rules governing substance use and abuse. What is changing is the method of measuring and enforcing compliance. Every member of the defence forces is made aware of these requirements before, during and long after induction. At each stage, personnel are reminded that if they would like a different kind of life they can leave the Defence Force.The ability to undertake random sampling and urinalysis across a broad range of positions and ranks reflects the nature of defence work. The movies that Sylvester Stallone and Jean-Claude Van Damme make, depicting military forces as being made up of rugged individuals working alone, are flights of testosterone fancy. Unlike those movies, defence and security matters are about teamwork, and every team is as strong as its weakest link—synergy aside. What an operational unit does not need is one link who is off his or her face when the call comes. Remember, these people agree to be employed 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and receive payment for that inconvenience. The call might come at any time, and it is important that everyone is able to gear up in a short time frame. About 60 per cent of all defence personnel are to be operation-ready, trained, fit and able to be deployed at any time. In Nowra we have already learned of the tragedy that can follow inattention to detail.The federal government is determined, as is the Australian Defence Force, to ensure that there is no unnecessary risk to Defence Force personnel through substance abuse. The Aus tralian taxpayers, too, want to know that they are getting value for money.Many of you may have read Joseph Heller's book Catch-22 where ridiculous situations existed because of lack of consistency between policy and what actually happened on the ground—or in the sky, for that matter. Many laughed while reading that book, because at times, like Yes, Minister, it came disturbingly close to the truth. We want better for our Defence Force. Australia's mums and dads want to be assured that when their children join the Defence Force they will be entering a career of distinction.Millions of dollars are spent on acquiring the latest technology, equipment and sophisticated weaponry. Yes, our military personnel are our greatest asset, and the federal coalition is determined to maintain that asset in top condition. This means looking after their physical, mental, social and psychological wellbeing. A force with high morale is a force indeed. And good morale is engendered by providing career paths, appropriate challenges at every level, and consistency between policy and actions.The provisions of the Defence Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1999 build on the excellent progress already made with the Australian Defence Force. Necessarily, provisions for the disciplinary procedures and measures are included in this bill. Having detected the presence of a proscribed or banned substance in a sample given by a member of the service, the ADF must then do something about it. These procedures reflect the ADF's first consideration of safety, in that the member is immediately scheduled to visit a medical officer, who will assess their fitness to continue in the service. On examination, several factors may be taken into consideration on the member's behalf and administrative disciplinary procedures determined or rejected. Statements will be invited from the member and will be considered in the light of the medical information provided.The Australian Defence Force is not interested in retaining drug dealers, substance abusers and the like. However, humans who are working through minor difficulties that they have identified openly can be monitored and dealt with in an appropriate fashion.As I said earlier, our military personnel are our greatest asset in Australia's defence, and the federal government wants to protect that investment. I understand that this bill has bipartisan support in that a similar regime was to be introduced by the other side in late 1993 and early 1994. After much consideration, negotiation, drafting of legislation and checking with all the relevant people, from the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission through to the Privacy Commissioner, Attorney-General, health authorities and parties of all flavours, the bill is here.The other provisions of the bill are also important and relate again to the efficiency of a force where legislation and policy are consistent with action. The second part of this bill relates to the ability of senior Defence Force staff on limited tenure promotions to transfer to the appropriate reserves. This eliminates the need to first retire or resign from the service and then to apply separately to join the respective reserve, which is a cumbersome administrative procedure, to say the least.This provision will also allow the federal government to more efficiently access senior expertise in the event that a situation arises that requires such expertise to be brought on line again quickly. We must admit that there have been difficulties in the past in maintaining a suitable level of military experience and expertise in the senior ranks of the reserve units. These provisions will assist in addressing these difficulties. The other positive result from this provision is the ability of the Defence Force to make way for a prompt succession to senior positions, providing certainty of career path over availability. There was a time in the Defence Force when officers privately felt that they had to wait on someone's death to obtain a promotional opportunity. This kind of belief affects morale and has no place in the Australian Defence Force.Although Australian Defence Force policy to date has been that members of a service are appointed to the inactive reserves list on retirement, this bill allows senior officers to be transferred to the active reserves list. There are numerous minor changes to reflect these changes in the Defence Act 1903 and the Naval Defence Act 1910, and they are included in the bill. The ability of the chief of each service in the ADF to delegate to senior officers powers of retirement and termination of appointment is purely an administrative matter that again promotes efficiency. The final schedules to the Defence Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) cover the amendments required to provide consistency between related acts and to reflect the changes proposed by this bill.At the beginning of this speech I spoke about the importance to Gilmore of anything that relates to defence and defence personnel. Let me just explain the reasons for that importance, and they are in no particular order. First there is HMAS Creswell, a training facility for naval personnel, employing or housing in some fashion approximately 200 people. This translates to about $8 million in salaries being spent mainly in the Gilmore region. HMAS Albatross, with some 1,300 people walking through the gate every day, translates into approximately $56 million a year in salaries also being spent in our region. The upgrade of facilities at HMAS Albatross will total approximately $150 million with the first stage—$70 million—almost complete.We have spent $28 million on new defence housing, with more to come. Kaman Aerospace International have projects worth $600 million, producing the Super Seasprite helicopter. Aviation Technology Park is a spin-off of the contract possibilities flowing from these projects, with tenants moving in now. There is also the transfer of the NALMS unit to Gilmore.Therefore, anything the Australian Defence Force does has an impact of some kind on Gilmore. Our military personnel also provide excellent role models for our young people. As they move from the Defence bases out into the community to work, train, socialise and establish families, they form part of the fabric of the Gilmore society. Particularly in their uniforms, they are readily discernible in the street and we lay people cannot help but notice them. Naturally, people are always quick to judge what costs them money, especially in the form of taxes, and our Defence Force people know this and behave accordingly. As usual, it is only a minority who ruin the good name of others and, as chair of the coalition defence and veterans' affairs committee, I for one am happy to back any effort to either change their behaviour or weed them out.The Defence Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) is the culmination of about 10 years work by people from both sides of this House and deserves therefore to be enacted. I commend the bill to the House.09:49:008359Price, Roger, MPMr PRICEQI4ChifleyALP00—We are debating today an omnibus defence legislation bill, the Defence Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1999 . These things usually do not attract a great deal of attention in the parliament, but it is fair to say that defence matters enjoy bipartisan support. I think that was the case when we were in government and it is usually the case today. But I think at no time has that bipartisanship been more stretched than it is today.We might very well ask: should the House pass the bill—as it will—who is going to implement it? Who will be the Secretary to the Department of Defence to implement it? Currently there is a court case. I do not want to transgress in that regard other than to say that our shadow minister, Mr Martin, has indicated—as has the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate—that basically ministers should work with permanent heads that they can work with. No execution has been more appallingly botched than that. Clearly, it is unlikely to be the current permanent head. The putative permanent head may or may not accept the position, and the new position of junior secretary in Acquisitions and Logistics has already declined the position. I think I can safely say that the serving men and women—whether they are of other ranks or officers—must be completely appalled about the current situation, and it reflects a far deeper malaise of morale.Governments and the nation have always expected a lot of our defence forces, and they give generously whenever they are called upon to act for the nation. Whether it is in wartime or whether it is in peacekeeping, we have a lot to be proud of. But this government has placed extra impositions on the Defence Force. That is quite legitimate to do, but the real question in my mind is whether or not, with these extra requests, the government is asking the impossible of our defence forces.I will just highlight one aspect of the bill in relation to the reserves. This bill makes it easier for senior officers who have fulfilled their contractual obligations in the full-time Army to go to the reserves. At no time have we more required the concept of the two-Army policy to be working and in place. We have already asked for an extra degree of readiness by an extra brigade, anticipating what may or may not be required in our region or indeed in our world. I do not quibble with that. The opposition does not quibble with that. But it means that we have a greater reliance on the reserves.The Chief of Army in his address to the National Press Club spoke highly of the reserves, but singled out only one element of the reserves to prove his case, and that was the doctors we have sent. I have seen them operating in Rwanda and Bougainville and I think they have done a marvellous job. But here's the rub. This is the one group in the reserves where we pay enormous practice payments. In other words—and it is not unreasonable as far as the doctors are concerned—if they are in private practice, their practices should not suffer because of their service, admittedly on short tours to Rwanda or to Bougainville, which have been the two recent cases.We are paying a huge amount of money to get these doctors. Again, I do not argue with that. But for ordinary reservists who may be self-employed or who may be working for a small or medium business, where are the practice payments? The days when private enterprise could afford to have people away on military duty and not suffer as a consequence have gone. Only big business and Public Service departments—I do not want to get into the fact that you have changed the award system so that that is not recognised for service—can afford to have reservists within their ranks. I am not saying that the other groups do not want to serve or that they are somehow unpatriotic. I am saying that the circumstances of today's business are such that they cannot afford to do it.I am someone who has always admired the reserves. I sincerely support this provision in the bill. It does not address the current situation which is crippling the reserves and which I think will be subject to a report to the Prime Minister to be released on a date unknown. It does not answer a whole other series of questions about service in the Defence Force. Increasingly, the service is going to have to more carefully follow community standards. That is, we are going to see far greater mobility, particularly with specialists within the defence forces, where they have periods of full-time service, where they have periods of reserve service and where they may very well opt out and be skilled in the interests of the ADF outside the services altogether. These things are not disputed within the ADF but they are not being reflected in this bill. There is no leadership being shown in this bill.Another issue about the reserves is that this government is looking to make greater deployments than we hitherto had contemplated. Again, it is not something I necessarily disagree with. But you cannot deploy reservists; they must volunteer. Can anyone imagine what it must be like if you want to deploy a reserve platoon or a reserve company and you all take a vote to work out whether some will go and some will not go? The reality has been that with reservists usually only specialists, as mentioned, have been deployed in peacekeeping overseas. If the reserves are to fulfil the need and the potential we see for them today, then clearly we need to be able to call them out. That has been one of the recommendations that neither government has picked up from the joint committee. But if it was important then, I say to the House that it is even more important now.So there are a lot of questions we need to ask about where the reserves are going to fit in. For too long we have talked about one army, meaning both the reserves and the regulars working together. We have seen, I am happy to acknowledge, a great deal of further investment put into the reserves. But it is also true that to get them up to a state of readiness would take about 12 months. For example, if there was a situation in our region where we wanted to bring the reserves up to that state of readiness to make way for regular troops, or indeed deploy them, notwithstanding the difficulties, then that 12 months is too great a time. So you have that sort of situation occurring. There are a whole range of leave and entitlement provisions which are impacting on reserves, not the least of which is the latest FBT.The other aspect of the bill that I wanted to talk about today was the issue of testing for drugs or urinalysis amongst ADF personnel. As much as I think there is a need to move some of the conditions of service closer to community standards, there will be some significant differences between our community and the people who serve the nation in the defence forces. Here clearly is one.I fully support the proposition that we should have routine testing. Indeed, if anything highlights the difference between the defence forces and the community, this proposition does. Could you imagine, Mr Speaker, in terms of your responsibility to this House, bringing forward a proposal that all people who work for your department and the House should be routinely tested for drugs? There would be absolute outrage, I suspect. I do not want to make presumptions about your decision making or how you view the matter, but I venture the opinion that there would be outrage. Yet both sides of parliament were able to get up this morning and fully support this as being in the national interest. The defence forces are essentially in the business of killing, and we need to minimise any risk of accidental death while they handle sophisticated equipment or, indeed, do the very basic grunt work that may be associated with drugs. As the member for Gilmore acknowledged, we on this side had started to introduce this measure. Indeed, it was the objections of HREOC and the Ombudsman that led to it being brought forward by way of legislation.Mr Deputy Speaker, I have talked about morale within the defence forces and, this being an omnibus bill, there are a number of other issues that I want to draw to your attention. Who would want to dispute the proposition that we have a defence efficiency program said to lead to a billion dollars worth of savings which would all be placed into the sharp end of the business? But there does not seem to be any evidence that that is actually happening. It is one thing to be making savings; it is another to be able to see them being put into the sharp end. It would be very helpful if the minister or the parliamentary secretary, in winding up this piece of legislation, indicated to us how the review is going, what stage it has reached and how much money has been saved. Perhaps we could even be given a tangible list of the results. There is a healthy suspicion within the defence forces that the savings are illusory and that the sharp end of the business is not in fact receiving the real dividends anticipated in this whole process.One might also ask where the money is coming from to put this 2nd Brigade into a heightened state of readiness. We used to be criticised for a lack of a 5th Battalion and, allegedly, for hollowness within our Army. You might argue, Mr Deputy Speaker, that there was some truth to that allegation. I might say that hollowness is not an issue if you are not really facing a threat or do not foresee a deployment. But we cannot argue that case: you won't win any prizes for guessing that this extra brigade was put into a heightened state of readiness and the transport catamaran was leased on the basis that they may be required in East Timor.What price has the Army paid for this increased state of readiness? Is everything else exactly the same? Has nothing changed? Or are there units in Western Australia, South Australia, Victoria or New South Wales that have suffered in their capability in order to get this up? Is that a reasonable supposition? I do not know the answer to that—basically because you do not get any answers out of the current Minister for Defence. Not providing answers to an opposition may be a relatively unimportant matter in the government's eyes, but the nation is deserving of answers to these questions. The nation, which places great faith in our defence forces, would be horrified to learn that answers are not being given. There may be a very satisfactory explanation. Perhaps my good friend the member for Hinkler will get up and enlighten me on the current situation—and I would be most grateful if he did—although I make the point that this is the minister's responsibility. Indeed, no greater contempt could have been shown for the parliamentary process and, indirectly, the people of Australia than in the responses we received from the Minister for Defence yesterday and his failure to even provide his junior minister to defend the charges within the matter of public importance proposed by the opposition. For serving men and women—in Queensland, Darwin or wherever they are located—yesterday must have been one of those appalling days when they just shook their heads and wondered whether it was all worth while.In conclusion, I support this omnibus bill. I reiterate—more in sorrow than in anger—that we have enjoyed a traditional bipartisan approach to defence matters in this House and in this parliament, but I think that is really being tested. I sincerely hope that, in the interests of serving men and women, we can resolve the current difficulties before the court. One wonders whether, if it is appropriate for the secretary to go, it might not also be appropriate for the minister to go, but clearly something needs to be done to try to restore some leadership at the ministerial level within Defence.10:07:008361Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLEKV5HinklerNP10—In supporting the Defence Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1999 , I commence by welcoming the contribution last night by the shadow minister when he said that the opposition would support any moves to enhance the reserve. He went on to support the government's initiative in retaining the skills of senior officers who wish to move from the regular forces to the reserve units. That is the bipartisanship that the honourable member spoke about just a few minutes ago. At the same time, honourable members ranged fairly widely and there were a few barbs in there for the government.Defence is always a difficult portfolio. Decisions sometimes have to be taken on the run and, if they do not come off, there is a tendency to bash the government. But, in the same spirit of bipartisanship, the shadow minister should look back over his own government's record before he criticises the government. In the budgets between 1989-90 and 1994-95, defence spending dropped from nine per cent to eight per cent of budget outlays. A one per cent drop might not sound much, but when you are looking at what has to be encompassed within the defence budget it was quite a substantial drop. Honourable members will be aware that when we came to power, in the initial and horrific period when we had to get the books of the country back in order, all departments and all government instrumentalities like the ABC had to take a cut but, interestingly, not Defence.The other thing that my colleague opposite might like to remember is that the Jindalee Operational Radar Network—JORN, as it was known—was contracted to Telstra quite unsuccessfully and at a cost of multimillion dollars to the defence budget. In addition, he touched on the leasing of the catamaran which may be needed if Australian troops have to be deployed offshore from Darwin. I hope that was not a criticism; I did not quite get his drift. If it were a criticism, I make the point that we talk about ships of shame in the maritime industry but we also have some ships of shame in the naval sense because the previous government purchased two amphibious transport craft from the United States in 1993 which are still not ready for service. Their estimate of converting them was $61 million. At this point the cost is now up to $228 million and the ships are still tied up in the port of Newcastle.Also, while I concede that the Collins class submarine project has problems at many levels, one might seriously ask the question whether the last government had structured the program for the Collins class submarines as appropriately as it might have. No doubt you can pick a few points with the current government where you might like things to be done better or you might like some more money, but the opposition does not come to this debate with clean hands.The Defence Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1999 proposes to amend the Defence Act of 1903, ostensibly to implement a process of urine testing for members of the defence forces who undertake combat and combat related duties and to make associated disciplinary measures available to those found to use, supply or administer illegal drugs or who have been found to be under the influence of drugs while on duty. As the previous speaker said, that is a matter of some concern to all Australians. It is one area where the civil rights that we demand in the wider community may have to be put to one side in the interests of the safety not only of the troops involved but also of their colleagues in the event of some emergency.Other aspects of the bill include clauses to amend the Defence Act of 1903 and the Naval Defence Act of 1910 to provide a mechanism for the Chief of the Defence Force, the Chief of Army and the Chief of Navy and other officers on limited tenure promotion to transfer from the Army to the Australian Army Reserve and from the Navy to the Australian Navy Reserve—again, I thank the shadow minister for his support of that measure—and to allow the Chief of Army and the Chief of Navy to delegate their power to retire officers and to terminate the appointment of officers.The bill also proposes to repeal the Supply and Development Act 1939, to make consequential amendments to other Commonwealth legislation and minor amendments to the Defence Force (Home Loans Assistance) Act 1990 and the Defence Legislation Act (No. 1) 1997. The other key feature of the bill is to amend subsection 96(1) of the Defence Force Discipline Act 1982 to extend the period of time in which a person can be charged with an offence against the act or regulations from three to five years after the offence is alleged to have been committed. This is a far-reaching alteration to the act and will be most welcome. The amendment implements the main recommendations of the report by the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee on the inquiry into the RAAF Nomad aircraft A18-401 on 12 March 1990 at the RAAF Edinburgh field in South Australia which resulted in the death of the pilot, Flight Lieutenant Glen Donovan.It was later found that the crash was caused by the failure of the tailplane assembly, a condition which should have been detected and, had procedures been followed and the plane serviced properly, in all likelihood the event would not have occurred. The problem with the Nomad itself was well documented. I know this myself because Nomads were used at one time in taking people to the Barrier Reef. I remember talking to Bevan Whittaker, of Whittaker Air Charter, who was also the founder of Sunstate Airlines and a person with a great deal of knowledge in the aviation industry, and he always used to impress on me the problems with the Nomads. So it was well known in the industry and it should have been well known in the RAAF that there was a weakness there.But this case went beyond that to deeper issues of culpability. In its report the committee found that members of the RAAF had been negligent and charges should have been laid under the Defence Force Discipline Act. At the time that the committee made its recommendation, the three-year statute of limitations period had passed. Accordingly, the committee recommended the statute of limitations period be extended to five years. The committee's findings in that tragic case confirmed the disgraceful string of bad decisions, poor maintenance, lazy paperwork and the lack of follow-up that contributed to the crash and, most unfortunately, to the loss of the life of a very focused young man. It found five defence personnel should have been charged under military law for dereliction of duty but were not and, because of the statute of limitations, never will be.In its response to the report tabled on 23 September 1997, the government agreed to the committee's recommendations. Speaking in support of the recommendations, Senator David MacGibbon said:On a number of occasions—in fact, on too many occasions—where accidents have occurred in the Department of Defence, the period of inquiry has extended beyond three years, so the Defence Force Discipline Act has prevented any disciplinary action being taken against anyone who is found culpable in any way at all.This situation is clearly not good enough. The amendment may not give much consolation to the family of Flight Lieutenant Donovan, but at least it shows that the government has learnt from the mistakes of the past. It is a step in the right direction. Although some would like the statute of limitations extended further, and I think there may well be a case for that, I support what has been done thus far and hope that it will be kept under review.It is important to note that in the case of Flight Lieutenant Donovan there was no suggestion of any organised cover-up by the RAAF or that it deliberately dragged its feet in apportioning blame. However, the fact remains that it took seven years for blame to be apportioned after the fifth inquiry into the matter. The Senate inquiry had followed an RAAF accident inquiry team, a board of inquiry, the Air Commander Australia call for a separate engineering inquiry, and then an inquiry by the Ombudsman. Military discipline must not only be delivered swiftly and impartially but be seen by the wider community to be delivered swiftly and impartially. There is also another aspect to this. It is that, if servicemen are not punished for negligence in the case of accidents like the Nomad incident, the very discipline upon which the armed forces relies is seriously undermined. Australians expect a lot of their defence forces. They expect governments to keep the defence forces strong, and numbers are only one measure in the maintenance of that strength.It may well be the case that the defence forces are no longer able to act as judge, jury and executioner and that we will have to go down the track, as the police force has done, of something like a CJC or an independent watchdog, if the military forces demonstrate that they cannot handle it. I personally think that that would be unfortunate. But I raise the spectre so that members of the military forces know that we expect better of them, and we expect when lives are taken through negligence or dereliction of duty that the armed forces implement their own regulations and rules appropriately and that they act with some focus and some deliberation. I think that this aspect of the bill, which increases the statute of limitations on its own, is a significant amendment to the defence legislation and I am sure it is worthy of the support of all members, as indeed the shadow minister indicated last night.I would also like to make special mention of Mr David MacGibbon, the former senator, who had a long involvement in this issue. I am sure now that he has left the Senate he would be pleased to know that some of the issues that were dear to his heart are being pursued. My good friend and former faithful colleague, the former member for Groom, Bill Taylor, spoke often of the Nomad crash on behalf of Flight Lieutenant Donovan's family, who lived in his electorate of Groom. I am sure he will be happy to see this result and yet I know that he was pushing for a wider recognition of the inherent defects of the Nomad and that he was seeking for the aircraft to be deregistered. Again, from talking to Mr Whittaker, I can well understand, if Mr Taylor had followed the sort of trail that I looked at at the time, that his fears were well founded.Moving back to the main thrust of the bill, I assume that most members would expect that the Australian Defence Force has a `no drugs' policy. In fact it has been a longstanding policy that requires the relevant service authority to initiate disciplinary or administrative action against any member of the ADF found selling, possessing, dealing in or administering an illegal drug. The administrative sanctions include termination of appointment, discharge from the service or reduction in rank. The use and possession of, and the dealing in, illegal drugs are also offences under section 59 of the Defence Force Discipline Act 1982. Depending on the nature of the offence, sentences range from fines to imprisonment.The issue of random urine testing of members of the defence forces for narcotic substances has a long history, and it was something the previous government had expressed a desire to implement. It follows that the opposition would support this measure. The initiative was supported by a former Minister for Defence, Senator Ray, and by the then Minister for Defence Science and Personnel, Senator Faulkner. I think it is appropriate that people who willingly submit themselves to army discipline should live, act and behave responsibly while they have the trust of the nation on their shoulders.In the few minutes remaining, I would like to touch on another matter that comes up in the bill, concerning the Defence Force (Home Loans Assistance) Act 1990 and the Defence Legislation Amendment Act 1997. I would like to touch briefly on a number of issues that the government has initiated to enhance the status and the quality of life of members of the defence forces, especially in the area of defence housing and community support.The coalition had announced earlier that the Defence Housing Authority is to remain in government ownership and is to be restructured on a more commercial basis following a review of government owned commercial entities. It is well known that defence families have a high priority with the Howard government, and this decision reflects the intention of the government to continue to provide for their future needs. The government has also enhanced the operations of the Defence Home Ownership Scheme by doubling the maximum subsidy loan from $80,000 to $160,000 where spouses have a joint entitlement, reducing the eligibility period for a substantial loan from six to five years. The coalition has also subsidised and approved of loans being made to active reservists after a qualifying period of eight years effective service.I think that shows that we are conscious—and a few speakers rather inferred that we were not conscious or caring—of the defence forces. Quite the contrary is the case. The defence home loans reform was a very important one for serving personnel. It reduced the interest rates on defence service home loans to a rate which was 1.5 percentage points below the average market rate. We have also put a cap on that to say that this rate will never exceed 6.85 per cent, and that will provide both savings and security for defence personnel.It is a very important issue. As I said, it is something that all members of the House should be interested in. It is something that is mercurial: as technology improves, so does the role of the defence forces. I commend the government for the bill and I thank those members of the opposition who have been kind enough to support it.10:26:008365Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDONIJ4Northern TerritoryALP00—Let me acknowledge the kind words of the previous speaker in relation to the opposition's support for the Defence Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1999 . Of course, as he pointed out in his contribution, it should come as no surprise, given that efforts to address the issue of a drugs policy were initiated by the previous Labor government, which originally introduced random drug testing for the ADF, through firstly Senator Ray and then Senator Faulkner in 1995 as the then portfolio ministers, with the Chief of the Defence Force Admiral Beaumont, who directed that a drug testing program be introduced. This process was delayed, following concerns from the Privacy Commissioner that legislation was required—and then, unfortunately, there was a change of government. I must note that it does appear that it has taken the government a long time to conclude what the Labor government had initiated.This, as previous speakers have said, is an occupational health and safety issue as much as anything else. We support the government and, in the manner in which the previous speaker thanked us, let me thank him and thank the government—although a little tardy—for picking up on this issue and finally bringing in a form of legislation.I have noted, Mr Deputy Speaker, as I am sure you have, that this in fact has been a fairly wide-ranging discussion. I want to pick up on a couple of issues which were raised by the previous speaker. In particular, I want to pick up on the fact that, towards the conclusion of his speech, he spoke about the government giving priority to Defence Force personnel and their families. I have to say that I am a bit bemused as to how the honourable member could make that assertion—because, over the last little while, we have come to appreciate that there is a great deal of concern within the defence forces not only about defence personnel issues but about other issues involved with the government's defence policies.I want to address in particular this notion that somehow or other the government have at the forefront of their minds the needs of Defence Force families. I say that, knowing as I do that there is a great deal of worry, anger and disillusionment about the proposals of the government for changes to the fringe benefits tax. You will have heard already in this chamber over the past couple of days what the impact of these changes might be.I want to now give you some detail and explain how the propositions put by the previous speaker are simply not sustainable. In fact, the government has shown, at least to date, that it does not see Defence Force families as having a special place within the Australian community and does not see the need to address their requirements as employees differently from other Australian workers, whether they are in government or non-government positions.For your edification, Mr Deputy Speaker—although I hope you do not need this advice—you would be aware that the new fringe benefits reporting regime will mean that employer provided fringe benefits are reported on an individual's group certificate. While this does not mean that the person's income tax liability will increase, it will be used when determining child support liabilities, superannuation surcharge, the Medicare levy, HECS obligations and entitlements to family payments. The new regime particularly disadvantages families in Darwin, which the government has decided is not a designated remote area and, therefore, is not exempt from FBT reporting. I note that the minister is in the House and I am pleased that he is here.The Department of Defence confirmed that a family in Darwin which might receive housing assistance of up to $40,000, as well as remote locality leave travel for family holidays, will have the amount of these benefits added to their group certificate under this proposal. This has the result of leaving many families ineligible for family allowances. The defence department has confirmed that no less than 12 benefits will be reported on defence personnel group certificates. They are: subsidised housing, that is, housing assistance; airconditioning allowance; removal of non-service spouse on breakdown of marriage; discharge removals and discharge travel; child-care reimbursement allowance; compassionate leave travel; remote locality leave travel; reunion travel; Defence Service Home Loan Scheme; Defence Home Owner Loan Scheme; home purchase and sale expense allowance; and education assistance.It is worth pointing out that the Department of Defence did in fact make some submissions and these were made by the Defence Personnel Executive. After great consideration by Treasury, the following important conditions have been exempt from FBT considerations. They are defence funded funerals and removals in the same locality. If you weigh what has been exempt against what is included under the current arrangements, you would see that people in the defence forces will be massively disadvantaged when their incomes are grossed upwards for the purposes of this fringe benefits tax proposal.Of course, this has a particular impact on people who are involved with child support arrangements and obligations because, with the aggregation of these fringe benefits, the fringe benefits will be deemed as part of their income. That will mean that the calculation of their liability for child support and maintenance will increase accordingly. This will affect thousands of ADF personnel, and this is particularly the case in the Northern Territory.I am proud that in large part the initiatives of the previous Labor government have meant that these people are now residing in northern Australia. In particular, the APIN, the Army Presence in the North, proposal, was initiated by the current Leader of the Opposition, Kim Beazley, when he was Minister for Defence in the Hawke government. This move started in the early 1990s and is all but complete. The hundreds of millions of dollars which have been spent in infrastructure to host these personnel and their families and 1 Brigade at Robertson barracks, and the attendant requirements for rangers, has meant an important and very valuable input into the Northern Territory economy. I am very pleased that these people are in the Northern Territory, but I am very concerned that, because of these propo sals implemented by the government through its tax package, many, if not all, will be severely disadvantaged by the current fringe benefits tax arrangements. Obviously, this is a cause of great concern.It is worth pointing out what the impact might be on a particular person. An NCO in Darwin came to see me about this particular issue. He has been in the Army since 1977. If the fringe benefits proposals which are legislated for come into effect, his income will be reduced in real terms to $6,341 a year to live on, which is $120 a week. This person has given 22 years of his life in service to the Australian community in the armed forces. He is a very valuable member of the armed forces. As a result of his suffering a marriage break-up and having remarried, he currently pays $13,000 in child support. It is worth pointing out that the people responsible for paying child support in the defence forces have 100 per cent reliability; they are the most reliable payers of child support in the nation. Now we find that, as a result of these fringe benefits tax proposals, this particular person—and others like him throughout the defence forces—will be severely disadvantaged.As a result of the fringe benefits tax reporting requirements, $24,000 will be added to the NCO's group certificate, which will be the combined pre-tax value of his rent subsidy and his remote locality leave travel. He will be required to pay an additional 32 per cent of that in child support, which is $7,650. This means that his outgoings will be increased by $7,650. I do not believe that should be countenanced by this government. As the minister in the chamber is well aware, defence personnel do not have a choice as to where they are employed or how they are deployed. They are not the same as employees elsewhere in the Australian work force. They are at the service of the nation. They are special people and need to be treated specially.Yesterday in this chamber, the minister, despite the inadequate responses of the senior minister during the same question time and the previous day, said this matter is being reviewed. I think he knows that, if it is not reviewed or if the review comes up with inadequate responses to these important questions, we will see the defence forces haemorrhaging as a result of people separating because they can no longer afford to stay on as members of the armed services, as members of the Defence Force. They will rightly think that the government no longer values the work which they do for this country. I hope that is not the case, but you need to be aware, Minister, that the aggravation which this is causing throughout the defence forces is having a severe impact on the morale of Defence Force personnel at all levels and, I think, in all locations. Certainly at every base that I have visited recently it has been the major point of contention and the major issue which has been raised.If this is not addressed satisfactorily, then I predict with utmost certainty that separation rates which now run at about 13 per cent and are just manageable will increase dramatically. Not only will thousands of Defence Force personnel leave the defence forces but you will find it incredibly difficult to recruit people. That is something which I do not think this nation can afford. I say to the minister and I say to the government: here is an opportunity. Take away the ideological blinkers that have been the hallmark of the taxation debate in this country recently and take the opportunity to do something reasonable, worth while and good for Australia's Defence Force personnel.I might also point out that I was attracted by an article which I read in yesterday's Sydney Morning Herald by Alan Dupont, who is the Director of the Asia-Pacific Program at the Australian National University's Strategic and Defence Studies Centre. The headline of this article is `Defence needs a major rethink of strategic priorities'. I raise this because there is an element of confusion about the way in which the defence forces are currently being directed by this government. They are being required to meet demands coming from different directions without a guarantee they have got the resources to meet those demands. It is, I think, worth while pointing out some of the issues which have been raised by Alan Dupont. I will quote from the opinion piece on page 13 of yesterday's Sydney Morning Herald. It refers to the ability of the ADF, which is struggling to cope with the myriad demands on its time and resources—to which I have alluded already—and goes to this very issue of the morale of Defence Force personnel:Not only is it supposed to be able to fight a "high-tech" war at considerable distance from Australia, it is also required to provide forces for continental defence, peace-keeping operations and the undeclared war against drug smugglers, people smuggling and illegal fishing. As well, it has an important counter-terrorist role and must be ready to evacuate Australian citizens from overseas.If the Government believes that the ADF can do all these things with its current resources, it needs to think again. Defence spending is at its lowest for decades; $11 billion a year does not come close to buying the kind of capability required to meet the ADF's tasks, particularly given the looming problem of obsolescence.I think that is a very succinct and appropriate appraisal of the malaise which currently confronts the defence forces, given the defence policy of this government.I am not ascribing blame generally to the minister in the House, but I will ascribe it deliberately and quite pointedly to the current Minister for Defence, Mr Moore, because it is very clear that his capacity to oversight the operations of Defence in this country should be severely questioned. He has shown when he has come into this chamber to respond to questions about Defence Force matters, particularly over recent days, that he is completely incapable of comprehending the importance and the gravity of the issues involved or of understanding the intricacies of the assertions which have been made or the details of strategic policy. That should not happen in the case of the person who is supposed to be the civilian leader of the Australian Defence Force in this country—the Minister for Defence.I know from our discussions with people around the country that they are confused by this government. They are concerned. We heard the previous speaker, the member for Hinkler, talking about the priority that the government gives to defence. That might be, but there is a very great difference between the rhetoric of this government and what it delivers in reality both in good public policy and public policy administration. On both counts—public policy administration and good public policy—the government have been found severely wanting. If they understood the intricacies of Defence Force policy and its importance to this country they would have gone across to Treasury, spoken to the boffins over there and said to them, `There's no way we can wear this proposal for the fringe benefits tax arrangements which you have put into force.'We heard yesterday speakers defending the minister, saying that he gets his way in cabinet. I do not know, but he must have been asleep in the cabinet when this debate was going on, because clearly he lost the plot. This has gone right past him. Unfortunately, I am sad to have to report to the House that that seems to be consistently the way he operates. He is either ignorant or does not care. I do not think that is good enough for the Australian defence forces. It is not good enough for this country. I am sure that we would get broad bipartisan support for the view that the Australian defence forces need to be maintained at a capacity which is understood by all of us, within the context of a well developed strategic policy which is understood by the government and prepared with the foresight with which it should be prepared. But it is clear that this government has failed in that regard, has not grasped the importance of current defence policy needs. Really, I say to the minister: when you talk to your ministerial colleagues, when you talk to the Prime Minister, regale him about the importance of these issues. (Time expired)10:46:008368Scott, Bruce, MPMr BRUCE SCOTTYT4MaranoaNPVeterans' Affairs; Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—in reply—In concluding the debate on the Defence Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1999 can I just thank all of those members of the parliament who made a contribution to this bill. I was in the House for the shadow minister's speech yesterday. I would have liked to have heard more, but certainly I welcome their contributions and I also welcome their comments. I also want to thank those from our side of the parliament who made a very positive contribution to defence. I think the comments from both sides of the House demonstrate the interest in defence issues—in our combat capability but also in the issue related to our personnel who, after all, are our Defence Force.The first set of amendments in this bill introduces a random drug testing program into the Defence Force. Involvement by the ADF personnel with illegal drugs is not compatible with an effective and efficient Defence Force because, quite clearly, drug involvement leads to reduced performance, it can lead to impaired health and it also presents a security risk and has the potential to put an individual and other personnel in unnecessary danger. Quite clearly, such behaviour is unacceptable in the ADF, which requires members to maintain high standards of work performance, behaviour and also physical and mental fitness.To complement the drug education program in place within Defence, this bill will establish a urinalysis drug testing scheme that will apply to members of the ADF in combat and also in combat related areas. The testing scheme will help to ensure personnel perform their duties safely and effectively. Selection for testing will be on a random basis, and the privacy of personnel will be safeguarded. These privacy safeguards are an important feature, and I want to draw members' attention to these elements within this bill.The second set of amendments enable the transfer of personnel to the reserves, both for high ranking personnel such as the Chief of the Defence Force and the Vice Chief of the Defence Force as well as for others on limited tenure promotion or management initiated early retirement. This power will transfer personnel to the reserves. It will make the process of these valuable personnel joining the reserves far easier, as they will no longer have to, firstly, retire from the regular force and then be separately appointed to the reserves. This amendment will also ensure that we can draw on the skill and experience of former personnel more readily and is consistent with the government's move to place more importance on the role the reserves will play in a modern Australian Defence Force.I noted that in the contribution of the shadow minister for defence on this bill in the House last night he mentioned the importance of reserves. I also noted that he welcomed the government's efforts to review the role of the reserve. A point that he made was that reserves needed adequate leave arrangements if they were to serve effectively, and we agree with that. Of course we agree with the comments of the shadow minister, although I would like to point out to the shadow minister that his claim that the Workplace Relations Act has restricted leave is not borne out by fact. In fact, I am advised that there are now more certified agreements providing for reserve leave than there were in awards.Quite clearly, we can see from that that the cooperative framework adopted under the Workplace Relations Act is working. So I would hope that the shadow minister in future will deal with the facts rather than just relying on some of his union mates to give him information that is not adequately and accurately reflecting what is happening in relation to reserve leave and the interaction with the Workplace Relations Act.It is through cooperation between employers and their reservist employees rather than through coercion that we will ensure reserves have access to the leave that they require to train and to serve. This issue will be considered and discussed in more depth in a public discussion paper that I have commissioned on reserves. The paper is to clearly describe the roles our reserve forces can play and what can be done to give them the ability to fill those roles.This discussion paper is much overdue. It should have occurred in the early 1990s, well before the previous government began its program of reducing permanent numbers and therefore necessarily relying more on reserves. This government has not waited and let events overtake it on this matter. As we move towards a defence force of 50,000 permanent numbers, we will have a clear and public plan for integration of reserves into our defence capability, based on the discussion paper that I will release shortly for public debate.The third set of amendments brings the Army and Navy into line with the Air Force, giving the chiefs of these services the ability to delegate their powers to retire officers and terminate appointments to an officer not below the rank of commodore or brigadier. This is a sensible devolution to an appropriate level within Defence. The fourth set of amendments extends the period under which actions under the Defence Force Discipline Act can be taken from three years to five years and removes the obsolete provisions from that act. This ensures that actions under the Defence Force Discipline Act can be taken where they would serve a disciplinary purpose up to five years after the event involved. It also brings Defence into line with civil jurisdictions.The final set of amendments are technical in nature and they include amendments to the Defence Force (Home Loans Assistance) Act 1990. I note that the shadow minister—and, I must say, members on both sides of the House have mentioned this set of amendments—was of the view that the change to fringe benefits tax reporting arrangements for ADF personnel should be examined. I also note the shadow minister claimed that the previous government had always exempted Defence from fringe benefits tax, and would have exempted ADF personnel from the new reporting requirements. This is just plain misleading. When the Labor Party—today's opposition—introduced the fringe benefits tax regime in 1986 they specifically refused to exempt Defence. So the shadow minister's comments are not only misleading but rather cute. Also, the 1988 tax policy that they took to the October election last year had in it the same widening of the fringe benefits tax reporting for individuals as the government's legislation. In fact, the opposition supported our legislation. They made no mention of exemptions for ADF personnel. Quite clearly, their comments now are nothing more than hypocrisy, given the position of the Labor Party in the past and the position that they took to the last federal election. I guess on this side of the House we are used to some hypocrisy from the other side.I know the shadow minister will be happy to hear again what I said in the House yesterday, and I repeat it now for all members of the House, and I hope this will allay his concerns because it does demonstrate that the government is taking a principled approach to fringe benefits tax. We are reviewing the fringe benefits tax reporting legislation to take into account the unique circumstances in which our Australian Defence Force personnel serve. For government benefits and payments such as child support there should be no inequitable treatment of defence families due to their geographic location.The review will include considering how reporting requirements apply to housing assistance provided to defence personnel, taking into account the fact that as military personnel they must serve wherever the government demands and are subject to frequent, compulsory moves to meet Defence's operational needs—indeed, to meet Australia's strategic defence needs—as well as increasing the combat capability of the ADF. There is a substantial variation in the rents across the country. This really is an excellent result for defence families, because it means that they can be assured that their concerns about the new reporting legislation have been understood by the government and taken into account by the principles I announced yesterday and repeat in the House today.In closing, I draw the attention of members to the philosophy underlying this bill and the defence platform of this government. Our approach is to focus the Defence Force on its real job, and that is providing combat capability to protect Australia and our interests. That is why we are implementing the drug testing policy to ensure that those who undertake combat and combat related duties can do so safely and effectively. It is also why we are moving to have 65 per cent of our permanent Defence Force in combat and combat related roles, up from the 43 per cent under the previous government.Improving combat capability is at the heart of the Defence Reform Program which has already allowed us to bring an extra brigade—1 Brigade based in Darwin, which is on top of 3 Brigade based in Townsville—to 28-day readiness. It has also allowed us to lease the Incat catamaran, HMAS Jervis Bay. Our defence program and this bill will also increase the flexibility of careers and employment in Defence. We are introducing flexible career management and we have already introduced part-time leave without pay, and we are moving to a new pay structure.All of this makes the Defence Force an organisation that is moving forward to become modern in its employment practices. It means that Defence is becoming an organisation that is structured for war but is also adapted for peace. This is the best way of providing for the security of our nation and, importantly, the security of our nation in a rapidly changing world. I thank those members who have made contributions to this bill, and I commend the bill to the House.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.8370Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.Motion (by Mr Bruce Scott) proposed:That the bill be now read a third time.11:00:008370Martin, Stephen, MPMr MARTIN8I4CunninghamALP00—Very briefly, in his summing up the Minister for Veterans' Affairs made some comment about the hypocrisy of the opposition when in government in respect of the fringe benefits tax. Minister, as I said in my speech, we put our hands up and said we introduced the fringe benefits tax, but the Labor Party did not gross up on the group certificates the value of that for serving personnel in the ADF. That is what your government is doing. That is why there is such concern in respect of the fringe benefits tax operation. We do not mind putting our hands up and saying that we introduced the fringe benefits tax—we did—but we did not exempt Defence from paying it, they did pay it.We are not talking about that; we are talking about grossing up the amounts on group certificates so that people now are affected by everything from child support to other support mechanisms that might be there for them to access, particularly spouses in the Australian Defence Force. That is why you are getting as many letters as I am about this issue. That is why I am saying to you in the spirit of bipartisanship that we will help you out. Introduce legislation to amend it, and we will be there.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—I would like to assure you I am not getting any letters on this and, as you know full well, you should address your remarks through the chair.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a third time.Bills8371r7668371Debate resumed from 25 March, on motion by Mr Williams:That the bill be now read a second time.11:02:008371McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLANDJK6BartonALP00—I am responding to the second reading speech of the Attorney-General on the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Legislation Amendment Bill 1999 . I suppose that as soon as the word ASIO is mentioned ears prick up and people's attention is focused on, `What is going on here!' But this bill is primarily about giving ASIO the ability to use 1990s technology to carry out its functions.It is not commonly appreciated that ASIO was established by the Chifley Labor government after the Second World War and at the start of the Cold War. Aside from having a direct role to combat espionage and politically motivated violence and sabotage, a significant focus or motivation in the establishment of ASIO was to assure our international allies that defence information communicated to Australian authorities would be in safe hands.Obviously the Cold War has ended, nonetheless it is still essential that our allies have confidence in our ability to protect the security of defence information communicated to us. It is also fair to say that the greatest foreign threat to Australians is not from impending war and invasion by foreign military forces but rather from the potential of politically motivated terrorist activities. Clearly, ASIO still has a significant role in identifying the potential for such terrorist activities and taking steps to prevent Australians and visitors to Australia from being exposed to that danger.The Olympics will inevitably make Australia the focus of international attention, and we must realistically acknowledge in those circumstances that there is always the potential for terrorist activity. We would be foolhardy to forget the experience of the Munich Olympic Games carnage. None of us wants to see Australia be the focus of world attention, not because of our athletes succeeding in the Olympic Games but because of a similar tragedy occurring on our shores.It would probably be to the disappointment of most Australians that the activities of ASIO and ASIO agents are nothing like the excitement of James Bond or, even more recently, Austin Powers. In fact, their work is quite mundane and boring but, nonetheless, vitally important to all Australians. In debating this issue we must acknowledge that there remains considerable suspicion in the community regarding the activities of ASIO.Perhaps regrettably, the Joint Statutory Committee on Australian Security Intelligence Organization was given only a very brief period of time to examine this legislation. The bill was referred to the committee on 13 April 1999 and the committee was required to report on 6 May. Labor supported the referral to the committee because we believe it is important to encourage community debate about the role of ASIO and, ultimately, to distribute that report and other information to the community to enhance the community's confidence in ASIO.We commend the actions more recently of the Director-General of ASIO in publicly describing ASIO's role and why these amendments are necessary. The Labor Party notes that the Joint Committee on ASIO was unanimous in its recommendations regarding this bill and substantially endorsed the bill subject to some points of clarification. As I understand it, in all bar two areas the government has adopted those recommendations.Nevertheless, we do note that we are now talking about debating this bill on 12 August. The additional time since 13 April could have been given to the committee to receive public evidence and communicate to the public regarding these issues. Indeed, we note in the unanimous and bipartisan report that the committee itself expressed some concern about the short period of time that it had to examine the legislation.While the Labor Party believes that many of the criticisms of this bill are misplaced, we are certainly not critical of those who have raised them. We acknowledge and appreciate the submissions to the committee that reflect the genuine desire among Australians that organisations like ASIO not be allowed to infringe the rights of ordinary Australians and that they not become an instrument by which the state can suppress legitimate protest and legitimate dissent activity.The bill proposes a number of amendments, which have been described in the explanatory memorandum and in the minister's second reading speech, but some of the more controversial amendments are worth highlighting and discussing. Probably the most significant issue is the ability of ASIO to tap in to computer terminals via an external computer and, if necessary, to make amendments to data on a computer. That power must be seen in the context of modern communication technology. In this age of electronic communication, and in particular the ready access to email, it is vitally important that ASIO is able to keep pace with modern technology in order to track suspect communications.It goes without saying that if ASIO's powers were limited to intercepting telephone calls, terrorists would know that to communicate within Australia they simply have to adopt another form of communication, such as the Internet or even emails that have been encrypted. The government is therefore appropriately attempting to modernise ASIO's powers by giving them the ability to access data held on a computer through an external modem connected to another computer terminal.It should be noted that ASIO already has the power to search data on a computer by the use of its physical search and entry warrant powers. So giving ASIO the ability to access that information via a distant terminal is clearly less intrusive and obviously safer to the ASIO officer involved in the investigation.While the Labor Party recognises it may be necessary to alter computer programs to the extent necessary to gain access to information, and possibly to decipher encrypted messages, we acknowledge the genuine concern expressed in the community that this power could perhaps be misused; indeed there is some concern that evidence could be planted or manipulated. This was one of the areas of greatest concern expressed to members of the joint committee by witnesses to that committee. The Labor Party does accept the assurances of the Director-General of ASIO that that is not intended, and it would indeed be regarded as a criminal act for any such manipulation of data to occur. Nonetheless, we acknowledge the concerns and we think the wording of the legislation could be clarified to remove any ambiguity.The Labor Party will be proposing, in the consideration in detail stage, two amendments dealing with this particular issue, and those amendments have been circulated and are available for members who may be speaking on the issue. We understand that the government is sympathetic to the arguments we have put and, perhaps subject to some minor changes in wording, is prepared to accept our amendments.Another issue of significant controversy is granting ASIO the power to access information held by AUSTRAC—which is the agency that monitors suspicious currency transactions into and out of Australia—and the Australian Taxation Office. Evidence was given to the committee that significant terrorist activity is usually preceded by a transfer of substantial funds into a country—the obvious purpose being to finance particular terrorist or sabotage activities. Given the increasing sophistication of groups who may act contrary to our national interests or the interests of Australians, it is necessary to enable ASIO to monitor their financial dealings, and it is becoming an increasingly vital part of understanding the operations of those organisations which would potentially undertake that activity. I note that most law enforcement agencies in Australia, including state police forces and the National Crime Authority, already have similar powers, and it is noteworthy that ASIO is one of the only national security agencies in the world which does not have those powers.The Labor Party supports ASIO having access to this data and notes that access to the information held by AUSTRAC and the Australian Taxation Office will be subject to a memorandum of understanding agreed to between those agencies and ultimately subject to the approval of the joint committee on ASIO as a final check-off. It is not the case that ASIO will be able to attend those agencies and undertake, at their own behest, fishing expeditions; nor will it be able to download bulk data. Rather, their powers will be restricted to inspecting specific files of individuals under suspicion, with formal and specific requests being made to those agencies for access to those particular files.It should also be noted that, as I have mentioned, the actions of ASIO are subject to review by the joint committee of this parliament and also, importantly, by the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, who has the ability to inspect any file and, if necessary, to interrogate ASIO officers regarding their conduct in a particular matter. It should also be appreciated that the Leader of the Opposition is entitled to and in fact does receive uncensored reports and regular briefings about the operations of ASIO. This process ensures that ASIO is not used for partisan political purposes by the government of the day.A further issue of controversy in the bill is with respect to amending the test for issuing search warrants. It is proposed to amend section 25 (2) so that the Attorney-General will need only to be satisfied on the basis of reasonable belief that the issuing of the warrant:. . . will substantially assist the collection of intelligence in accordance with this Act in respect of a matter that is important in relation to security.It is the case that this provision will change the test from a negative one to a positive one. Currently, the Attorney must be satisfied that, without access to the information, security would `be seriously impaired'. Changing it from a negative one to a positive one, will remove some uncertainty and ambiguity as to the level of satisfaction that the Attorney-General should have before issuing a warrant.We believe that the proposed test is not significantly different to the current test in the act and it does clarify the degree to which the Attorney-General must be satisfied. Accordingly, we support that amendment. However, we note on that point that the joint committee of the parliament has recommended that the explanatory memorandum to the bill should be amended to show that the proposed test is not intended to expand the current power exercised by the Attorney-General. We say that that is appropriate and should be done.For the record, I should note that the Director-General of ASIO has recently and publicly explained the warrant procedure that occurs. Firstly, a warrant must be prepared within ASIO and approved by a senior officer. After that, it is considered by a legal officer within ASIO. If it meets that hurdle, it is presented to the Director-General, who must personally sign the request. Thirdly, it goes to a separate area within the Attorney-General's Department where independent advice is given to the Attorney that what is being requested is within the terms of the ASIO Act and is otherwise lawful. It then goes to the Attorney-General for his approval. These checks that are already in place will certainly continue, other than it being noted that the bill does give some greater powers to the Director-General of ASIO to issue warrants in urgent situations; it being pointed out again, however, that the same accountability takes place to examine the appropriateness of the issuing of that urgent warrant through the mechanisms to which I have already referred, particularly the inspection by the Inspector-General of Intelligence.We note that one of the additional powers that will be given to ASIO in addition to those to which I have referred will be that, for the first time, ASIO will have the power to install tracking devices on vehicles or even on people. As members would be aware, these devices are small beacons which transmit signals to other locations to enable the location of that vehicle or person to be pin pointed. Again, we recognise that, if Australia's security or the security of individual Australians is at stake, it would be foolish to turn our back on the existence of technology which enables more sophisticated tracking of potential subjects. Indeed, we note that the Walsh report had strongly urged that ASIO be allowed to use these tracking devices. Specifically, the Walsh report stated that the absence of this investigative tool was a privation for not only ASIO but also the Australian Federal Police and the National Crime Authority.Other changes to the bill will allow ASIO to expand its foreign intelligence gathering within Australia by dispensing with the present need for it to obtain a special search warrant in each case. This will allow ASIO to supplement foreign intelligence gathered by other agencies such as, for instance, the Australian Security Intelligence Service, and the opposition says that is appropriate.As a matter of practicality, there will also be short-term powers enabling ASIO to communicate directly with state law enforcement agencies in the period leading up to the Olympics. I and the opposition understand that this is because ASIO will be required, in the lead-up to the Olympics, to undertake literally thousands of additional security checks; for instance, with respect to people working in and around Olympic events and also with respect to a large number of foreign visitors who may require security checks. Not allowing this facility to occur expeditiously would be neglect of the most gross kind if a tragedy occurred at the Olympics. We say that that facility to enable direct communication between ASIO and state law enforcement agencies is appropriate, particularly given that it has a sunset date for 31 December 2000—the year of the Olympics.With respect to search warrants, we also note that there are provisions to lengthen the maximum duration within which a search warrant must be exercised and also to grant, as I have indicated, greater powers to the Director-General of ASIO with respect to issuing warrants on an emergency basis without prime ministerial approval. But, again, these are subject to subsequent reporting to the Attorney-General.In conclusion, we would all wish that terrorism was nonexistent, but clearly international and domestic experience shows that it is not. Similarly, we would all wish that espionage did not take place, but recent events—even in Australia—have shown that it does. When it does occur on our shores, it is to the significant embarrassment of not only our security services but also, more particularly, our defence forces in terms of the information that our allies are prepared to put in our hands believing it is held there in safety and in confidence. We would also like to expect that foreign interference does not occur, but it is not a new phenomenon by any means—it goes back decades—and we would be fools not to recognise its existence today and the potential for it to occur.As I said at the outset, the security of individual Australians is not threatened these days so much by the prospect of foreign military invasion. Indeed, that must be said to be a remote prospect, fortunately, at this time. But there is a live and substantial prospect, particularly as we are coming up to the Olympics, that Australians could face terrorist activities. It is in the interests of all Australians that we properly resource ASIO to enable it to undertake its very important task.11:23:008374Jull, David, MPMr JULLMH4FaddenLP10—On 13 May I presented a report to the House on behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Security Intelligence Organization covering this proposed legislation. Reference has been made to this during the previous speaker's contribution. I commend the honourable member for Barton for the work that he has done in going through this bill and the support the opposition has given to it today.As he rightly pointed out, this has been something of a historic achievement, historic inasmuch as ASIO legislation was exposed to public scrutiny by virtue of the public hearing process. As he pointed out, for the first time, I suppose, the Australian public had some sense of, and some insight into, what the operation of ASIO was all about. This particular joint parliamentary committee has probably had something of a chequered career since its establishment by the Hawke government in the mid-1980s. One of the things that has been achieved by the process through which we have been is that we have now established ourselves as a responsible body that should have a role in making sure that there is a watching brief on ASIO.There is great room for the government to consider extending the jurisdiction of this committee. I would be pleased if the government would consider extending the surveillance this parliamentary committee has over our other security organisations. This has certainly worked fairly well in the United States and in Great Britain. What has been achieved there could well be a lesson to us in Australia. It would be my purpose as the presiding officer of this committee to urge the government to extend our role so that that watching brief can go over the other security organisations.Honourable members will be aware that the committee made a number of recommendations to the government to ensure that balance would be achieved in the bill to protect both public and private interests. The committee had at that time given broad support for both the purpose and the form of the bill. I am delighted that the Attorney-General has now written to us advising that the government will accept all but two of our recommendations. Of the two recommendations not accepted, one concerned membership of the committee, about which you would be very much aware, Mr Deputy Speaker Nehl. The other was a reporting procedure.It is important that this amendment bill be given speedy passage in this House and in the other place. The last time the Australian Security Intelligence Organization Act 1979, the ASIO Act, was before the House was some 13 years ago. Technological changes in those 13 years have been dramatic. It is important that ASIO has the capacity to meet the challenges and changes that that technology involves. As has been pointed out previously, equally as important is the forthcoming major Australian event, the 2000 Olympics in Sydney. Broadly speaking, these amendments will enable the organisation to use modern technology in carrying out its functions. It will enable the organisation to access tax and financial information which is essential to its investigations. It will improve arrangements for processing security clearance for the Olympics. It will change the provision in relation to emergency warrants and the duration of search warrants. It will correct anomalies such as the inability to remove a listening device outside the warrant period or to collect foreign intelligence in Australia through the use of human resources. It will make miscellaneous amendments such as the issue of cost recovery and providing the Australian Federal Police with intelligence obtained from ASIO's international liaison partners.But with an event such as the Olympics the security required will involve more than just the work of ASIO. It is no secret that, to ensure the success of the Olympic Games security, ASIO obviously has the most extensive international liaison network. There are a number of countries that are cooperating with Australia to try to ensure that we have a trouble free games. Obviously it is essential that ASIO has the tools and the legislative backing to keep up with the technological development and to be consistent and efficient in its dealings both here and with those cooperating countries.While the Olympics are a focus of these amendments, there are domestic implications as well. The image and some of the folklore about ASIO often amazes me. In his second reading speech the Attorney-General summed up what I think should be the philosophical definition of what ASIO is all about. The Attorney-General said that it was in the public interest to ensure that ASIO was adequately and appropriately equipped to safeguard Australia against threats to security, but that it should not threaten the rights or the liberties of Australians. Consequently, to ensure that the situation prevails, there will be amendments required for a number of other acts and there has been a review of the privacy guidelines presently existing. This was done in consultation with the Privacy Commissioner, who accepted in general terms the privacy framework of the bill. The Attorney-General and ASIO will continue this process. I understand the Attorney-General will table any revised privacy guidelines.The joint committee was aware of this and, consequently, to emphasise the importance of the privacy safeguard, we stated in our report that we agreed that expanded surveillance and information gathering powers should not result in unreasonable intrusions into the personal affairs of Australian citizens. We agreed that privacy projections must ensure the fair handling of personal information and levels of surveillance consistent with operational needs, but no more. We agreed that privacy projections must recognise that modern surveillance techniques can, if misused, damage an individual's reputation in ways not possible in the past. The amendments we are considering vary widely, including the issue of search warrants. It is true that warrants for ASIO are quite a different process than for other law enforcement agencies. The new revised process allows the Attorney-General to issue a warrant if the Attorney is satisfied that access to the records or other items on particular premises will substantially assist the collection of intelligence in a matter that is important in relation to security.My understanding is that, while the purpose of this amendment is to simplify the wording of subsection 25(2) of the bill, the explanatory memorandum will be extended to fully explain the ramifications of this new subsection, and I believe that that is important. Changes are also made to allow the commencement of a warrant up to 28 days after it is issued and extends the period for which the warrant is in force from seven to 28 days. This provision gives ASIO a great flexibility to undertake covert operations.What has been described as one of the more controversial aspects of the bill is computer access warrants. This provision will allow ASIO to gain remote access to data held in a computer should that access assist in the collection of a matter related to security. There is also provision for the Attorney-General to authorise ASIO to add, delete or alter data for the purpose of gaining access to data in a targeted computer and to have a capacity to conceal anything that may be done under the warrant. I understand that the new explanatory memorandum will now spell out the circumstances under which ASIO can do this. As the Attorney-General has already pointed out, there will be strict limitations which will not permit ASIO to do anything that interferes with the lawful use of a computer or causes loss or damage to persons legally using that computer. The further explanatory memorandum details should allay any concerns that the public may hold on this issue.Another area covered in the legislation deals with listening and tracking devices. Once again, these devices can only be installed on a warrant issued by the Attorney-General. The amendments in this case will allow the recovery of these devices to be completed at the earliest practical opportunity. Presently they can be recovered while the warrant is in force or during the following 28-day period. Similarly, the amendments will allow ASIO to use tracking devices to allow the organisation to enter premises to place, to maintain or to recover them. It should be pointed out the amendments only cover the removal of these devices and do not extend the period over which the devices can be used.There are also amendments which will allow warrants to allow ASIO access to articles delivered by a free range of agents, not just articles carried by Australia Post. Frankly, in this day and age, these new provisions would not be regarded as terribly controversial.But there has also been concern at the area of subsection 29(1)(a) dealing with the issue of emergency warrants. These amendments extend the application of emergency warrants to all warrants with the exception of those relating to foreign intelligence collection within Australia. This will give the director-general a greater authority to issue warrants in an emergency. It will allow the director-general to respond more effectively in an emergency, and an emergency warrant will remain in force for 48 hours unless revoked by the minister.Previously, the issuing of an emergency warrant was restricted to placement of a listening device only. The amending bill will extend the director-general's power to issue an emergency warrant for searches, computer access, tracking devices relating to persons or objects, inspection of postal articles and delivery service articles. Only three emergency warrants have been issued since 1980. There was one in 1981, one in 1986 and one in 1993. The circumstances involved include the short-term availability of the Attorney-General and an urgent, unexpected need for the warrant to come into force. A copy of the warrant must be provided to the minister with an explanation of why it was considered necessary to issue an emergency warrant. I believe that these changes are reasonable. They have only been used sparingly in the past, and there is an accountability factor whereby the director-general is at all times accountable to the Attorney-General and the inspector-general in such cases.I mentioned previously the need for amendments to the legislation being required for the Sydney 2000 Olympics. Much of the security for the Olympics and the Paralympics will be in the hands of state authorities. It is a massive operation, with literally tens of thousands of security assessments being required not only for people entering the country but also for people working in specific areas throughout the Olympic Games. Presently there is no provision for ASIO to provide information of a federal security nature to the New South Wales state police. Quite often these reports will not be full-scale assessments and will probably rely on whether a particular individual has a security record.There are two aspects of these changes which should be emphasised. Firstly, there is a sunset clause, with termination on 31 December 2000. Once that date is reached the exchange of information will return to normal. Secondly, section 38(1) of the ASIO Act will apply, which provides an advisory and appeals mechanism for individuals who are subject to an adverse assessment. In schedule 2 of the bill there are some changes to provi sions within the ASIO Act, while schedule 3 is merely to adopt common practices and change the spelling of the name of the organisation, substituting an `S' for a `Z' in the act.But I now turn to schedule 4 of the bill which is more substantial as it deals with ASIO's access to financial transaction reports maintained by AUSTRAC, the Australian Transactions Reports and Analysis Centre. Specifically, this will be a deal for ASIO to fight terrorism. While AUSTRAC has been established to fight organised and major crime, AUSTRAC has already uncovered a money trail associated with quite a number of well-known terrorism incidents. It would seem that substantial funds have been sent to banks overseas to help pay for materials used in acts of terrorism.However, this is not uniquely Australian. In fact, a group of seven nations has also identified the problem and has invited other countries to take a range of measures to monitor cash transfers and bank disclosures. Frankly, as most countries comparable with Australia have access to this information, we have an international obligation to do the same in an attempt to counteract international and any domestic terrorism.ASIO will not be alone in having this access. All state and territory police forces already have it, as do various crime commissions, the AFP, the NCA and ASIC, along with Tax and Customs. ASIO, with its massive responsibility, obviously must have the same access. A memo of understanding will be established for the governing of the ASIO access. In fact, ASIO will have no more access to AUSTRAC information than any of the other agencies I have mentioned. ASIO itself says it believes that it will be a low volume user.There will be monitoring of ASIO access by the Attorney-General and the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security to ensure proper protection of legitimate information. To help ensure this, the role of the inspector-general will also be strengthened. That role will become focused on monitoring and oversight of ASIO. These specific changes are contained in schedule 5.Changes to schedule 6 will also allow ASIO to have access to taxation information, provided the Commissioner of Taxation is satisfied that the information is relevant to ASIO's functions. The inspector-general will monitor any activity. To a great extent, this access is allied to the AUSTRAC provisions. The provisions for secrecy and security by the ATO will apply to ASIO. Once again, all this will be spelt out in a memorandum of understanding.These amendments are substantial and are essential for ASIO to provide security for the people of Australia. There are projections in place and I believe we can confidently pass this bill to allow ASIO to enter the next century with the appropriate legislation backing its activities. The passage of this bill will also allow our preparations for the Olympics to continue, to help ensure their success. I hope that this bill has a speedy passage through this place and indeed through the other place.23:39:008378Wilton, Greg, MPMr WILTONYK6IsaacsALP00—There is no doubt that a central issue of the debate surrounding the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Legislation Amendment Bill 1999 appears to be the tension between, on the one hand, Australia's national security needs and, on the other hand, the mindfulness of our society of individual civil rights. Another issue that might best be described as encircling the eclectic attitudes towards ASIO is the whole mythology of what we commonly refer to as spies. One could reasonably argue that it might be as much this reserve which influences interested parties' resistance to increasing ASIO's capacity to collect intelligence as much as any other well-argued concerns.The Labor Party understands these concerns and has, through the whole process behind this bill, endeavoured to address them. We confidently believe that the increased powers detailed in this legislation will allow ASIO to finally catch up with technology which their targets are employing to avoid detection, thus allowing the agency to become far more reliable and able to fulfil its obligations to the Australian people which, by and large, are to combat espionage and politically motivated violence, and to carry out its equally important role of identifying terrorist activities.This is the first major revision of the ASIO Act since 1986. It need not be argued that in the time since—over 13 years—we have experienced significant advancement in information technology, especially in the area of financial transactions. In this sense the legislation is long overdue, as has been outlined by the shadow Attorney-General, who indicated that it was especially the case given the increasing sophistication of groups which may, and do, act contrary to Australia's national interest.I would like to digress and refer to an article by Gervase Greene which appeared in the Age on 13 May and followed an interview with the Director-General of ASIO, Dennis Richardson. At the beginning of the article, the journalist describes an antiquated tape recorder used by Richardson to record the interview and says:Watching Dennis Richardson fumble with the tape recorder, it's difficult to suppress a laugh. Not only does the machine appear in its twilight years—and on the journalist goes. Richardson then admitted in the article to picking up the tape recorder from ASIO's technical division on his way to the interview. One can only surmise that if this is the best that ASIO's technical division can provide under existing provisions for its own chief, then one is left to wonder just how the organisation could efficiently and effectively investigate the activities of next door's dog, let alone sophisticated money laundering and tax evasion schemes.The above scenario, while appearing to be slapstick, is illustrative of the functional obstacles which so frustrate ASIO and concomitantly delight those who wish to elude its watchful eye. The parliament need not be reminded—the shadow Attorney has done just that—that in just over a year we will be welcoming visitors from all over the world to the Sydney Olympics and it will be the government's responsibility to provide a safe environment for each and every person. An important step toward providing that environment remains the provision by relevant agencies of the means to gather intelligence and the capacity to act accordingly, whether that goes to the question of enabling them to tap into computers from an external source, thus maintaining the safety of officers, or of changing the way in which search warrants are approved, given that the bill proposes that the Attorney-General needs to be satisfied only on the basis of reasonable belief.Some of the critics of this legislation complain of what they call `function creep' whereby ASIO is moving into investigative areas in which it does not belong. This can best be described as somewhat incongruous and somewhat absurd, because ASIO's brief has not changed. Only the methods by which ASIO may carry out its activities are under debate.By and large, this is exactly where some of the spy myths referred to earlier need to be dispelled. ASIO is largely a domestic organisation, not always engaged in the sexier aspects of espionage so recently portrayed in the media. Nor does it commonly engage in James Bond style activity, or even Maxwell Smart style activity either for that matter, although the fumblings of Director-General Richardson with his tape recorder were a little reminiscent of Control's cone of silence and shoe phone amateurism. The circumstances pertaining to issues of national security have shifted far beyond the traditional stereotypes. For instance, now a terrorist may no more resemble a sinister figure with a thick, eastern European accent than he or she would a neatly attired European accented person who may be, for example, a computer technician with a family. To quote ASIO's director-general:In the cold war the world was locked into very sharp ideological divides and to some extent it was somewhat simple in terms of the equations you might bring to bear.This also implies that ASIO has moved on from incidents in the 1980s which cast a shadow over ASIO's capacity and ability to conduct itself efficiently without embarrassing its stakeholders.No doubt the 1990s ASIO is charged with the important responsibilities of both detecting and monitoring the activities of targets suspected of jeopardising Australia's national security interests. This may mean those, for example, ducking our taxation system, laundering money derived from clandestine, criminal, often drug related activity or engaging in other activities which may be viewed as posing a threat to domestic or perhaps foreign dignitaries or, for that matter, those posing a threat to visiting athletes and tourists attending next year's Olympics.Specifically, this legislation also allows unprecedented access to tax records by way of a request to the Commissioner of Taxation. As I said before, it will allow operatives to access the information from a remote location, thus minimising the chance of discovery and maximising the safety of ASIO's own officers. The organisation has been able to access tax office records in the past via the tax commissioner—who, I might add, declined quite a number of ASIO's applications, remaining unconvinced from time to time by ASIO's arguments for the need to access particular information—but of course it was restricted.Similarly, the legislation will allow ASIO to access the AUSTRAC financial transaction databases for the purposes of discovery. Both the shadow Attorney-General and the member for Fadden have dealt with that at some length.Further reflecting the changes in the way information is conveyed, the legislation does approve the interception of articles sent by couriers other than Australia Post, which of course is quite a sensible and commonsense measure, particularly considering the range of options of both individuals and businesses alike.The collation of information—one could reasonably call it intelligence sourcing or data collection—dictates, in the overall, how well ASIO and other organisations like it carry out their duties. Access to this information in a timely and expedient manner is crucial to these organisations' efficacy.I would like to briefly refer to the tragedy of the Russell Street bombing which occurred in Melbourne at Easter 1986 and killed Policewoman Angela Taylor. At that time, during the investigation of that incipiently awful event, the Victoria Police were subject to a mere six-hour limit on the detaining of individuals suspected of committing a crime, no matter how serious. This has meant that as much evidence as possible had to be collected and analysed before the suspect could be interviewed and processed, all within a six-hour time frame. This may have seemed fair enough, but the issue was, and by and large remains, that this kind of restriction is not in keeping with the increasingly sophisticated methods being employed to commit crimes and avoid detection. As a result, there is a requirement that agencies employ more sophisticated and a greater range of rigorous investigation techniques. For instance, these may include retracing the steps of a crime with a detainee on site, videoing the scene in the company of a detainee, and obtaining as much information as possible to build a watertight case in a very limited period of time, whilst simultaneously attending to administrative issues pertaining to the detention of an individual or individuals. The comprehensive, thorough collection of all available evidence is in the interests of all sides and of fairness.An arbitrarily applied six-hour limit is obviously insufficient time to complete all of this. It probably was sufficient in the 1950s, 1960s or even 1970s, but it is inadequate now, given the changing nature and increasing level of sophistication of criminal activity in Australia. The Victoria Police investigation into the Russell Street bombing did not achieve a conviction, and the six-hour rule was soon after replaced, understandably, by what was called a `reasonable time' provision, whereby if police can justify the detention of an individual to the court after the fact then that time is deemed reasonable.There was a furore around that period over the introduction of this provision, with those opposed complaining loudly about what they referred to as `unchecked police powers' and the erosion of individual civil rights and liberties. However, it was argued at the time—and this line of argument remains pertinent to our current debate—that the risk to the community as a whole is far, far greater from having its law enforcement agencies emasculated by inappropriate and draconian restrictions on their ability to provide the kind of security and service that civilians have a right to expect.That brings me to the issue of faith in our security and protective organisations, and to exploding some of the myths that do indeed surround them. As a sophisticated society, we are required to place our faith in a number of institutions which are put in place by the structures of our, thankfully, democratic society. ASIO is one of those institutions. Despite the fact that for some of us it is shrouded in mystique, it is also a requirement of its function to remain an effective intelligence organisation.Whilst I support the bill in the same terms as the shadow Attorney does, overall it remains a source of some disappointment and shame that the government did not allow the committee to which this legislation was referred sufficient time to really focus on its provisions, especially since this is the first major overhaul of the legislation, as I say, for the 13 years since 1986. If more time had been allowed to expose—or, you might say, to unpack—the issues dealt with in the legislation, I am confident that we might well have been able to dispel some of the myths which linger and cloud community attitudes towards the organisation.In conclusion, there is no doubt that espionage occurs. We do not like it, but it is essential for ASIO to do its job properly. This legislation goes a significant way to ensuring that it does just that, especially at a time when we are confronted with the potential for terrorist activity at the impending Sydney Olympics. I support the bill in the terms described by the shadow Attorney.11:55:008380McArthur, Stewart, MPMr McARTHURVH4CorangamiteLP10—I am pleased to support the legislation before the House, the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Legislation Amendment Bill 1999 . I commend the spirit of cooperation from the opposition spokesman, the member for Barton, and from the member for Isaacs in support of the legislation. The bipartisanship on this very sensitive issue is a sign that here in Australia we can handle these sensitive issues in a mature way and come to a sensible set of conclusions about the way in which the legislation should be drafted and the way in which ASIO should operate in the modern world.This is the first change since 1986, as members would be aware, and it brings into focus the fundamental debate about the role of the executive and the parliament in relation to a secret service organisation, be it in Australia, in the UK or in America. We have seen on the public record the conflict in the British system—where MI5 and the administrators had great difficulty in establishing who were the controlling agencies—and likewise in the USA with the FBI, about whether the controlling body was the legislature or the organisation itself.Here in Australia we have had an interesting history in the development of ASIO, which ironically enough was set up under the Chifley government in 1949. Over the years, there have been a number of inquiries, two sets of them under Justice Hope, to investigate that very issue of whether the parliament should control the organisation in its activities or whether in fact the organisation should go about its business in the type of activities that it undertook in a way that would achieve its objectives.I support the general remarks of the shadow spokesman and, likewise, those of the chairman of the standing committee which reviewed the legislation. As a member of that committee, I would like to refer to sections of that report in supporting the legislation. I note the bipartisan nature of the report and the way in which it was developed, by hearing witnesses and putting a number of these very sensitive issues on the public record.As members would be aware, the purpose of the bill is, firstly, to allow ASIO to use contemporary surveillance technologies. To put that in contemporary language, in this new computer age with newer techniques, ASIO needs to get legislative backing to use the modern equipment that it now has at its disposal. Secondly, it will allow ASIO access to tax and financial information relevant to its investigations. Again, the use of sophisticated computer technology will allow, with sufficient safeguards, ASIO to access these financial records and will allow investigations to be made, given that there are sufficient safeguards for people's privacy.Thirdly, it will allow for intergovernmental administrative arrangements for the processing of security clearances for the 2000 Olympic Games. Again, that goes to the ability of ASIO to relate to international agencies to ensure that they are able to compare notes, so to speak, with other international agencies about persons who had a record that was undesirable in terms of criminal activity or about any other suspect, in preparation for the 2000 Olympic Games in Sydney.Fourthly, it will change the provisions in relation to emergency warrants and the duration of search warrants; and I will speak more about that in a minute. Fifthly, it will correct such anomalies as the inability to remove a listening device outside a warrant period and to collect foreign intelligence in Australia through the use of human resources. It has always seemed a strange anomaly in the act that the listening device that ASIO was, with the use of the warrant, able to place in a certain location was not allowed to be removed by ASIO under the act. Sixthly, the legislation will make miscellaneous amendments such as on the issue of cost recovery and providing Australian Federal Police with intelligence obtained from ASIO's international partners.It is worth putting on the record that a suggestion has been made in some quarters that these amendments are being made to suit the Olympic Games in particular. The Attorney-General was quite clear about this and had this to say:The bill is not a response to the challenges posed by a particular event or threat, such as the Year 2000 Olympics, notwithstanding that ASIO will have an important role to play in ensuring the safety of athletes, officials and spectators attending those games. Rather, the bill results from a considered examination of ASIO's capacity to meet its ongoing responsibilities to government in a rapidly changing information environment.Members of the public should be aware that this is a considered response by the government to these important issues, having in mind the Olympic Games, but this is not the major issue before the parliament.There has been discussion on the issue of receiving information on financial transactions. As a member of the committee, I was very impressed by the amount of consultation that took place. Over a two-year period a number of departments had consultations about the way in which the bill should be developed, how that information should be put together and how the role of ASIO should be enacted under the new bill. Likewise, there was discussion with the Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre, to which other members have referred. They had a number of discussions with financial groups such as the Australian Bankers Association, the Australian Finance Conference, a number of the senior banks, the Victorian Council of Civil Liberties, the Privacy Commissioner and the Electronic Money Information Centre. Members would be aware that there has been a lot of consultation on these matters and interests of members of the public have been well covered by these in-depth discussions.I will turn to the age-old problem of privacy and the role the bill plays in the privacy of individual citizens of Australia. The role of ASIO in investigating them is a matter that has been long debated by this parliament and other parliaments around the world. The committee received representations from the Australian Privacy Charter Council and others suggesting that it might be unreasonable activity by ASIO to investigate the personal affairs of Australian citizens. Certainly, in my view, the bill achieves a balance between the rights of individuals and the preservation of national security. However, that is in the eye of the beholder and I am very pleased that the opposition and this parliament agree that that balance has been reached. The Attorney-General's Department described the privacy framework within which ASIO operates in the following terms:While the Privacy Act 1988 does not apply to ASIO, the Attorney-General has issued guidelines under section 8A of the ASIO Act dealing with the treatment of personal information by the Organization.As the Bill will allow ASIO to access additional forms of personal information for the performance of its functions, the Attorney-General has decided that the present guidelines should be reviewed in consultation with the Privacy Commissioner.That matter is obviously under very careful consideration. The Attorney-General is reviewing it and making sure that the rights of individuals are preserved, along with the ability of ASIO to conduct their operations. The committee commented on the importance of privacy safeguards and agreed:. . . surveillance and information gathering powers should not result in unreasonable intrusions in the personal affairs of Australian citizens . . . It was put on the public record by the committee that that was the position the committee took. Also the committee stated:. . . privacy protections must ensure the fair handling of personal information and levels of surveillance consistent with operational needs, but no more . . . To put it in more simple language, ASIO were restrained from investigating average citizen Australia for no good reason unless they had permission. The committee went on to comment:. . . we agree that privacy protections must recognise that modern surveillance techniques can, if misused, damage an individual's reputation . . . Again, that is on the public record. The legislation incorporates the spirit of that attitude and both sides of the parliament accept that view.I will move to the more difficult area of warrants. There has been a lot of discussion about the ability to issue a warrant, the legal effectiveness of it and the manner in which ASIO and state police forces can implement the warrant, place listening devices in certain areas and undertake that within a legal process, yet in such a way that is practical in the context of persons who are engaged in sabotage and other unlawful activities. I was particularly interested in the director-general's comments to the committee about the way in which these warrants would be issued. I will quote the director-general's evidence, because it sets out the fairly complex and complicated process that protects individual Australians. The director-general had this to say:First of all, within ASIO any warrant proposal must be approved within the collection area by the head of that division. Secondly, it must be approved by the legal adviser. Thirdly, the request must be signed by the Director-General personally. It is not an authority which is delegated. Fourthly, any warrant request, after it is signed by the Director-General of Security, goes to the Attorney-General's Department where a separate certificate is signed authorising that the warrant request is consistent with the Act. Finally, warrant requests must be considered and approved by the Attorney-General personally. Again, they are not matters which the Attorney-General can delegate.Beyond that, the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security reviews all warrant files on a regular basis . . . That gives a good background to the way in which warrants are issued and the checks and balances involved in the issuing of those warrants.Those are the main issues in this bill I wish to draw to the attention of the House. It is a fairly complex and difficult area. We must make sure that in 1999 the parliament has a system of security both nationally and internationally. I was interested that, when writing for the Financial Review on 12 April 1999, Geoffrey Barker made the following comment:On balance, it seems clear that safeguards built into the legislation ensure that Australia has little to fear from what will be the first changes to ASIO's powers since 1986. Indeed, given technological innovations since 1986, Australia could gain more in terms of protection from espionage than it might lose in privacy terms.That is an interesting public comment on this important issue from someone who understands some of the ongoing background debate.In terms of access to tax data, again a number of people would be concerned that this is open slather. It is my judgment that the bill covers this position. To access data, permission from the Attorney-General and the tax commissioner is needed. The Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security will have oversight, and ASIO will firstly have to be convinced that the information is necessary. So it not just a matter of ASIO trawling the AUSTRAC files; it has to give the reason it wants the material. ASIO officers will have to physically collect the information from AUSTRAC's offices, and the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security will oversight that activity. I think that in all these very difficult areas the legislation has managed to reach a good compromise and will put us in the modern age. ASIO funding has been increased to $66 million in readiness for the Olympic Games so that we are in combat readiness to handle that very big assignment.I commend the legislation. I commend the recommendations of the advisory report. I suggest that the way in which the report was handled is a landmark method. It was a bipartisan review of the legislation on the public record so that the legislation could be introduced into this parliament with any necessary amendments agreed to by both sides of the parliament. I commend the legislation.12:09:008383Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KERRRH4DenisonALP00—My colleague the shadow Attorney-General has led for the opposition in this debate on the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Legislation Amendment Bill 1999 and has set up the broad parameters of our position, which are that we will be supporting this legislation. We have drawn specific attention to a number of areas where we have sought assurances that measures will be adopted to protect and to ensure that there are no abuses, particularly in the area where access to computer data is now to be facilitated. A lot of changes have been put forward in relation to this legislation.As the only member of Labor's now frontbench who once served as Attorney-General, I am very well aware of the thoroughness with which the organisation traditionally has approached the issue of ensuring that it does not exceed its legislative brief, particularly given the concerns that were expressed in the early years of its operations when it was widely thought by many members of my party that ASIO was directing itself in a quite vindictive way towards some of the activities of the Left within Australia. I use the word `left' in the broadest sense. However, the fact is that a series of Attorneys have worked with ASIO and have done so in a way which I think should have satisfied community concerns that they—and, if I might say so, the various persons appointed to the management of ASIO—have not abused those powers and authorities. I think fair-minded people who reflect on the history of people such as Lionel Bowen, Gareth Evans, Michael Duffy and Michael Lavarch—and, I say modestly, me in the short term that I was Attorney-General—would have to say none of those persons would have in any sense countenanced, encouraged or facilitated the wrongful conduct by ASIO of any of its security responsibilities. I will turn to the current government in a moment, but none of those persons would have done so.I think it is fair to say that we would have the same view of the current Attorney-General. Whilst we might disagree on a whole range of issues, we see him as being an entirely honourable man in relation to those responsibilities. Also, the appointments that have been made to head ASIO are appointments which reflect the confidence of both sides of this parliament. Indeed, when the Attorney-General is on leave the Minister for Justice and Customs would, in the normal course, carry those responsibilities. We do have criticisms of Amanda Vanstone on a whole range of issues in relation to the conduct of her administration, but not on anything which would in any sense go towards the proposition that she would improperly be willing to allow ASIO to exceed its brief or that she would turn a blind eye to it doing so on its own accord. Nonetheless, I think it is important to realise that even good ministers can be misled. Australian policing has quite a degree of history of security and police agencies misusing the powers entrusted to them and only later being discovered. We have a number of examples of royal commissions which have exposed those defaults where misconduct has gone undetected for a considerable period of time or, if known about, suppressed.I think it is important to realise that we do have an ongoing obligation to make sure we put forward proper processes to assure the community that not only are we willing to give to security organisations such as ASIO the necessary powers to undertake their national responsibilities, to update those powers and to make certain that they remain relevant to the changed circumstances and the technologies of the day but also we maintain the same vigilance in monitoring the work of those agencies. One of my shadow colleagues quite properly chastised me after a meeting which we held where I had powerfully advocated the case for supporting these particular legislative amendments. I had gone through why I believed it was necessary and in the public interest for the organisation charged with Australia's security responsibilities, particularly in the lead-up to the Olympics with a possibly increased threat of terrorism, to have the necessary powers to enable it properly to, for example, access information now held within computer systems, again subject to all the appropriate safeguards that are built into this legislation and which were advocated by the shadow Attorney in relation to additional safeguards.But with all of those constraints I said, `These are very important issues that we need to support.' And I was chastised—I think quite correctly—for the fact that, when you hold office such as Attorney-General or Minister for Justice, over time you do tend to become a bit of an advocate for the agencies that you administer. You see the world through their eyes. You see the reports of the potential activity that threatens our security. You get risk assessments. You start to make judgments that easily fall into line with what is requested of you.So the balancing act cannot come from government. The balancing act is likely to not come from government, because government —even ministers of great goodwill—are likely to be persuaded by the case put to them by those security organisations. The balancing force has to come from the vigilance of the parliament itself and the institutions that parliament sets up. Of course, there is the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, the inspectorate that is designed to watchdog ASIO's activities, and there is this parliament's Joint Committee on the Australian Security Intelligence Organization. Of course, each member of this parliament also has the responsibility to be vigilant to the extent that they become familiar with the conduct and activities of our security organisations. The opposition has a particular and important public role in that regard.So I have, in a sense, sought to come before this House to do a little mea culpa to myself to realise that perhaps some of the more powerful of my advocacy in relation to these security organisations has to be tempered with the fact that there is an important continual role that this parliament has to play, which I think the security organisations themselves would demand that we play or want us to play in relation to ensuring the powers that are given are exercised with propriety and are not exceeded.I have one or two particular concerns; firstly, in relation to the new language that goes to the Attorney's power to issue warrants. In the past the warrant could be exercised or issued only where the Attorney was satisfied that ordinary forms or other forms which did not require intrusive detection—for example, telephone tapping or the like—were not available. The new form of language does not require that. The government has put it forward, saying that this is not intended to increase substantially the number of warrants that will be issued but simply to clarify the position and to remove any ambiguities and to simplify the process.I am prepared to accept at face value that claim and not to treat it cynically, but I do believe that it is going to be very important for us as a parliament to monitor the number of instances that this power is used and the circumstances in which is exercised, because we would not want to be party to an increase in the surveillance of ordinary citizens' activities outside that which we would expect the organisation to undertake properly in discharge of its responsibilities.Secondly, I think as parliamentarians we would not want the organisation to proceed as its first recourse to intrusive forms of surveillance, either by way of telephone interception or access to computer files or any other form of intercept—for example, the devices that you now can place on cars to monitor where those cars are travelling and the like. We would not want that instinctively to be the first recourse when there are other means of obtaining the same or identical information which do not require those intrusive mecha nisms, even if they are slightly more inconvenient to pursue.The citizens' right to have their activities, their intercourse, with their fellow citizens left without intrusion by police or security services is an important right, and it should be abridged only where it is reasonably necessary to do so. I am concerned about that change of language, and I think that we do need to make sure that that is properly monitored and reported on and the subject of further inquiry and review by the institutions that this parliament has established to review the work of the agency.I am not so concerned about the provisions in relation to the access to computer data that some of the community have expressed concern about. I am not so concerned about that. I am very aware, because of the role that I had in a previous administration, of the limit and the restraint that is used by the organisation in relation to intercepts. They do not usually pursue those without due cause. The fact that they must always come before the minister, that they are subsequently reported on to this parliament, at least in statistical form, that those reports are held on file and the like and subject, of course, to review by the inspector-general—all of those things—in my mind suggest that the organisation, as it is presently structured, is not intending to abuse those powers.But, of course, the potential does exist if it is not again the subject of proper scrutiny, and we would want to make certain that the power to disguise ASIO's penetration and access to those systems is properly regulated so that it is not possible for the agency to be accused at any stage in the future of manipulating data in a way which abuses the authority that is given to it by this parliament.Nonetheless, if the organisation is to carry out its functions properly now, many of the activities that are undertaken by those who would be subject to ASIO's scrutiny—potential terrorist organisations and the like—do involve the exchange of information on computer networks. To ask your security organisations to operate in that environment without having access to that seems to me to be implausible and something which we as a community would not regard as a proper balance. We would be asking them to operate with one hand tied behind their back. On balance, I think it is a fair way of dealing with it. The limits are clearly set out in what is proposed in this instance.Similarly, with the use of tracking devices: tracking devices have been used, I think, in practice for a considerable period and this clarifies their entitlement to be used and makes certain they can be replaced and removed in compliance with the law. I do not think there was a particular objection to the use of tracking devices in the past, but getting in to put them on and getting in to take them out was a matter of some complexity, if I might put it in neutral terms.The bill substantially increases the range of information—AUSTRAC information and Australian Taxation Office information—that can be accessed by ASIO, but of course that information is currently available to most law enforcement agencies and it would seem odd to preclude ASIO from access to that and, again, safeguards are put in place. I suppose I have to bear in mind the concerns of some of my colleagues who would say that this is all incremental, that this slowly undermines the right of the citizen to go about their business free from the possibility or risk of abuse by these security services. I take that seriously, and I think that is an issue we should not diminish by the way we approach these issues.Finally, having gone through the list of those who have held office both in the current government and in the previous government—certainly in the memory of all of those presently serving—I reinforce that I do not believe any of those persons would in any way condone the wrongful exercise of ASIO's powers. I would doubt that a warrant has been issued at any stage during the time that any of those have held office which would be capable of being impugned as going beyond the powers that were granted to it. In fact, if anything, I think almost all of those ministers would have tended to be more careful in the issue of those warrants than perhaps the law strictly would require.I certainly know there were instances during the time when Michael Lavarch and I had the exercise of those portfolios when we knocked back requests for warrants that were put forward. It is not a frequent occurrence; nonetheless, each of those instances where ASIO came forward were properly examined and scrutinised, as you expect. On the other hand, we do know of instances where some people are more enthusiastic in using security services for the interests, partisan as they may be, of their political party. You do not need to look very far to see instances, historically, in Australia where it has been alleged that security agencies or state police forces or special branches have been directed at a political level to advance the interests of those in power.Certainly, if you go beyond Australia's boundaries, you do not have to look very hard to find very serious instances where security forces, established ostensibly without any political obligation, were misused. I think there have been some articles about the rehabilitation of President Nixon in the press of recent times. President Nixon was not adverse, for example, to directing the IRS in the United States to pursue the enemies list and, apparently, the IRS complied with that request.There have been some instances in recent political history where the interests of the government have been pursued with a fair degree of partisan zeal. I am not so sure I would say the same things with the same confidence, for example, if Peter Reith, who once was shadow Attorney-General, had control of ASIO. There have been instances where for example in industrial relations—0V5SLIPPERMr Slipper—You should apologise for that.RH4Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KERR—No, I make the point that the minister pursued an agenda—failing to disclose it to this parliament, doing so in secrecy and acting in a way which many of us believed to be an illegal conspiracy—to advance the partisan interests—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mrs Kelly)—I think the member for Denison should remove personal references and withdraw his comments.RH4Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KERR—I understand what you are pointing to, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I think I made the illustration sufficiently to say that—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER—Member for Denison, accusing members of parliament of being involved in a conspiracy is not, I think, a helpful comment and I would like you to withdraw your comments.4I4McLEAYMr Leo McLeay—A lot of them have been!10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER—I do not need your advice, Member for Watson. I would like the member for Denison to withdraw his comments.RH4Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KERR—I did not make that allegation. I said many in our party believed—MG4LEEMr Lee—And many have asked the question.RH4Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KERR—And many have asked the question. I simply made—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER—I would like you to withdraw your comments.RH4Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KERR—Well, I don't withdraw them.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER—Resume your seat. You are finished with your discussion.RH4Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KERR—No, I am not. Point of order—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER—The chair has authority here.RH4Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KERR—The chair has no such authority. You have no authority to direct me to resume my seat: my speech is not concluded, and I intend to continue. I make the point that we have an interest in this parliament that we cannot assume goodwill at all times—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER—I name the member for Denison. It is the only option open; you have had a direction from the chair.Motion (by Mr Slipper) proposed:That the member for Denison be suspended from the service of the House.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER—Would the member for Denison consider withdrawing and apologising, and resume his address?4I4McLEAYMr Leo McLeay—What do you want him to withdraw?RH4KERRMr Kerr—Precisely. What am I to withdraw?10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER—Personal references to other members of parliament.RH4KERRMr Kerr—I was not making personal references to other members of parliament; you have misheard my whole contribution. I have nothing to withdraw. Those present in the House will verify that.4I4McLEAYMr Leo McLeay—Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order, which might be a way that we get ourselves out of this little problem. You may have thought that the member for Denison reflected on somebody but none of the people on the government side, including the Attorney-General, who was here when the remarks were made—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER—No, he was not. May I correct you, Member for Watson. The Attorney-General entered the chamber after the comments had been made.4I4McLEAYMr Leo McLeay—Mr Slipper, who was there, took offence to it because they understood he was not reflecting on someone. Anyway, a member can reflect upon someone whenever they like, as long as they stay within the standing orders. If we are going to have the chair exercise this sort of draconian authority over members, then this could be a ruling that could get visited upon a lot of people in the future. It is probably not a ruling that helps anyone. I guess, if you could show the member for Denison what he should withdraw and how that offended the standing orders, that might be something else.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER—If the member for Denison will assure the chair that he has not implied any illegal activity on the part of other members of parliament, I will accept his assurance.RH4KERRMr Kerr—I made no such allegation. I said: many members of this House believe that that had occurred. I think that is a factual statement of truth. I did not, myself, make such an allegation; I was simply making the point that it is important to realise that, whilst we have absolute confidence in the present administration of those charged with the management of ASIO, at both the ministerial and the administrative levels, it is important to realise that there could be people who pursue these issues seeking partisan advantage, and that this parliament must remain vigilant. I was simply saying that there are instances, which we know of, where people have pursued partisan advantage which many on this side of the House believed went too far. I thought it was a perfectly fair comment to make.0V5SLIPPERMr Slipper—On the point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, I understood the member opposite to have reflected on the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business insofar as he said that he would not have confidence were that minister the Attorney-General. He suggested that, were the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business to hold the position of Attorney-General, he would not carry out those functions in the same unbiased and proper manner in which the current Attorney-General and previous Labor Attorneys-General have. I pointed out to him that I thought that was inappropriate.Madam Deputy Speaker, you have named the member. If the member is prepared to say that he did not intend, and does not intend, to cast any reflection on the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, and if he is prepared to withdraw any comment reflecting on the minister, then I would be happy not to proceed with the motion for suspension were you to withdraw your naming of the member for Denison.MG4LEEMr Lee—On the point of order raised by Mr Slipper, I make the point that, while the member for Fisher made a remark across the table, he took no point of order at the time. He did not object to the words that have been used by the member for Denison. Madam Deputy Speaker, now that the member for Denison has clarified the careful wording that he did use with reference to the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, perhaps you could indicate whether or not you are requiring him to withdraw anything, and what those words are. We can then move on.0V5SLIPPERMr Slipper—Madam Deputy Speaker, I certainly did make an interjection across the chamber, but you then drew to the member for Denison's attention that he was reflecting on the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. As a way of resolving this matter, if indeed the member for Denison now assures us that he is not reflecting on the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, I am quite happy to have the motion for suspension withdrawn and I seek leave to that effect.Motion—by leave—withdrawn.12:33:008388Wakelin, Barry, MPMr WAKELINHV5GreyLP10—The Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Legislation Amendment Bill 1999 was introduced into the House on 20 March 1999. As has been well defined by previous speakers, the effect of the legislation is to amend the Australian Security Intelligence Organization Act 1979—the most significant reform of the act since 1986. Its purposes are several: to amend existing warrant provisions; to extend ASIO's function of collecting foreign intelligence within Australia beyond means authorised by warrant; to provide new special powers, such as a capacity under warrant to use tracking devices and computer hacking; to provide for direct communication with state agencies in relation to security issues associated with the Sydney Olympics; to provide for access to the AUSTRAC information system; to provide for access to certain tax information; and to make other relevant but minor amendments to the act and the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Act 1986.The background is that ASIO plays a vital role in the protection of the interests of Australians and Australia. As an organisation, it was born at a time of great danger and difficulty in world affairs. In 1949 the future seemed a much bleaker one than it does today. Emerging from the turbulence and suffering of war against the three military dictatorships of Germany, Italy and Japan and their satellites, Australia faced another monolithic, bloody dictatorship in the form of Stalin's Soviet Union. Soviet agents and their acolytes from elsewhere sought to create havoc within Australia and to damage Australia's interests overseas.As history has moved on, and the Soviet Union itself ended up on the ash heap of history, new dangers have arisen and ASIO's role and responsibilities have likewise changed. Today the organisation collects, evaluates and communicates intelligence relevant to the protection of Australia and its citizens from activities, including espionage, politically motivated violence, promotion of communal violence and acts of foreign interference. ASIO informs Australia's governments and their police organisations, including the Australian Federal Police, about such activities.Since the Hope Royal Commission and the passage of the ASIO Act 1979, and its subsequent amendment in 1986, much attention has been focused on the natural tension experienced by our security intelligence agencies between effectiveness and public scrutiny. The two are by no means mutually exclusive but, nevertheless, what would otherwise be considered normal accountability measures in government service may clash with the obvious need for ASIO to conduct clandestine and covert operations, the goal of which being the very defence of this Commonwealth and her sovereign people.Commonwealth governments of both persuasions have long recognised the need for certain exemptions to be made in this regard. For example, some ASIO related decisions, such as the granting of search and surveillance warrants, are exempt from the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977; ASIO information is exempt from the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 1982; human rights complaints about ASIO are handled by the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security rather than by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission; and ASIO is exempt from requirements to handle personal information in the manner prescribed by the Privacy Act 1998.The particular system of checks and balances placed upon ASIO includes the legislation outlined above, the ministerial responsibility of the Attorney-General, the recognition of the need for bipartisanship by including the Leader of the Opposition to information on a confidential basis, the Joint Statutory Commit tee on ASIO, an avenue of modified appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, the provision of an annual report, a system of warrants available upon application to the Attorney-General, criminal sanctions against ASIO officers found to be in breach of the ASIO Act as well as the Office of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security.I turn to the amendments under this legislation. In recognition of the changes in ASIO's operational environment I have described, the results of internal review as well as significant changes in the technology of intelligence gathering, the government has set to work devising an important legislative framework that will allow ASIO to serve our country well into the 21st century.The government has proposed a number of items, the first of which is access to computer information. ASIO is presently able to examine computer information relevant to security concerns under the warrant system. Under these amendments, ASIO will be better able to execute a warrant in this manner, authorising it to access computer data under certain restrictions. Next, tracking devices: similarly the amendments will allow the issuing of warrants for ASIO to use tracking devices, a development also recognised by some state governments with regard to police operations. ASIO officers will be permitted to enter property, and enter or alter objects in order to install, use or maintain tracking devices. The regulation of this new power will be similar to those provisions of the act that regulate the use of listening devices.Turning to the removal of listening and tracking devices: this amendment will allow ASIO to undertake the removal of such devices within 28 days of the end of a warrant period where removal is not possible earlier. Next, the examination of non-Australia Post items: in accordance with the growth in the use of delivery service providers, ASIO will be able, under warrant, to examine articles delivered in this manner.Search warrants: these amendments clarify the issuing of warrants and extend the time allowed to 28 days while allowing the Attorney-General, as the responsible minister, to delay their commencement. The range of emergency 48-hour warrants issued by the Director-General of ASIO will be expanded. Foreign intelligence: the authority of the Attorney-General to issue warrants to collect foreign intelligence in Australia will be extended to include developments made elsewhere in the legislation, and ASIO will be able to use means not otherwise regulated under existing warrant provisions to collect this intelligence.The director-general will be granted the discretion to charge fees for certain non-core advice tendered to other Australian agencies. ASIO will be able to provide a security assessment in relation to the 2000 Olympics directly to a state or a state authority.ASIO will be allowed access to information on certain financial transactions reported to the Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre which are related to activities endangering Australian security. Similarly, ASIO will be permitted to receive tax information from the Commissioner of Taxation where that tax information relates to security issues.Since the original bill was introduced, the committee has had the chance to make recommendations on the legislation and the Attorney-General has accepted, and will implement, all but one of the recommendations. The recommendations include: amending the bill to allow the Deputy President of the Senate and the Deputy Speaker of the House of Representatives to be eligible for appointment to the joint committee on ASIO; a supplementary explanatory memorandum should make it clear that it is not intended to change the test to be applied by the Attorney-General in issuing a search warrant; the government should also make it clear that the bill does not allow ASIO to add, delete or alter data stored in a target computer except for purposes of gaining access to that computer; the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security should report annually to the Attorney-General and the opposition leader on the frequency of ASIO's recovery of listening and tracking devices outside of normal warrant periods; any memorandum of understanding negotiated between the Director of AUSTRAC and the Director-General of Security on access to and use of financial reports information, or any memorandum of understanding between the Director of AUSTRAC and the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, or any memorandum of understanding between the Commissioner of Taxation and the Director-General of Security on access to and use of tax information, and any revisions of those memoranda, should be presented to the parliamentary committee before they take effect.The government has not accepted the committee's recommendations with regard to financial transactions reports, as there is no reason why ASIO should be singled out as the only Commonwealth or state agency with access to such information to be reported on in this way.In conclusion, ASIO has a proud history of defending Australia's national security interests by providing timely and valuable advice to the Commonwealth and its agencies. In a new international security environment, ASIO faces new challenges which will be more easily met once these amendments have been adopted. The officers of ASIO face an often thankless and almost always unrecognised task, but they do so in the confidence that their actions safeguard the freedoms and liberties which we as citizens all too often take for granted. I commend this bill to the House.12:42:008390McLeay, Leo, MPMr LEO McLEAY4I4WatsonALP00—I will speak rather briefly on the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Legislation Amendment Bill 1999 . I will not refer to well-known conspirators of the past and present, so that will not give you much to worry about.In dealing with this legislation, I have very much in mind what the Attorney-General said when he introduced the bill. He said:In bringing this bill before this House, I have in mind that it is no simple or easy thing to achieve a balance between the rights of individual persons and the preservation of national security.He is certainly right about that. Whenever you have agencies that have a role which involves delving into what individuals do, there is a great need to protect and balance the rights of individuals against the rights of the govern ment or organisation to know what individuals are up to. While I think that all the things that have been said by other people in this debate about the decency, honest and probity of senior people in ASIO are very nice and probably very correct, things have been done in the past—not in this organisation but in other intelligence organisations in this country—that were not balanced and were not under control. I do not think that we as members of parliament should ever apologise for keeping these sorts of organisations under very stringent investigation and review.There are some provisions in this legislation which the previous speaker, the honourable member for Grey, said just make life easier for ASIO. Of course life would be easier for ASIO if there were no scrutiny of them at all and they had the ability to go and check anything and everything they wanted. While one would not want to impede the work that these sorts of organisations do with good intent, it is important to know what is good intent and what is not, and therefore one must keep an eye on them.While this legislation does make the job of ASIO easier—and I saw the Director-General of ASIO on television arguing his case recently; and the fellow who argued the case against him was pretty useless, which made life for Mr Richardson pretty easy—I think there is a need, particularly when dealing with electronic interception, to make even the more paranoid people, who might think that things are going to go wrong, have some confidence that they will not. The ability for ASIO to attack computers and change data in computers is something that does worry people. They might be going to do it with all of the best intent and they might be going to do it with all the probity, but it is something that does worry people. We should ensure that those provisions are tightened up as far as they are able to be.In his second reading speech, the Attorney-General seems to say that the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Australian Security Intelligence Organization is the watchdog of this body. He said:I . . . remind the House of the mechanisms available to ministers and the parliament to ensure that ASIO acts lawfully and properly, including the parliamentary joint committee and the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security.If you want to rely upon the parliamentary joint committee, of which I am a member—with the briefings they get—to keep an eye on anyone, you are gamer than I am, Attorney. With the amount of information that you get at those meetings, I do not think anyone on that committee would be stupid enough to put their hand on their heart and say that they can guarantee people that ASIO is operating, in the words of the Attorney, `lawfully and properly'. With the meagre information that that committee gets, it is absolutely impossible for that committee to be able to say that it sees that ASIO acts lawfully and properly. Attorney, obviously you do not think they matter much either because after the committee reviewed that piece of legislation they made some recommendations in a report to you, some of which you picked up and others you could not be bothered with—well, it might not have been you; it might have been cabinet or ASIO, who knows who told you that some of the things were not a good idea.Let us not be under any silly misapprehension that the joint committee is there to see that this body acts lawfully and properly. It is not able to. It does not have the resources to and it does not get the information to. The Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security might be the person who can. One would hope that he has more information. He certainly has a lot more resources. I take very seriously, Attorney, your statement in the third paragraph of your second reading speech where you said:. . . I have in mind that it is no simple or easy thing to achieve a balance between the rights of individual persons and the preservation of national security . . .However, I would hope that we would not be taking up your second last paragraph where you try to suggest that the joint committee is there to ensure lawful and proper operations by this body. With the evidence that I have had as a member of that committee, we are neither in a position nor do we know enough to do that.In our report we said that we would like the organisation to talk to us about some of these agreements that they want to make with AUSTRAC and with the Commissioner of Taxation. We said that we would like to have an ongoing interest in the memoranda of understanding between both those two bodies. We have asked in both the recommendations that any revision or modifications to such memoranda be presented to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Australian Security Intelligence Organization for consideration before coming into effect. I hope, Mr Attorney, that you will agree with that. I do not think we have yet heard whether you do. The answer to that might show what little, if any, oversight responsibility or ability there is for the committee to show that this organisation acts lawfully and properly.I think we should be very wary of giving any organisation the right to effect entry to computers when it is put forward in legislation that they can then add, alter or amend the information in that computer, even if that is about the organisation being able to get in and get out without anyone knowing. It is in the minds of a number of people who gave evidence to the committee that other things could occur in the entry to those computers. I guess a lot of those things are sometimes driven by popular culture. Anyone who likes these sorts of conspiracy based movies will know that Gene Hackman has been in a couple of famous ones which have raised this topic.Of course, the people from ASIO would say, `How silly, how stupid; fancy saying that in a speech in the parliament!'. But when you have secret organisations you have to, as the Attorney-General said, not only balance people's rights but also ensure that people have confidence that their rights are being protected. People who draw their information from popular culture need to be reassured that, when we give these sorts of additional powers to a security organisation, those powers will be used properly. It is not good enough to say that the tax commissioner has these powers or the police have these powers. There is something else in the minds of people about the role of security organisations that they do not see in the role of the tax commissioner and ordinary police.My colleague the president of the upper house in New South Wales feels that she probably kept a whole branch of government gainfully employed for about 20 years keeping files on her. I suppose if ASIO were able to say that they had looked through their files and they could not find a word about her, that would really diminish her view of her importance in the world, and that would be a terrible thing for her. But while there are some rogue elements out there—the New South Wales special branch was one of those in the past; elements of ASIS broke into a hotel in Melbourne and created mayhem some years ago—you have a concern on the part of people and, maybe unfairly, in the minds of the people from ASIO that there has to be even more scrutiny of secret organisations than of organisations that have a lot more public transparency in what they do.I found myself during the committee's hearings, probably much to the concern of both him and me, being of the same view as Senator MacGibbon on a matter. I suppose if someone said outside of here that MacGibbon and I agreed on anything, we would probably both jointly sue that person. It would be a terrible thing for our reputations for anyone to think that I had the same view as MacGibbon and for anyone to think that MacGibbon had the same view as me. But on the issue of the power of ASIO to enter into computers we both had the same concern. If the concern could stretch that far across the spectrum in this building, it was obviously reasonably well founded. Maybe MacGibbon and I are the two most paranoid people here, but I do not think so. But that could be an argument that is put forward.MG4LEEMr Lee—You are only paranoid because everyone is against you.4I4McLeay, Leo, MPMr LEO McLEAY—No, I know they are all against me, because I am all against them. It is reasonable that we should provide a little more scrutiny than has been done. It is reasonable that there should be a healthy concern about allowing security organisations more powers. That is what this bill does: it allows this organisation more power than it had. I am particularly and personally concerned that the Attorney might be trying to get around—not on purpose—the wrong view that somehow or another this committee is going to save you from ASIO. Well, it ain't, and even if it wanted to, it couldn't. So if there are any sins in this, Attorney, they are yours, not ours.I join with the member for Denison in saying that, while you are the minister responsible for this organisation, we are more than confident that you will do what is right and proper to ensure that only things that can be properly and lawfully done are done. But while we are giving this power to an organisation that is under the control of a decent and benign person, it might not be as easy if it is under the control of someone who is not as decent or benign.I would be interested to hear if the Attorney-General is willing to give sufficient powers to the ASIO committee to do the role that he has told the world in his second reading speech we can do. I have taken him quite seriously and see my role as a member of the joint committee as being charged by you to ensure that ASIO acts lawfully and properly. I just hope that the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security will have more success than we might ever have been able to achieve.12:58:008393Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—in reply—I commend honourable members who have contributed to the debate on the Australian Secruty Intelligence Organisation Legislation Amendment Bill 1999, being the member for Barton, the member for Fadden, the member for Isaacs, the member for Corangamite, the member for Denison, the member for Grey and the member for Watson. I would like to thank them for their generally bipartisan and supportive approach to the bill and for their constructive remarks. I also particularly want to thank the Parliamentary Joint Committee on ASIO for its fair and constructive report on the bill. I have written to the presiding member of the committee, the member for Fadden, advising him of the government's response to the committee's recommendations. The government has accepted all but one of the committee recommendations.There is also one further recommendation not related to the content of the bill which will require further examination. As recommended by the committee, the government has prepared a supplementary explanatory memorandum which makes it clear that the amendments to section 25 are not intended to weaken the test to be applied in issuing a search warrant. In response to another recommendation by the committee I obtained advice that the original form of words in the bill would not allow ASIO to add, delete or alter data in a target computer except for the purposes of gaining access to the computer. In addition, the explanatory memorandum has been amended to make this clear.I have also agreed with the committee's recommendations that the three relevant memoranda of understanding—that is, between the Director-General of ASIO and the Commissioner of Taxation; between the Director-General and the Director of the Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre, AUSTRAC; and between the Director of AUSTRAC and the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security—will be referred to the committee before they come into effect. Finally, the government has agreed to the committee's recommendation that the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security should report annually to the Attorney-General and the Leader of the Opposition on the frequency with which ASIO recovers listening and tracking devices outside normal warrant periods. There are several points raised in debate by individual members to which I want to make reference. The member for Isaacs said that ASIO has had access to tax information in the past and that the tax commissioner has refused a number of ASIO requests for tax information. I am advised by ASIO that it has not had access to tax information in the past. I am advised that the secrecy provisions in the tax legislation would prevent such access and there have been no ASIO requests for tax information. There has been no communication of tax information by the Australian Taxation Office to ASIO and therefore there have been no refused requests. I understand the member for Denison—I was not here at the time—expressed confidence in me as the minister responsible for ASIO, and I understood the member for Watson to do something similar. I express my gratitude for those expressions of confidence. I take it to reflect the air of bipartisanship that has pervaded in relation to this bill. The member for Watson referred to the second reading speech I gave on the bill. I take it the particular passage he referred to is where I said:I also remind the House of the mechanisms available to ministers and the parliament to ensure that ASIO acts lawfully and properly, including the parliamentary joint committee and the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security.In saying that, I was and I still am acutely conscious of the differing roles of the IGIS and PJC. The IGIS has direct access to significant information in relation to ASIO operations, but the PJC does not. However, the PJC has an important role to play. It is a committee which has the capacity to inquire into matters other than current operations and it has the capacity to deal with any report by the IGIS. The fact that the PJC has not in recent years had much to do is reflected in the IGIS reports where there have been very few complaints lodged with ASIO and those that have been lodged have been satisfactorily resolved on the IGIS report. That is a situation that I hope reflects reality. It is a situation that I hope will continue. In the course of debate a number of members, including the member for Watson, highlighted the concern of members and the public in conferring highly intrusive coercive powers on an organisation that operates effectively in secret. I assure the House and, through the House, the Australian public that the government is acutely conscious of that. In formulating this bill, it has taken into account the need to strike an appropriate balance between the protection of high public interests on the one hand and the protection of individual private interests on the other hand. I believe this is an important bill. It represents the first substantial overhaul of the ASIO Act since 1986. ASIO has crucial responsibilities for national security, and the government has a duty to review the adequacy of its powers to carry out these responsibilities. The amendments do not involve an unreasonable or inappropriate extension of ASIO's powers. Rather, the bill will enhance ASIO's ability to carry out its statutory responsibilities in sensible and balanced ways: for example, by allowing ASIO to make better use of modern technology.In other areas the amendments do no more than give ASIO access to certain information already available to Commonwealth and state law enforcement agencies. Not only are the proposals reasonable in themselves but also there are effective safeguards. Additional special powers given to ASIO will normally be exercisable only under a warrant issued by the responsible minister.The Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security will ensure that warrant provisions are rigorously followed. The bill expressly extends the authority of the inspector-general to carry out periodic inspections of ASIO and other intelligence agencies. Other existing safeguards, including scrutiny by a dedicated parliamentary joint committee, will continue to apply. I believe that the bill achieves the right balance between the community's expectations that ASIO can operate with full and adequate powers and that civil liberties will be properly protected. I commend the bill to the House.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.8394Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.13:05:008394McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLANDJK6BartonALP00—by leave—I move opposition amendments Nos 1 and 2:(1) Schedule 1, item 16, page 7 (lines 10 to 16), omit paragraph 25(5)(a), substitute: "(a) where there is reasonable cause to believe that data relevant to the security matter may be accessible by using a computer or other electronic equipment found on the subject premises—using the computer or other electronic equipment for the purpose of obtaining access to any such data and, if necessary to achieve that purpose, adding, deleting or altering other data in the computer or other electronic equipment;"(2) Schedule 1, item 16, page 9 (lines 16 to 24), omit paragraph 25A(4)(a), substitute: "(a) using: (i) a computer; or (ii) a telecommunications facility operated or provided by the Commonwealth or a carrier; or (iii) any other electronic equipment; for the purpose of obtaining access to data that is relevant to the security matter and is stored in the target computer and, if necessary to achieve that purpose, adding, deleting or altering other data in the target computer;".I should indicate at the outset that, in the spirit of good faith, the Attorney-General has indicated that the government will accept these amendments. They are relatively minor in wording and are more for the purpose of avoiding apprehension rather than the stated intention of the government through the bill and the explanatory memorandum. They relate to the sensitive issue that has occurred and been noted in the debate regarding access to data held on a computer via a remote terminal. The current wording of proposed section 25(5)(a) as contained in the bill would enable an authorised ASIO officer to obtain access to a computer for reaching the target material and it specifies `to assist in that purpose, adding, deleting or altering other data in the computer or other electronic equipment'.We say that the broadness of that language to assist in that purpose has given rise to concern and is not necessary. So we are proposing to replace those words with the words `if necessary to achieve that purpose'. We acknowledge the legitimate interest of ASIO in obtaining access to its target data and we also acknowledge that it may be necessary to alter, to some degree, information stored on that computer for the purpose of, firstly, gaining access to the target data but, secondly, gaining access in a comprehensive form by, for instance, deciphering any encrypted information. We believe, and I think the government accepts, that our amendment will still enable them to do that when the purpose is to reach that target data rather than the broader test of `to assist'.That reasoning also applies to replacing similar wording in current proposed section 25A(4)(a). Again, the same reasoning applies. We do not question that that was always the intention of the bill, but we think our amendment confirms the intention and should substantially put to rest any concerns that members of the public or this House have expressed.13:09:008395Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—The amendments moved by the member for Barton on behalf of the opposition would in effect make two changes to the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Legislation Amendment Bill 1999 . The first change actually mirrors an amendment that the government had intended to move today. Hence my reference to a supplementary explanatory memorandum, which I will refer to later.Concerns were raised during the inquiry into the bill by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Security Intelligence Organization about the scope of the proposed authority for ASIO to modify computer data under a search warrant issued under proposed section 25 or a computer access warrant issued under proposed section 25A. The committee agreed that it is appropriate that the warrant provisions allow ASIO to modify data in a target computer to the extent necessary to gain access to relevant data stored on a computer. However, in accordance with the committee's recommendations, the government reviewed the wording of the provisions identified by the committee to ensure that those provisions could not be interpreted as allowing computer data to be interfered with for some other purpose—for example, to plant evidence. The government received advice from the Australian Government Solicitor that the form of words in the bill would allow ASIO only to modify data for the purpose of accessing data that is relevant to security.Nonetheless, to address the committee's concerns, the government decided to make an amendment to proposed section 25A. The amendment would have added the word `other' before data in the penultimate line of paragraph 25A(4)(a). This reference to `other data' would provide additional clarification that the provision does not allow ASIO to modify the target data and makes paragraph 25A(4)(a) consistent with paragraph 25(5)(a). I am pleased to see that the opposition's amendment to proposed section 25A has picked up the amendment that the government proposed. Accordingly, the government will not be moving its amendment to proposed section 25A. The second change to the bill that would be made by the opposition's amendments does not, in my opinion, add anything of substance to the bill. The opposition's amendments would allow the minister to authorise ASIO to modify data if necessary to achieve access. The intention appears to be to impose a stricter test in relation to authorising ASIO to modify computer data under a search warrant or under a computer access warrant. ASIO will need to use the power to modify protection mechanisms only if they are present in a target computer. If they are not present, it will be unnecessary to use the authority. While the government considers this aspect of the opposition's amendments to be ineffectual in practice, the amendments do not interfere with the intended operation of the relevant provisions. Consequently, the government has decided to accept the opposition's amendments to assist timely passage of this important legislation. Notwithstanding that we are not moving the government amendment that was foreshadowed, I table a document which bears the title `Supplementary explanatory memorandum'. Its role is not in the true sense as a supplementary explanatory memorandum—the purpose for which it was brought into existence was in relation to the amendment—but it does contain some responses to the committee to which I have referred in my reply to the second reading speech. On that basis I table the document for the information of members.13:12:008396McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLANDJK6BartonALP00—We agree it is appropriate that the government table the supplementary explanatory memorandum, which reaffirms the intention of the legislation. In this modern day and age, I suppose, people focus on the security of electronic communications, and anything that can be done to achieve a feeling of security will I think enhance the public's understanding of the role of ASIO and appreciation of the activities that they undertake.We would also like to express our appreciation to the government for the way it has approached this issue. It has acted appropriately and responsibly in respect of an issue which could have been the source of some controversy. By undertaking the parliamentary inquiry process, it has enabled not only the opposition but also government members to express their concerns and, more importantly, it has enabled the community to be involved. That aspect was commented on by the chair of the committee in his speech earlier. The role of the committee process, particularly in these controversial areas, is important because it facilitates a form of participatory democracy whereby legislation itself is subject to the scrutiny of the public and interest groups before it is passed. That, as I have said, is particularly important in a controversial area.The more that the committee process can develop to such a point that the input of the public is received, the more and more people are going to have faith in our parliamentary system. For instance, by enabling members of the public—ordinary citizens—to come along and attend and give evidence before the committee, it enables them to have their say equally as much as any professional lobby organisation or any wealthy corporation. I think it is accepted that, traditionally, those organisations have had the ear of government. But the reality is that, if public faith in the administration of this parliament is going to be achieved, it is important that members of the public have the opportunity that they had in respect of this bill.Amendments agreed to.Bill, as amended, agreed to.8396Bill (on motion by Mr Williams)—by leave—read a third time.Bills8396r7798396Debate resumed from 30 March, on motion by Mr Ruddock:That the bill be now read a second time. 13:17:008397Melham, Daryl, MPMr MELHAM4T4BanksALP00—The Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill (No. 2), which is before the House, seeks to amend the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 in two parts. Firstly, it seeks to invalidate the deed of grant executed under section 12 of the act in favour of the Gurungu Land Trust to the extent that it included that area of land described as the Elliott stockyards land. Secondly, it seeks to allow the disposal of Aboriginal land claims where the Aboriginal Land Commissioner is unable to find any traditional Aboriginal owners of the land; the claims are over stock routes or stock reserves; and the claim was made after 5 June 1997, the date set for the expiration of the period for making land claims—the sunset clause.The opposition will be opposing the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1999 because we have fundamental problems with specific details of the bill and the general policy process. We believe the government has been too anxious in introducing this amendment bill before the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs has finished scrutinising the review of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act. The second reading speech of the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs creates the fiction that this amendment bill corrects a minor error and makes a few technical changes to the act. In reality, this bill will considerably change the working of the act and potentially cause injustice to traditional owners and claimants.I would like to deal with the issue of the Elliott stockyards and its history first. The explanatory memorandum to the bill claims that the bill:would remedy an administrative error which occurred in 1991 when the deed of grant executed in favour of the Gurungu Land Trust was stated to include a portion of land [the Elliott stockyards] containing public trucking yards and a public dip facility.Whilst there is an argument that that portion of the grant was an error, the fact remains that the Gurungu Land Trust was given legal title to the land in 1994, whether in error or not.There is considerable history associated with this portion of land. Initially the traditional owners resisted any attempt to surrender the land in question. It was part of their traditional lands, the stockyards are next to important ceremonial grounds, and the operation of the stockyards raised serious health and safety issues for the nearby Aboriginal community. However, after subsequent meetings with the affected parties—being the Commonwealth, the Northern Territory government, the Northern Land Council and the Northern Territory Cattlemen's Association—the traditional owners agreed that surrender of the land could be possible if certain health and safety concerns were resolved and implemented. Amongst these health concerns was the proposal to build a screen of trees to keep flies, disease and stench from the stockyards away from the Aboriginal community nearby.In 1995 the Northern Territory government drew up an agreement to cover remedies for these concerns in return for the surrender of the stockyards by the Gurungu Land Trust. The agreement was initially signed by the Territory government and the Northern Land Council but was found by the Commonwealth—which refused to sign it—to be legally deficient. The agreement to be drawn up by the Territory government would have exposed the Commonwealth to liability and did not protect the position of the traditional owners. The Northern Land Council sought further legal advice, which described the agreement as `badly drafted and incapable of providing legal protection for the position of traditional owners'. The only part of the agreement that would have been legally enforceable was the surrender of the Elliott stockyards back to the Territory.The Northern Land Council withdrew from the unexecuted agreement, and on 10 April 1996 presented a new draft agreement to the Territory. The new agreement was in accordance with the Commonwealth's previous legal advice. In addition to the surrender of land, it included enforceable covenants ensuring health measures, such as the burial of carcass es and the reduction of odour and dust from the stockyards' workings. It also included safety measures for children and provision that traditional ceremony on the nearby ceremonial ground would not be disturbed during the Christmas period.The land council received neither a response nor acknowledgment of receipt from the Northern Territory government concerning the new draft agreement. In May 1996 the Territory requested assistance from the new Commonwealth Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs, Senator Herron. Senator Herron replied that the issue should be resolved by agreement between the Territory and the Northern Land Council. He also stated that it would be inappropriate for the Commonwealth or ATSIC to provide funds for a privacy screen of trees rather than the users of the stockyard or the Territory.The Northern Land Council requested that the minister reconsider his decision, but I am advised that they have never received any response. Subsequently, meetings were held with ATSIC during 1997. ATSIC, as I understand, is prepared to fund the creation of a privacy screen of trees.So here we have the Northern Land Council, on behalf of the Gurungu Land Trust, making every reasonable effort to see that an acceptable agreement is reached between the land trust and the Northern Territory government and the Cattlemen's Association. Despite the Northern Territory government's attempt to have a sham agreement which gave it everything it wanted without protecting the rights of traditional owners, the land council continued to negotiate and forwarded a new agreement which protected the rights of all parties. But the Northern Territory government, in true form to its consistent opposition to the land councils, refused to even acknowledge receipt of the agreement.So we have the Northern Territory government up to its usual tricks in refusing to negotiate and the Northern Land Council negotiating in good faith. What is the contribution of the Commonwealth minister to this situation? I am disappointed because, first, he refuses to get involved, stating that the best result would be a negotiated outcome—I agree with that—but he needs to play a part in the negotiated outcome. That is what I am disappointed in. I know he does not want to, but I believe he has a role of playing honest broker in this matter. And I think he can do that, with goodwill. I think he needs to do that for the Territory government. The minister will have our support in relation to this matter.We have just had a fairly contentious review, at the beginning, in terms of the land rights act, and the committee has worked well together. We are considering that report, and I do not want to breach the privilege of the committee. The minister and I, prior to the election, reached an agreement that we would have a review of the land rights act. We took the politics out of that review, and we have seen changes. I note that the chairman of the House of Representatives committee is in the chamber and is due to speak. I am sure that he will confirm that there was goodwill from the minister and me, and that has been generated through the committee. And we are hopefully going to produce a very productive report. I repeat: I am limited in what I can say, because I do not want to breach the privilege of the committee, but that is where the minister has acted as an honest broker. When we started the process, people were at loggerheads and confused and there were misconceptions. But I think at the end of our reporting process all members of the committee learnt a lot—me included, as the shadow minister. I do want to commend the chair, because the public record shows that we had a few harsh words to say at the beginning of that inquiry. But it changed. What happened was that we all grew as a result of that experience. I think the minister does have a part to play here in bringing the Territory government back to the table to negotiate in good faith.The minister then introduced the bill into the House that hands the Northern Territory government everything it desires and leaves traditional owners without protection from the serious health and safety concerns surrounding the Elliott stockyards. Instead of trying to facilitate a negotiated outcome or acting as a non-partisan mediator, sadly the Common wealth minister has waded into this debate firmly on the side of the Northern Territory government. This is my disappointment, because not only has the minister worked against his professed preferred outcome but he seems to be sanctioning the constant obstructionism of the Territory government to any progress on indigenous issues in the Northern Territory.That is why, in many respects, this symbolism is important as to why we are opposing this bill, because we cannot have this continued division between the government and the land councils. They need to get on with business, and the best way to do that is for the Commonwealth to be acting—hopefully we will when our report comes out—as an honest broker between the land councils and the Northern Territory government. That is why, on this piece of legislation, the Labor Party is adopting the position that it is. It is sending a message; it is saying, `Look, go back, get your house in order on this and of course we will tick you off,' and that is the way it should be, `and we will give you the approval.'There still exists very good prospects for a negotiated outcome to this dispute. That is what I am advised. In the hearings of the Senate Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee on this bill, a proposal came forward for the Cattlemen's Association that operates the stockyards to enter into a lease with the Gurungu Land Trust, conditional on the provision of the safety, health and ceremonial concerns mentioned. At those committee hearings, the Cattlemen's Association expressed no objection to this leasing proposal. Negotiation has always been the preferred method of the Gurungu Land Trust and the Northern Land Council. There is a way forward that the Commonwealth minister should be promoting, making the inclusion of the Elliott stockyards in this bill unnecessary.By introducing this bill, the minister is pre-empting any agreement by compulsorily acquiring the land in question. There is no need for haste, as both the Northern Territory government and the Cattlemen's Association have agreed that the operation of the Elliott stockyards has not been affected since the Gurungu Land Trust held title to the land. Not only is this acquisition an extreme measure but also it is a dangerously novel one. This is the first time that the Commonwealth has ever attempted to compulsorily acquire Aboriginal land. The bill would create an unacceptable precedent. It may have implications under the Racial Discrimination Act 1975. Perhaps more importantly is that the perception and the reality would be that this bill firmly places the Commonwealth on the side of the Territory in its aspiration for non-consensual access to Aboriginal land. Consensual access has always been available, with governments and authorities obtaining leases, or surrenders where appropriate, of Aboriginal land.Our nation's history is full of public and private interests ignoring the rights of Aboriginal people to their land, of Aboriginal people being moved on from their homes, of other interests using traditional Aboriginal land for their own profit and comfort. One would have thought that we as a nation had matured and turned the corner on dispossessing indigenous Australians. Near the turn of the new millennium, most of us are working hard towards a lasting reconciliation between indigenous and non-indigenous Australians—and that includes people across the political spectrum. It seems that this government at times is more preoccupied with excluding indigenous Australians from the negotiating table—we are seeing that happening in relation to the preamble, and I will have more to say about that at another stage—and taking extreme measures to curry favour with a conservative government in the Northern Territory. The fact is that there is no need for this compulsory acquisition of land, possibly at all and certainly while there is still hope of a negotiated outcome. That is what we should be working towards.Even though the Commonwealth is attempting to compulsorily acquire land, the Commonwealth minister has been parsimonious at best in terms of compensation. Most Australians whose land is compulsorily acquired by the Commonwealth are automatically entitled to just terms compensation, but not the traditional owners of the Elliott stockyards. While this bill provides for an avenue to just terms compensation, it is not automatic as in other cases and the traditional owners would have to engage in lengthy and expensive litigation if they wanted to access this compensation.If the applicants for compensation were successful, the Cattlemen's Association has estimated that `an indicative figure to replace the existing facility is approximately $1.5 million'. The cost of such litigation, combined with the estimated value of compensation for the facility, would be considerably more than the cost to the Commonwealth of implementing a negotiated agreement including indigenous health and safety concerns. So what we have got here is an attitude problem where at the end of the day, instead of there being a win-win situation, everyone is the loser.It is ironic that this Commonwealth minister, who is actively preventing any further progress of such an agreement that would improve the health of local indigenous people, is quite prepared to claim that this government is committed to improving indigenous health. It seems that this commitment is reliant on the acquiescence of the Northern Territory government.The compulsory acquisition of Aboriginal land contained in this bill is impractical, illogical, unnecessary and a complete withdrawal by the Commonwealth government from its responsibility to indigenous Australians. The groundwork for a consensual agreement on the Elliott stockyards already exists and the Commonwealth minister should be pursuing that course rather than this ridiculous bill.This bill's ineptitude does not end with its treatment of the Elliott stockyards. The minister has also included three new situations in which claims under the act may be disposed of. At present, section 76A of the act states that land under claim cannot be dealt with or alienated by the Northern Territory government until such a claim is `finally disposed of'. That section also states the situation in which a claim may be `finally disposed of', which happens when the claim is withdrawn, the Governor-General grants the relevant land under section 12, the Aboriginal Land Commissioner finds that there are no traditional Aboriginal owners of the land, and the minister decides not to recommend a grant in land despite a positive finding of the Aboriginal Land Commissioner.This amendment bill will add three new situations in which claims may be `finally disposed of' under section 67A. These criteria for which land claims may be disposed are vitally important because, once a land claim is disposed of, the Northern Territory government may alienate that land from crown land, which land would then no longer be subject to the act. The opposition has problems with each of the additional situations provided for in this bill for the disposition of land claims.The first addition in this bill is when `the Commissioner is unable to make a finding that there are Aboriginals who are the traditional Aboriginal owners of the area of land'. Currently, the act provides that a land claim is not finally disposed of if the Aboriginal Land Commissioner informs the minister that there are no traditional landowners. While this provision may appear at first innocuous, there may be instances beyond the control of any party in a land claim where there is a shortfall of evidence at present. The claim would then be finally disposed of, and the Territory government would be empowered to alienate the land from crown land and thus from claimability in the future.During the committee's hearings, the Northern Land Council and the Central Land Council made a submission stating that there were several reasons why a land commissioner might not be able to find traditional owners. During those hearings the Aboriginal Land Commissioner acknowledged that this was quite true and that not all evidence may be available or known at the time of the hearing. Under this amendment, such a claim would be disposed of if evidence was unavailable or other circumstances prevented the Aboriginal Land Commissioner from finding traditional owners. Despite any evidence being found in the future in relation to the presence of traditional owners, their claim could not be established because the original claim had been disposed of. When the claim was finally disposed of, the Territory govern ment would be able to alienate the land and thus remove it from claimability under subsection 50(1) of the act. The potential is there in this amendment for injustice to traditional owners of the land.To illustrate the potential for such injustice to traditional Aboriginal owners, there has in fact been a successful claim under the act that could have been invalidated if this amendment had been in place at the time. The Urrpantyenye (Repeat) Land Claim was listed for scheduling under schedule 1 of the act in an amendment bill which passed through this House on 10 December last year, eventually giving title to the Eastern Arrernte people for whom the Central Land Council had handled the claim. However, the area of the Urrpantyenye claim was originally included in the Simpson Desert Land Claim No. 126. This land claim was not recommended by the Aboriginal Land Commissioner for grant, one reason being the isolation of the area and the difficulty of access, which prevented proper investigation of the claim. In other words, the Aboriginal Land Commissioner could not find traditional Aboriginal owners but this did not mean that traditional owners did not exist.Following this finding by the Aboriginal Land Commissioner, the Northern Territory government purported to grant a crown lease perpetual over the area to the Northern Territory Land Corporation, in October 1991. In December of that year, the Urrpantyenye claim was launched. Hearing this claim in 1995, the then Aboriginal Land Commissioner, Justice Gray, found that the grant of lease was invalid under section 67A of the act because the earlier Simpson Desert Land Claim No. 125 had not been `finally disposed of' as defined by the act. Therefore, the alienation of the land from crown land by the granting of the crown lease perpetual was invalid. The Urrpantyenye land claim proceeded and was eventually settled by agreement between the involved parties. If the current amendment had been in place, the Urrpantyenye land claim would not have been possible and the Eastern Arrernte people would have suffered the injustice of not being in possession of their traditional lands.The second provision which this bill adds to section 67A is the final disposition of a claim if the application was made after 5 June 1997, commonly known as a sunset clause of the act. A sunset clause prevents the commissioner from fulfilling any function in relation to a claim lodged after 5 June 1997. This amendment would finally dispose of such claims.There is argument that there was never a legislative intention to prevent such claims for all time. The workings of the act allow for this subsection dealing with the sunset clause to be repealed at any time, if that was the desired effect. No applications for such claims have been lodged since 5 June 1997; therefore, there is no practical need for this amendment at present, as the administration of land in the Northern Territory is unaffected.The inclusion of this clause is bad legislative process. The Reeves review, which is currently the subject of inquiry by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs, has recommendations in regard to the sunset clause. Parties, including ATSIC, have put forward proposals to have it removed in case legitimate claims could be made in the future. These issues should not be precipitately resolved before the committee has taken account of the views of all stakeholders and made its recommendations.The third provision which this bill adds to section 67A is that a claim is finally disposed of if subsection 50(2D) applies to the application. This subsection prevents the Aboriginal Land Commissioner from performing the function in relation to claims that involve a stock route or stock reserve. This amendment bill would finally dispose of these claims.Stockyards and stock routes were, and still are, important to indigenous Australians, especially to those whose traditional land has been completely swallowed by grants of interest in land, such as pastoral leases, before the act came into operation. As crown land was the only claimable land under the act, the stockyards and routes were often the only remnants of traditional lands left that were claimable under the act. The Commonwealth was prepared to exclude stockyards and routes from claim under the act if the Northern Territory government introduced legislation to allow indigenous Australians whose land had been alienated by grants of interest to make claim to community living areas.In 1987, the Commonwealth passed legislation limiting Aboriginal claims to stock routes and reserves following the Northern Territory government's introduction of administrative guidelines in 1985 for the grant of community living areas to traditional owners. Under these Commonwealth amendments, contained in section 50(2D), the Aboriginal Land Commissioner could not hear land claims involving stock routes and stock reserves, although the legislation did not dispose of such claims. However, the proclamation of the key provisions of the Commonwealth's amendments were withheld because there were unsatisfactory aspects of the Territory's guidelines.Negotiations continued until a memorandum of agreement was reached between the Northern Territory and the Commonwealth about stock route claims and living areas. The agreement provided for the Commonwealth proclamation of subsection 50(2D) in return for the Territory acting upon its guarantee to provide for a system for Aboriginal claims in pastoral areas. The Northern Territory subsequently enacted legislation that allowed the excision of Aboriginal community living areas on land containing pastoral leases in 1989.The Commonwealth subsequently proclaimed the 1987 amendments, which came into effect from 1 March 1990. Prior to this proclamation, the Commonwealth amended the act to allow the grant of certain existing claims covering stock routes to traditional owners. In return, traditional owners withdrew other claims over stock routes. These proclaimed amendments did not involve the final disposition of claims over stock routes, and there was no legislative intention to do so.Problems remained between the Northern Territory government and the Commonwealth regarding the disposure of land claims on stock routes and the need to expedite grants of land to Aboriginal people under the Territory's community living areas legislation. The Northern Territory's legislation was thought to be inadequate, and slow in process ing claims for community living areas. The Commonwealth and the Northern Territory entered into another agreement in 1995 which provided for the Commonwealth amending the act to provide for the final disposition of claims over stock routes. In return, the Northern Territory would adopt Commonwealth proposals for improving and streamlining the processes of the Community Living Areas Tribunal under the Territory's Pastoral Land Act 1992.There is a further history but I will not go into it. But I think that members of this chamber need to hear what was said by legislators who passed this act into law, and that their comments are incorporated into the record. Former Prime Minister Fraser and his colleagues wrote:We were in the Parliament that introduced and passed the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976.We all voted for the passage of the Act.The Act has worked well and has brought benefits to the Aboriginal people of the Northern Territory.Changes proposed by the recommendations of Reeves, QC. would centralise control of Aboriginal lands in an authority appointed and controlled by the Northern Territory and Commonwealth Governments and take away title now vested in land trusts for the traditional owners.We believe that the Act should not be amended in ways which ignore traditional property rights of established traditional owners or which remove legal protections which allow these rights to be enjoyed.That was signed, in a letter dated 17 July 1999, by former Prime Minister Fraser, along with former Aboriginal affairs ministers Viner, Chaney, Baume and Wilson. I think the words are still applicable. They are not the words of the opposition but of those on the other side of politics.It is illustrative of the fact that it is this government which has moved away from bipartisanship in Aboriginal affairs in this country. It is this government which has sought to use indigenous issues in a base political way to score points or to reward their supporters. It is this government which is seeking to amend the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 without the consent of Aboriginal people. The opposition will be opposing the bill.13:43:008403Lieberman, Lou, MPMr LIEBERMANXU5IndiLP10—I will make a somewhat restrained response because of the unusual position in which I find myself, being Chairman of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs. At this very moment I am in the process of deliberating with my committee colleagues, including the shadow minister, on our draft report, so I will try to ensure that I do not say anything in my speech today to infringe the good practices of the parliament in relation to committees considering reports.If ever I have seen a case where politics gets in the way of resolving a problem this surely is one, and I think the facts speak for themselves. Let me briefly reiterate my understanding of the facts. This bill is designed to overcome a problem because of a conveyancing error. Land, a stockyard, was transferred by error. That transfer occurred in 1990 or thereabouts. It was called the Elliott stockyards. In other words, the stockyards were never intended to be included in the Aboriginal land but they were due to a conveyancing error by the parties who were acting for the parties involved in this matter.Without wanting to get too political—but it is a matter of historical record—the then minister, Mr Tickner, from the Labor Party then in government, publicly announced and wrote letters saying that this error had to be rectified. The conveyancing error, wrongly including the land in the transfer, would have to be rectified. Paraphrasing some of the correspondence that I have been privy to having a summary of, he said that the will of the parliament would have to prevail if necessary.Furthermore, the previous distinguished minister for Aboriginal affairs, the Hon. Clyde Holding, a good friend and very good minister in my view, one who was previously a member of the parliament and of the committee with me and a great help to me because of his extensive experience, went further. On behalf of the Labor government when he was minister, he legislated an amendment to the Northern Territory Aborigi nal Lands Act to exclude stock routes from being able to be considered by a land commissioner for inclusion in the inalienable fee simple title for Aboriginal people of crown land in the Northern Territory.It was the former Labor government which ensured by passing laws that stock routes would not be able to be considered by the land commissioners—who are, of course, federal judges, as honourable members will know. It was the previous Labor government that laid out this law which is still the law of the land. Furthermore, it is beyond dispute—it is common ground—from everyone's point of view that the transfer of land was made in error. It was contrary to the law, it was never intended to be conveyed, and it was transferred in error.Those are the bald facts as I understand them. That is why the current minister and the present government are correct in producing and introducing into parliament legislation to remedy those problems and to restore the position to that which the Labor government previously has provided as the law of the land in the Northern Territory. So let us get that straight.As I said earlier somewhat cynically, politics gets in the way of a lot of things, and surely the debate we have heard so far is a classic illustration of that. Sadly, it is also a reflection of the concern that many of us feel on both sides of the House that effective reconciliation and effective, dramatic and dynamic remedies to the disadvantages of Aboriginal people are being hindered by politics getting in the way, by divisions being perpetuated to undermine the confidence of both non-Aboriginal and Aboriginal people about issues concerning the administration of Aboriginal land and surrounding land.This is a classic illustration of what is wrong with the mind-set. That is why I would like to take the opportunity to congratulate and commend the minister, John Herron, for his initiative in ensuring that the Reeves report into the Northern Territory Land Rights Act—enacted some 26 years ago following the royal commission recommendations of Woodward—should not be implemented or considered by the parliament or by the cabi net, the Prime Minister or the minister, until and if the committee of this parliament—the one that I am privileged at the moment to chair—has been to the Northern Territory and asked the people of the Northern Territory, the Aboriginal people particularly, what they think about the Reeves recommendations. That should be noted and the minister should be commended for his approach in ensuring that the interests of Aboriginal people and their concerns are taken into account before government policy is finalised on the Reeves recommendations, or indeed any other recommendations.As a practical bloke from the bush, my own view is that this whole impasse could be resolved if this legislation were passed because it does what Mr Tickner, the former Labor minister, said had to happen following the error, which is common ground. It follows Clyde Holding's policy which this parliament accepted by an amendment by ensuring that stock routes are not included in Aboriginal freehold land in the Northern Territory. It does all that and it ensures that if there are any rights to compensation those rights are protected. That is, if compensatable claims can be established because of this whole sorry background of error in the previous government's jurisdiction, it ensures that anyone who would suffer loss under the Australian Constitution has their rights preserved. So it puts that to rest and deals with all of that. It also opens a way for the resolution of other issues regarding the management of the environment under local government and environmental laws of the Northern Territory.As I understand it from the summary of facts that I have read, the Northern Territory government has given a firm commitment that it will introduce and enact complementary legislation in the Northern Territory, providing the mechanism by which the health and environmental issues of Aboriginal people living in this area near the Elliott stockyards can be protected. That has been an undertaking and I believe it was confirmed to the Senate committee of inquiry into this legislation. Therefore, as I said earlier, my own view is that the legislation should no longer be delayed. I believe that the proclamation of this legislation should be concurrent with the proclamation of the appropriate Northern Territory legislation. That is the safeguard, and what it would do is to clarify the law. At the moment a strange anomaly exists in the legislation that Mr Holding introduced into this parliament, excluding the stockyards. I am not criticising Clyde Holding—I have already paid my tribute to him—but the parliamentary draftsmen apparently forgot, in enacting Mr Holding's recommendation that was endorsed by the government, and supported by both sides of parliament, I presume, to say that, as stockyards can no longer be included in Northern Territory Aboriginal land under that act, therefore claims for stockyards cannot be made. So we have the peculiar anomaly where there are a number of claims still on the books in the Northern Territory that cannot be dealt with because the land commissioner, the Federal Court judge, having jurisdiction to hear land claims under that act, cannot hear them because the law says that stockyards cannot be claimed.There are a number of currently unresolved claims for stock routes in the Northern Territory that cannot be dealt with because the judge has no jurisdiction. Why? Because this parliament, under the Labor government, said, `No, you can't have stock routes.' Therefore, we have this anomaly. John Herron is dealing with that and rectifying it.What is the public benefit of that? Let me give one example. Millions and millions of dollars of taxpayers' money have been spent over the last 25 years on litigation in the Northern Territory over land claims. That means that money that could have been spent addressing the health and other needs of Aboriginal people has been spent on expensive lawyers and anthropologists in court claims. That is not a good use of scarce taxpayer resources, and it is to the detriment of the Aboriginal people whose health and wellbeing is our primary concern. All of us, on both sides of the House, have that common goal.Here we have a number of unresolved legal matters in the Northern Territory which cost money, scarce resources, and they dissipate the money that is otherwise available to address health and other issues. This legislation has the effect of rectifying the unintended consequence, the anomaly, that arose from Clyde Holding's amendment in the Labor government some years ago.That is another good reason, from a public policy point of view, why this legislation should not be delayed any further. It is only my personal view, but it would be appropriate for the minister, who no doubt will take account of the debate in this House of Representatives, to consider delaying the proclamation of the law until such time as the Northern Territory parliament enacts the law that it has promised to proclaim. That will address effectively the concerns of the shadow minister, Mr Melham, about the environmental issues.That is the solution. That is what should happen. But no, politics once again intrudes and delays good public policy and delays the sensible decisions of a very good minister, John Herron. It does not protect or enhance the interests of Aboriginal citizens in the Northern Territory. It is just another blow to them.If we all had time to go up to this area and talk to the Aboriginal people who actually live in this part of the Northern Territory, including the traditional owners, including the Aboriginal residents who are non-traditional owners but nevertheless part of the community, then I would venture a suggestion to you that they would say, `Hang on, what are you white fellas talking about in your parliament? We just want the thing rectified.'I say that this legislation should go ahead. It should be enacted and the anomalies which developed during the previous Labor government, caused by the administration of the Labor government, by Mr Tickner and his administration, with the genesis coming from Mr Holding during his administration, should be addressed. John Herron should be commended for this and other very good initiatives on behalf of the Aboriginal people of Australia. I commend and encourage John Herron for his work and thank him for the effectiveness of his sound strategic decision making in the interests of Aboriginal people.13:58:008405Hoare, Kelly, MPMs HOARE83YCharltonALP00—As I have only got a moment or so before question time, I would like to foreshadow that I will be speaking after the MPI today on this bill before the parliament, the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1999 .Traditionally, amendment bills move forward and not backward. Traditionally, amendment bills strengthen policy areas and not weaken, attack and destroy areas of existing policy. In its usual dogmatic way, this government has seen fit to go the other way. It has used this amendment bill to weaken rather than strengthen land rights in the Northern Territory.Another example of amendment bills being used to weaken and attack and destroy traditional rights is the current workplace relations amendment bill before this parliament and due to be debated this week. The workplace relations amendment bill is a further attack aimed at weakening and destroying workers' traditional rights in this country. But that is another bill to be debated at another time in this place.I am pleased, though, to finally have the opportunity to speak against this land rights bill. This bill was introduced into the House of Representatives on 30 March 1999. Minister Ruddock in his second reading speech stated that this bill corrects an error made previously when the Elliott stockyards were included in schedule 1 of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory)Act.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 2 p.m., the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 101A. The debate may be resumed at a later hour, and the member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.Miscellaneous84058405Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—On the last day of the budget sittings, the honourable member for Cunningham asked me a number of questions about the Parliament House switchboard service. I undertook to seek advice and inform the House.Since 1990, Telstra has provided contract PABX and switchboard services, including operators, for Parliament House. Until May this year, Telstra used its own employees to provide those services but, at that time, outsourced its switchboard staffing to an external company, Kelly Services personnel. As part of the outsourcing arrangements, Telstra offered its permanent switchboard staff either redundancy packages and the likelihood of almost certain employment by Kelly Services or redeployment within Telstra. Kelly Services subsequently engaged almost all the formerly redundant Telstra switchboard operators working in Parliament House, with only two not redeployed. The former Telstra operators employed by Kelly Services were then supplemented by other staff employed by Kelly Services.Since the new outsourced arrangements were put in place by Telstra, there have been a number of complaints about the service provided by the switchboard operators. The complaints have related to inexperienced operators handling inquiries in an unsatisfactory manner due to their lack of knowledge of the procedures and their unfamiliarity with the occupants of the building.Even though Telstra has outsourced the switchboard operation, the company is still bound to the performance measures contained in its contract with the parliament. Those contracted performance measures have consistently been exceeded both before and after the outsourced arrangements were put in place. Further, there has always been an arrangement whereby experienced operators work alongside the new staff to ensure a pool of trained personnel is always on duty. This arrangement has continued since Kelly's have taken over the operation.Following the complaints, however, DPRS officers have met with Telstra and, as a result, additional training is being provided to the switchboard operators emphasising Parliament House procedures, the working of the parliament and the operations of the building. Both the additional and the basic training consist of one-to-one training and group sessions. The department is continuing to monitor the switchboard service and, with the additional training measures taken by Telstra, expects that the service will continue to be provided to very high levels.5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—I move:That the House take note of the statement.I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted; debate adjourned.Condolences840684068406Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I inform the House of the death on Monday, 9 August 1999, of John Mead Hallett, a member of this House for the division of Canning from 1963 to 1974. As a mark of respect to the memory of Mr Hallett, I invite honourable members to rise in their places.Honourable members having stood in their places—10000Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I thank the House.Questions Without Notice840684068406Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, did you sign a letter approving 16 projects under the Federation Cultural and Heritage Projects Program on the very day you went to Government House to call the election last year in the face of independent departmental advice that these projects had not met the criteria for approval under the program? Did not Ministers Hill and Alston intervene in the independent assessment process to ensure that these 16 projects made the cut, in complete contravention of the Auditor-General's guidelines on arms-length approval procedures for community grants programs? Further, why did you announce these projects during the election campaign against the rules applying to caretaker governments?8406Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I will check the records as to when I signed particular things. There is nothing unusual about announcing during an election campaign that, if you are re-elected, you will do something. I thought that was a fairly regular habit, and that is the general stance that I bring to these things. I am satisfied that the procedures that were fol lowed by the government in relation to these matters were appropriate.I note, incidentally, that there has been some sort of reference to the fact that there are a lot of projects that went to marginal seats on the coalition side. It so happens that, before the 1998 election, we held a lot of marginal seats by dint of the verdict in 1996. I remain satisfied that the correct procedures have been followed. If there is anything I need to add to what I have said I will do so in an appropriate way.84078407Jull, David, MPMr JULLMH4FaddenLP10—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. In light of the latest data, does the Treasurer stand by the budget forecast of three per cent growth for 1999-2000, and will the Treasurer inform the House of the outlook for the economy for the next year?8407Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I thank the honourable member for Fadden for his question. As honourable members would know, during the year to the end of the March quarter this year the Australian economy grew at 4.8 per cent, one of the highest growth rates of any developed country in the world and the highest growth rate in the Asia-Pacific region. Yesterday, the National Australia Bank monthly survey showed that business conditions strengthened further to reach the highest level since the monthly survey began in 1997. Notwithstanding that, during 1999-2000 we would expect some slowdown on a 4.8 per cent growth rate, more to levels we have seen in the United States—in the threes rather than in the fours. However, we expect that as the world economy picks up there will be a pick-up in the first part of calendar year 2000, that is, the second part of the financial year.Following the very strong growth in the last two years, the government expects that consumption growth will remain solid in 1999-2000, which will be supported by growing employment, incomes, wealth and low interest rates. We believe that the weak international environment over 1997-98 will have some effect on business investment. Investment is expected to ease somewhat in 1999-2000. This comes after six years of strong growth which has carried business investment as a share of GDP to around historical highs.The good news for the Australian economy after performing so strongly during such weak world growth—in particular, weak growth in the Asia-Pacific region—is that as growth picks up during 2000 and into 2001 that will give strong impetus to exports. Export growth will contribute to Australian growth during 2000-01. By having an open economy with the capacity to adjust, by having a low inflation rate and a low interest rate, by having a budget in balance, by having a debt reduction strategy, by having improvements in the labour market and by having increased competition in the product market, the Australian economy has managed to remain flexible and withstand probably its biggest external shock since the Second World War, rivalled only by the oil price shocks of the 1970s, something that Australia was unable to withstand at that time. These are the results of strong and good policy promoting a flexible and open economy. While Australia maintains a flexible and open economy together with tax reform we can build an even stronger economy which will take advantage of a pick-up in world prospects in 2000-01 with increasing job opportunities for Australians.The next review of the government's growth forecasts will be done in the mid-year review. The government puts out only two growth forecasts, one at budget time and one in the mid-year review. I expect that the mid-year review may be brought forward a little this year. We would expect that the mid-year review would be around November, possibly December. The government will not be reviewing its growth forecasts until that time.84078407Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister and is further to the question which I asked the Prime Minister previously. Prime Minister, how can you glibly claim that this letter merely represents an election promise when it formally and officially commits the Commonwealth to expenditure? Are you aware that your letter to your ministerial colleagues stated:Thank you for your letter . . . jointly signed with the Minister for Environment, seeking my approval of projects you have recommended for funding through the Federation Cultural and Heritage Project programme.. . . . . . . . .Accordingly, I am pleased to approve the projects you have recommended—thereby committing the Commonwealth to funding, irrespective of who wins elections, which is precisely why you did it while you still had the authority to do so.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition knows not to enter into an argument.PE4Mr BEAZLEY—Mr Speaker, if it was merely an election promise, why did the Prime Minister simply not state his intentions in that regard without formally approving expenditure?8408Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I am interested that the Leader of the Opposition used the expression `Why did you do it while you still had the authority to do so?' If taken on its own, that is an interesting acknowledgment that no caretaker period may have commenced at the time the position was taken. I do not quite know what the Leader of the Opposition is getting at. The question is the substance and whether these were fair and proper decisions. They were taken on a proper basis and I repeat the answer I gave to the first question. If there is anything further I need to add, I will do so.84088408Lieberman, Lou, MPMr LIEBERMANXU5IndiLP10—My question is addressed to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Can the minister advise the House of the progress being made towards achieving the government's waterfront reform objectives?8408Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—I thank the honourable member for his question. I am very pleased to inform the House that, having undertaken to reform the waterfront as part of its overall strategy to improve the performance of the Australian economy and jobs, we are indeed achieving some very real and ongoing results. It ought to be stated at the outset that the waterfront is a critical component of the Australian economy. Waterfront performance can act as an accelerator of economic growth or as a brake. The reality is that for 13 years the brake was firmly on. Higher waterfront productivity is reflected in improved export performance, in reduced costs for imports and in the boosting of national productivity and competitiveness. It is also reflected in a stronger employment outlook for Australia. It means jobs in our traditional export industries in rural and regional Australia, as well as in our urban centres. It also means jobs in those industries that are dependent on imports.I am very pleased to say that the momentum of reform is being well and truly maintained. The implementation of new workplace agreements by stevedores is almost finished. P&O Ports has concluded agreements at all of their container terminal sites and most regional ports. The associated restructuring process has resulted in over 500 voluntary redundancies to date. The total of stevedoring redundancies is now well over 1,400. More than $170 million has been paid out by MIFCo, the Maritime Industry Finance Co.We can now expect real improvement in productivity after the P&O reforms are bedded down. It is certainly my expectation that the competitive pressures between P&O and Patrick, in particular, will grow rapidly and that that will deliver increasing benefits to stevedoring customers. The reality of all of this is that, under this can-do government, the reputation of the Australian waterfront as unreliable and expensive is being replaced by one of productivity and reliability. I have recently had that confirmed in conversations that I have had with Australian and international shippers. The push by this government to capture the full benefits of waterfront reform, especially for the nation's exporters, is in stark contrast to the irresponsible actions of the Labor Party in delaying consideration of the additional $100 million required to fund stevedoring reform. All I can say is that that seems to be entirely consistent with the ALP's approach of opposing everything we seek to do that might offer benefits for the Australian economy and Australian workers.Distinguished Visitors840810000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon members of a parliamentary delegation from the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, led by the Deputy Speaker, Mr Mefleh Al-Rhimi. On behalf of the parliament, I extend to our guests a very warm welcome.UNKNOWNHonourable membersHonourable members—Hear, hear!Questions Without Notice840984098409Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TANNERYU5MelbourneALP00—My question is to the Minister for Finance and Administration. Is it not a fact the government allocated 16 Federation Cultural and Heritage Projects Program grants to projects which did not satisfy the program's points criteria but 70 projects which did satisfy the criteria were not funded? Doesn't this failure to follow the decision making criteria contravene the Auditor-General's Administration of grants better practice guide ? Can you assure the House that every aspect of the administration of the Federation Cultural and Heritage Projects Program was carried out in accordance with the Auditor-General's guidelines?8409McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGAURANXH4GippslandNPArts and the Centenary of Federation10—I am happy to answer the honourable member's question as the appropriate minister. The premise of the honourable member's question—PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In this case the minister is not the appropriate minister. The question was specifically about the Auditor-General's guidelines. The minister responsible for the Auditor-General's guidelines is the finance minister.WI4REITHMr Reith—The question was clearly related to whether or not certain decisions were taken within the requirements of a program, namely the Centenary of Federation Program. The minister responsible is entitled to respond to that. Furthermore, the question was directed to the minister by the Prime Minister and that is the appropriate way for questions to be responded to.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—It is appropriate for whichever minister has responsibility for the program to respond to the question. The responsibility rests with the Minister for the Arts and the Centenary of Federation, and I call him.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I acknowledge that the responsibility for the overall program rests with the minister who is about to stand, and we may well have questions for him with regard to these matters as time proceeds. But the point here is that we are asking questions about the Auditor-General's guidelines. We have asked the minister for finance, who is the appropriate minister administratively. Mr McGauran has nothing whatsoever to do with the Auditor-General. We have asked the finance minister to give assurance to the House that every aspect of the administration of the program was carried out in accordance with the Auditor-General's guidelines. This is specifically a consideration for the minister for finance, who has responsibility for those guidelines, not for the minister of the program.WI4REITHMr Reith—The point that the Leader of the Opposition makes—Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The same courtesy as was extended to the Leader of the Opposition will be extended to the Leader of the House.WI4REITHMr Reith—Mr Speaker, I put it to you that, where ministers are required to observe guidelines, which is exactly the point that the Leader of the Opposition is making, the person who has responsibility for that is the minister responsible for the program within the portfolio. If the opposition want to ask the finance minister questions about the role of the Auditor-General, that would be a separate matter. What they asked was whether or not there was compliance with the requirements imposed on the minister responsible for the program. Lastly, Mr Speaker, you have already ruled on this; you have invited him to answer the question. I suggest that he should be allowed to do so.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the House is right that I have ruled on this, but the Leader of the Opposition has every right to raise a further point of order, which is what he has done. It is on that point of order that I am currently being addressed.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—It is to that point of order, Mr Speaker. For once I agree with a part of the Leader of the House's submission on this, when he said in his remarks that if it was a question related to the Auditor-General's authority and the activities of the Auditor-General in this area it would be appropriate to the minister for finance. That is precisely the assurance we were seeking from the only person who can give that assurance to this House: that is, the person who has the authority to conduct the Auditor-General's business in this House. The Leader of the House has virtually admitted to that, and I am happy to rest with his own view on it.WI4REITHMr Reith—On the point of order, Mr Speaker: my view is pretty simple on this. The question is whether the money was spent in accordance with the requirements on ministers responsible. This is the minister responsible, and he ought to be invited to answer the question. There is an answer that he would like to give, and I think he should be given the opportunity to do so.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The standing orders allow for questions to be directed to whoever has ministerial responsibility for the issue—in this case, the Minister for the Arts and the Centenary of Federation—and I call him.XH4Mr McGAURAN—Thank you again, Mr Speaker. The entire premise of the honourable member's question is wrong, as it is based largely, if not entirely, on an article—inaccurate, sadly—in the Sydney Morning Herald this morning.Honourable members interjecting—XH4Mr McGAURAN—It is something of a surprise, but we will have to cope with that. The starting point of any discussion on this magnificent Federation Cultural and Heritage Projects Program initiative of the government is that all 60 funded projects met the guidelines for the program.Honourable member interjecting—XH4Mr McGAURAN—All of them. All funded projects met the guidelines for the projects. For the Sydney Morning Herald and the honourable member to repeat a claim that some projects did not meet the minimum criteria is wrong. No projects that were rated as ineligible were funded by the government. The Sydney Morning Herald , together with the honourable member, seemed to suggest that the process was in breach of the Australian National Audit Office guidelines. The approach used to determine grants was developed based on those guidelines, and the reasons for the government's decisions were fully documented. Finally, there has been some suggestion by the opposition, through many, many hours of discussion and pursuit of this issue in Senate estimates, that there is some degree of political bias in the process. Again, this is wrong. Of the 60 successful projects, 64 per cent were located in the 62 per cent of electorates held by the coalition.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If we go to relevance on this, the guy has obviously got himself prepared for a whole set of other questions which, at this stage, we are not asking. We asked a very simple question, and it is this: we asked for an assurance from him that the way in which this affair was conducted met the Auditor-General's guidelines. That was the question. We want to know from him whether it met the guidelines. He has not yet given us any assurances on that.WI4REITHMr Reith—I rise on the point of order, Mr Speaker. The minister is giving a detailed statement of how these grants were made, to answer the baseless allegations that there was some question about it. You cannot get a more relevant answer than the minister giving chapter and verse. The fact that it disappoints the opposition is hardly a matter for consideration under the standing orders.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The chair heard a question being asked about the probity of a particular ministerial program. I thought the minister was referring to the way in which those probity measures had been met, and I call him.XH4Mr McGAURAN—Mr Speaker, I am happy to repeat my earlier answer for the Leader of the Opposition. The process for determining the grants was developed based on the guidelines of the Australian National Audit Office. Let me finish this point, because this is on the political bias allegation of the opposition. Sixty-four per cent of successful grants were to the 62 per cent of electorates held by the opposition, and 30 per cent of successful grants were in the 33 per cent of seats held by the Labor Party, and five grants were held in the—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister will come to the probity matter.XH4Mr McGAURAN—Mr Speaker, there is no doubt whatsoever that this program was much needed throughout rural and regional Australia as well as in urban Australia. It was developed, as is required, by government probity measures and the opposition, together with the Sydney Morning Herald , has failed to in any way dent the confidence of the House in that.Mr Hatton interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Blaxland!Mr Hatton interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Blaxland has already drawn the attention of the chair.84118411Bailey, Fran, MPMs BAILEYJT4McEwanLP10—Mr Speaker, I ask my question of the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs. The government's initiative to encourage schools to be proactive in helping school leavers find jobs has been very welcome in my electorate. Can the minister inform the House of the latest developments in job pathways for school leavers?8411Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPEducation, Training and Youth Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—Mr Speaker, I thank the member for McEwen for her question—her second very good question in a couple of days, may I say. The government is very committed to making sure that young people get job opportunities and that they make a successful transition from school to work. Young people are, without question, the most disadvantaged group within the labour market. By rebuilding the apprenticeship system, by getting into place proper literacy and numeracy standards, by getting businesses to work more closely with schools, the government is lifting the chances of disadvantaged young people to get jobs. We have gone on a long way in repairing the damage that was done to the job opportunities of young Australians by the Labor Party by their virtual destruction of the national apprenticeship system and by the incredibly high rates of youth unemployment over which the Leader of the Opposition presided when he was in office.Opposition members interjecting—BT4Dr KEMP—You were minister for employment, and now you sit there doing nothing—three hundred days of policy inaction, 300 days of policy silence from the Leader of the Opposition. One area where the government has put in a very considerable effort has been in encouraging schools to be proactive in helping their school leavers get jobs. This is bringing about a real change in the culture of schools. The government has recently offered contracts to over 80 projects under the very successful Jobs Pathway Program. This program is targeted to regions of high youth unemployment and focuses on making sure that young people have the skills and the knowledge to get jobs. Under these contracts, schools and brokers and agents working with schools will provide assistance over the next year to over 61,000 young people to get the skills and the knowledge they need to get jobs. These young people are in years 9, 10, 11 and 12, and this program has got tremendous support in the community from parents, from school principals and teachers, from businesses in the community and from the wider community.Mr Speaker, this government has been getting on with the policy job. While we are solving the problems that Labor left Australia, what we have on the other side of the House is a policy vacuum, total policy inaction, and not a single valuable policy statement from the Leader of the Opposition. Indeed, my thoughts were echoed by Terry McCrann in the Herald Sun on 3 August when he said:. . . Beazley just lacks the intellectual and political strength to pull Labor back to rigorous sensible policy . . . Beazley has consistently done a bunk when the going gets tough.From spending to health reform, from Wik to tax policy, he's either whimped it or been figuratively out of the room.Mr Lee interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Dobell!BT4Dr KEMP—He offers no leadership. This government is putting into place the policies that are getting jobs for young Australians.84128412Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TANNERYU5MelbourneALP00—In view of the Minister for Finance and Administration's refusal to front—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Melbourne will come to his question.YU5Mr TANNER—My question is to the Minister for the Arts and the Centenary of Federation. Is it not the case that the Auditor-General's Administration of Grants Better Practice Guide says that all stages of any grants assessment process `should be documented with reasons for decisions . . . accessible under Freedom of Information provisions'? Why did you refuse to release the full documents detailing the reasons for the government's Federation Cultural and Heritage Projects Program decisions, and only provide this highly censored document? Will you tell the House which are the 16 projects which received special treatment and which are the 70 that qualified but were not funded? And will you release the criteria against which the projects were assessed and the assessments of projects against those criteria? What have you got to hide?8412McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGAURANXH4GippslandNPArts and the Centenary of Federation10—Senators Hill and Alston have not and will not identify the 16 projects that the Sydney Morning Herald refers to because this would be prejudicial to those projects, not to mention commercial in confidence.Mr Lee interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I warn the member for Dobell.XH4Mr McGAURAN—You do not understand the processes at all. You are conveniently forgetting them. They would be prejudicial and a breach of some, if not all, cases of commercial in confidence, because the evaluation was only one of the sources of advice the ministers used in making their decisions. The National Council for the Centenary of Federation was another source of advice. There are other considerations. There were regional considerations and the balance between cultural and heritage.The projects were judged against a number of criteria which the honourable member asks about. There were six and they were: significance; lasting nature; appropriateness for the Centenary of Federation; benefits to the broad community; good management capability; and partnerships in funding. Seven hundred and forty-one applications were received. The projects were evaluated by a task group made up of officers of the Department of Communications and the Arts, together with the Department of Environment and Heritage. The task force gave each project a score out of four for each of the six criteria I have just mentioned, leading to a possible total score of 24. Specific criteria had to be met; for example, heritage projects had to comply with all relevant approvals. A number of applications were deemed to be ineligible because they did not meet the basic conditions of the program—for example, the project was a sporting facility rather than a cultural or heritage one. In addition, the National Council for the Centenary of Federation made its own evaluation.DT4CREANMr Crean—Give us the names.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition!XH4Mr McGAURAN—Ministers were provided with a copy of every application, the departmental task force evaluations and the council's advice. The ministers then made their own decisions using all those sets of advice and against their own evaluations. All 60 successful projects were eligible, and I ask the Labor Party to name which were not. Which ones do they think do not deserve funding?Opposition members interjecting—XH4Mr McGAURAN—Which of the 60 projects do you believe should not have been funded? Which one do you have the courage—instead of sniping at the program and at the successful projects—to say should not have been funded? As well as taking into account the evaluations of the task force and the national council, the ministers also took into account the need to find a balance between cultural and heritage projects, a balance between each state and territory and a balance of projects in inner metropolitan, outer metropolitan and regional areas. The opposition refuses to acknowledge in their questioning that the ministers were not provided with a list of recommended projects. They were provided with all of the information, so they could make worthwhile projects taking all these objectives into account. I challenge the Labor Party to name which of the 60 successful projects should not have been funded.84138413Nehl, Garry, MPMr NEHLAE4CowperNP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. As the minister is aware, small business is widely acknowledged as being the principal generator of new jobs in the economy. What policies is the government pursuing to foster this section of the economy and assist it with job generation? Have alternative policies been advocated to assist this sector in creating jobs?Mr Crean interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is warned.8413Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—I thank the member for Cowper for his question. The member for Cowper is a great supporter of small business and I congratulate him for the work he does in Cowper. His support is obviously well appreciated by the small businesses in his electorate. Many people who work in small business understand how important this is because, if our small businesses do well, there will be more jobs in the Australian economy. Since March 1996 470,000 jobs have been created and a lot of those jobs have not come from the big companies or corporations; they have come from small business. That is why this government is so strongly in favour of small business. We gave them capital gains tax rollover relief, we cut interest rates and we balanced the budget. We made changes in workplace relations to reduce the number of disputes in the Australian economy, and that level of disputes is at the lowest it has been since 1913. We have been fixing up the unfair dismissal laws, because those unfair dismissal laws discourage a lot of small businesses from giving somebody a job.8K6FITZGIBBONMr Fitzgibbon—They are your laws.WI4Mr REITH—We should have an exemption from unfair dismissal laws, and why don't we? Because all these ex-trade union officials sitting on the other side do what the unions tell them. They are not interested in small business and that is costing a lot of Australians a job.I was pretty interested when the Leader of the Opposition announced that he was going to have a policy. Would you believe it? It is a big statement that he is even going to have a policy, so we were interested. He pulled out a discussion paper. I read the discussion paper. It did mention small business—I will give him that. In the discussion paper he had a bullet point and he had 27 words on small business under the heading `Factors affecting unemployment'. He came up with a startling observation: if a policy was good for small business, that would help to create jobs. So he had a 27-word acknowledgment of small business. When he said he was going to have a policy, I did not think he could have meant that it would be in the discussion paper, because you would not have a 27-word policy, would you? I thought, `Well, it must be in the speech tomorrow.' So we waited until the speech came down the fax to see exactly what he was saying. I have got the speech here—10 pages. It is the most empty, the most vacuous, speech delivered by a Leader of the Opposition in recent times. Is there any mention of small business—the great generator of jobs in the Australian economy? I table the document. Not one mention of the words `small business'. Not one mention of that sector which has done so much to create jobs.As we showed yesterday, when it comes to policy the only policy they have got is a fashion policy. What we want is a jobs policy. What we want is a small business policy. We want the opposition to stop standing against us and stop using its numbers in the Senate to prevent us from doing things to help small business, thereby helping to create jobs.84138413Andren, Peter, MPMr ANDRENKL6CalareIND00—My question is to the Minister for Finance and Administration. Has the government decided on the successful tender for Australian Defence Industries, and when can an announcement be expected? What guarantees can be obtained to ensure ADI's regional operations, particularly the Lithgow plant in my electorate, will be maintained?8414Fahey, John, MPMr FAHEYHQ5MacarthurLPFinance and Administration10—The answer to the first question is no. The answer to the second question is soon. More generally, can I indicate that the tenders for the sale of ADI closed on 30 June. Since that period, the very complex business of Australian Defence Industries has been evaluated in the normal process by the government. It is being done in a very detailed manner, as it should be, and when the evaluation is concluded the government will make an appropriate announcement.In relation to the final part of the question that was asked by the honourable member in respect of jobs in his electorate in the industry at Lithgow that is part of the ADI complex, I simply want to assure the honourable member that part of the criteria when seeking tenders was to put forward proposals that related to the jobs of existing personnel and specifically those jobs where they occur in regional Australia. The criteria that will be used by the government to evaluate will very much keep in mind regional development aspects and employment in regional areas of Australia when a decision is being made.84148414Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLEKV5HinklerNP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Community Services. Can the minister advise the House as to how many self-funded retirees have benefited from the government's expansion of the Commonwealth seniors health care card scheme introduced in January this year? Can the minister also advise the House of the benefits that this card delivers to Australia's self-funded retirees?8414Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONYXJ6RichmondNPCommunity Services10—I would like to thank the member for Hinkler because I know he has a very keen interest in older Australians, and particularly self-funded retirees. I would like to inform the House that an extra 163,000 self-funded retirees have taken advantage of the Commonwealth seniors health card, an expansion program under the Howard-Anderson government. Indeed, for self-funded retirees this is an important initiative. For the first time they will now be eligible for PBS, which means cheaper prescriptions. The Commonwealth seniors health card is recognition of the important contribution that self-funded retirees have made in saving for their own retirement. In January this year, the government almost doubled the income thresholds to $40,000 for single persons and $67,000 for a couple. I am pleased to see that many older Australians have taken advantage of this important benefit.Mr Wilton interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Isaacs is warned.XJ6Mr ANTHONY—I certainly urge all self-funded retirees who may be eligible for this card to contact their nearest Centrelink office to take full advantage of this. The extension of this card demonstrates the absolute commitment that the coalition government has to older people in the International Year of Older Persons.84148414Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, given the concerns which have been raised about the administration of the Federation Fund and the government's often proclaimed commitment to probity and transparency in public administration, reflected in this document in these blacked-out paragraphs—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will come to his question.PE4Mr BEAZLEY—It is rather like the ministerial code of conduct. Would the Prime Minister have any objection to the Auditor-General being invited to conduct an audit of the program, and in particular the decision making processes with regard to the 16 projects, against the requirements of his best practice guide for the administration of grants?8414Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I refer the Leader of the Opposition to the answer that I gave to his first two questions. Can I say in relation to the Auditor-General that it is my understanding, without checking the act, that he has automatic powers of examination of programs which do not need any prime ministerial or ministerial triggering. As to his powers under the act and the appropriate use of them and the circumstances in which they can be used, I will have a look at that and, if there is anything further that ought to be said, I will.84158415Andrews, Kevin, MPMr ANDREWSHK5MenziesLP10—My question is to the Minister for Employment Services. What recent indicators are available regarding the ongoing performance of Job Network, and what other initiatives are being provided by the government to enhance Job Network services?8415Abbott, Tony MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLPEmployment Services10—I thank the member for Menzies very much indeed for his question and particularly for his deep commitment to strengthening and protecting the Australian family, which is acknowledged by all in this parliament. This side of eternity there is no such thing as perfection, but I am pleased to say that as a result of the social coalition of private sector, community based and charitable organisations the Job Network is continuing to perform extremely well. In the last quarter, job matching outcomes from Job Network members averaged 26,000 a month; this is double the performance of the old CES two years ago and indeed of the Job Network itself just 12 months ago.But there is more good news. Non-English speaking background people constitute 14 per cent of all job seekers, but make up 21 per cent of all intensive assistance referrals. Sixty percent of older job seekers are in intensive assistance, compared to just 40 per cent of all job seekers. I am advised that women are achieving better than average job outcomes thorough job matching and job search training programs. But there is more. The government is constantly upgrading its services for job seekers, and we have recently introduced lodge a resume and resume search facilities which will enable job seekers to have 24 hours a day access to what is a virtual labour market. This Internet based service is a world-class innovation.Despite all of this good news, the Leader of the Opposition—who has a line on everything and a policy on nothing—is claiming that there is a crisis of confidence in the Job Network. If the Leader of the Opposition had bothered to turn up to his own employment conference, he would not make such silly statements. The Job Network is performing extremely well. It will perform even better in the future. I venture this prediction: the way the Job Network is going, I imagine that it will not be long before the member for Batman makes a public statement about the Job Network—as he has about Work for the Dole—that, in fact, it was a policy that the Labor Party really thought of first.BV5ADAMSMr Adams—Sit down, you mug!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I warn the member for Lyons.84158415Bevis, Arch, MPMr BEVISET4BrisbaneALP00—My question without notice is to the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. Has the minister seen a proposal from the CFMEU to use the coalminers' $240 million long service leave fund to meet the $6.3 million debt owed to the Oakdale workers? Given that this fund is workers' money and will be totally self-funding by the year 2003, even after this deduction, will he give an undertaking to introduce legislation to enable this money to be used to provide Oakdale workers with their legally due entitlements? Minister, isn't your past refusal to agree to this proposal because of your plan to abolish this fund even though it is the only guaranteed source of income to coalmining workers who find themselves dudded by employers?8415Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—The government is concerned about the plight of people who are retrenched for no reasons of their own, where they are in employment in a business which goes insolvent and as a consequence of that they are basically dudded of their entitlements. We believe that this is an issue going beyond Oakdale but also appreciate that there is a specific need to address the circumstances raised by the Oakdale colliery closure. We have had discussions with the CFMEU. We had a discussion with them yesterday. We had a discussion with them a couple of weeks ago—two or three weeks ago or more.8K6FITZGIBBONMr Fitzgibbon—They walked away without a cent.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Hunter is warned.WI4Mr REITH—The Minister for Finance and Administration has also had discussions with them. We will be having further discussions. We have set a date for further discussions with them. The specifics of the question relate to the use of the fund, which is a long service leave fund. That fund was set up before this government came into office. That fund was provided with contributions from both employers and employees to pay out superannuation moneys owing. In this particular case all of the moneys that have been owing have been paid out of the fund. Your question is: why does the fund not go further than providing for long service leave entitlements? There is a simple answer to that, and that is that when your government was in office you failed to provide a broader scheme.ET4BEVISMr Bevis—The question was: would you legislate to make it happen.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Brisbane has asked the question.WI4Mr REITH—I see that you are now concerned about Oakdale. If you take the ACTU's figures, the fact is that for the time you were in office over 200,000 employees lost their entitlements, worth close to $2 billion. We on this side of the House—this government—believe that this is a genuine problem, and we on this side of the House are actually—PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—We've waited for 18 months, and you've done nothing.WI4Mr REITH—The monumental hypocrisy of these people!ZD4HOWARDMr Howard—Mr 13 years.WI4Mr REITH—Mr 13 years; 200,000 employees got nothing while you were in government—they lost nearly $2 billion—and you come in here and make claims about those who have been affected.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. He was asked a specific question. The question asked him would he amend the terms of the long service leave fund to in corporate a capacity to pick up the situation of the Oakdale miners. Eighteen months ago he said he would do something about this, and we have not heard a darn thing from him.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat and I will rule on the point of relevance. I have been following the answer. The Leader of the House it struck me actually responded outside the standing orders to an interjection from the Leader of the Opposition which was equally outside the standing orders. Up to that point the Leader of the House had been entirely relevant to the question asked, and he will respond in a similar relevant vein.WI4Mr REITH—The simple point is that the fund that is there has been set up for a particular purpose—namely, superannuation. There are people in the industry who say that when it comes to entitlements we should expand that fund and require other contributions to it, and that would be a source of finance. That is an argument they can put. There are obviously—from a policy perspective for the government—a number of options we are examining. Another option was put up by the CFMEU, and that was a 10c levy on coal. We are very concerned about the coal industry. In fact, when Senator Hill went to Kyoto, one of the things he did was save a lot of jobs in the coal industry, which would have gone if your policy had ever been put in place.From the point of view of the Oakdale employees, they want their problem fixed, and we understand that. We are doing other things in respect of training and providing practical assistance. It is not an answer to their point about entitlements but it is something we can do. We have to do all that we possibly can to provide reasonable assistance. However, we are also conscious of the fact that we have a national responsibility: it is Oakdale today but, unfortunately, there will be other businesses that will go broke in the future. As we look at the circumstances of Oakdale—ET4BEVISMr Bevis—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order.WI4Mr REITH—It does go directly to the question of funding; I could not be more relevant. 10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the House knows that the member for Brisbane has not indicated what his point of order is about, and that he has every right to raise one, so I call the member for Brisbane.ET4BEVISMr Bevis—In terms of relevance, the question did not deal with the broad area—although I appreciate the minister has made some comments about that matter that might be seen as appropriate—it dealt specifically with one proposal only, a proposal to use long service leave funds. The minister wants to have a broad debate. He gagged one earlier this week when he would not allow us to debate our motion so he should now deal with the question.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Brisbane has made his point of order and will resume his seat. By any measure, the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business is being relevant to the question asked and I invite him to continue his answer.WI4Mr REITH—If it is accepted that we have a national responsibility—as we do certainly accept it, and we would like to see such a national scheme in place—then obviously what we do in respect of Oakdale will have precedent implications for elsewhere. The question goes to one specific option. Another option was the Crosio bill but that did not provide for redundancy. For most of the people at Oakdale—ET4BEVISMr Bevis—You won't even allow it to be debated!WI4Mr REITH—Mr Speaker, they had 13 years. I am genuinely attempting to answer the question and the interjections only reflect the fact that Labor have done nothing on this issue and they are now embarrassed by the fact that we are seriously considering it. I conclude by saying that we are keen to ensure the right thing is done by the Oakdale people. We have had a discussion with them. I understand they were disappointed we did not give them everything they asked for yesterday but, at the same time, we do also have a national responsibility.We have had discussions with the Democrats. We also believe the states will need to be involved. We will continue to work at this. We are keen to deal with the matter sooner rather than later and we have set another date for our discussions with the CFMEU. I would hope the people appreciate that such a proposal being considered by the government would be a significant extension of the safety net available to employees in Australia—in fact, it is the most significant extension of the safety net for many years. We are prepared to go down this track because we are prepared to have a fair system. I can assure the Oakdale colliery miners that we are concerned about their circumstances and we are working on the issue and, whilst they were not happy with the outcome, we have had constructive discussions with the CFMEU.84178417Somlyay, Alex, MPMr SOMLYAYZT4FairfaxLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Forestry and Conservation. The minister will be aware of the concerns of timber communities in my electorate, brought directly to Canberra today by a delegation led by the Mayor of Cooloola, Councillor Mick Vernados. What are the latest developments in the negotiations with the Beattie Labor government for a south-east Queensland regional forest agreement? Can timber workers and their families and their communities in my electorate, and elsewhere in south-east Queensland, be assured that the Commonwealth is placing the highest priority on jobs in regional centres?8417Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEYSJ4O'ConnorLPForestry and Conservation; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister10—I thank the member for his question, which of course is directed to the welfare of his constituents. I would also like to congratulate Mayor Vernados and his delegation in actively pursuing the interests of their timber workers and local associated small business. I am pleased to advise them, and I was in our meeting, of the continuous and vigorous representation on their behalf by the member for Fairfax, Mr Somlyay. Might I also commend the many other coalition members who constantly represent the interests of all sectors of their constituency, including forestry workers, to me. That stands in stark contrast to members of the other side of this House where the backbenchers of the Labor Party conspire to destroy future job prospects for timber workers by opposing the regional forest agreement legislation in the Senate—notwithstanding direct requests from the associated unions and the Labor Deputy Premier of Tasmania that they pass that legislation without amendment.I was able to advise Mayor Vernados and his delegation that the government continues its policy of support for jobs and prosperity for the regional timber industry under a program of comprehensive, adequate and representative reserve systems, and a sustainable management regime of productive forests. I thank the Prime Minister for his commitment to the rights of country people to gain and retain employment under those circumstances.Mr Zahra interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for McMillan is warned!SJ4Mr TUCKEY—The government also expects that native forests and indigenous varieties of timber will form part of the resource supporting those jobs and that prosperity. The government has consequently reversed the Labor Party's funding concept of business exit and worker redundancy to one of funding business development through value adding.A leading sawmill manager advised me yesterday that he had never seen so many Australian timber industry people at the recent Ligna timber machinery expo in Germany. They were there shopping for machinery necessary to access high value markets and to develop their industry. Their presence was a vote of confidence in the Australian government's policy and a commitment to the security available from the RFA process.Nevertheless, as the WA state government has just demonstrated, this process is totally vulnerable to opportunistic and poorly planned decisions. In Queensland, the state and federal government officials have completed all the processes upon which the Queensland government and I, representing the Commonwealth government, must make our decisions. There is no reason to delay these decisions. An RFA should be in the process of being signed, which will remove the uncertainty that presently exists in regional Queensland amongst people who always thought they could trust the Labor Party to protect them. I had hoped to convince the Queensland government of this circumstance when I visited Brisbane on Friday of this week; however, I now discover my direct contact, Deputy Premier Elder, is in South Africa at present.Mr Beazley interjecting—SJ4Mr TUCKEY—Yes, and I was doing something for the timber industry.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister will not respond to interjections.SJ4Mr TUCKEY—I was doing something for the timber industry, Mr Speaker.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister will come to the question.SJ4Mr TUCKEY—I was happy to go over there, as the evidence will prove, because I thought it was a good idea that Australian timber workers could have the security of a job in an industry that is selling into high value markets.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister will come to the question.SJ4Mr TUCKEY—We know what the Leader of the Opposition did: he stayed back here to protect his back. My job is not at risk; only yours. The Queensland government was elected on a promise of achieving five per cent unemployment in that state. The RFA could assist them to deliver on that promise. The Commonwealth government has a policy of job creation and conservation. We have matching funds available to implement that policy. It is therefore totally unfair for the Queensland government to—PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The point of order is this: question time is for asking questions without notice; it is not for ministerial statements. He has something like a 10-page statement there, which he is reading through diligently. We would love a debate with this bloke—to get him to explain the abusive calls he gives elderly people in Western Australia and his quarrel with Richard Court, but we can only do it if he makes a statement.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition knows that this has no relevance to the point of order, and he will resume his seat. The length of answers is something over which the chair has no control and has never had any control. In terms of the recent history of this House, the Minister for Forestry and Conservation has not been lengthy in his reply. While he was out of order in responding to interjections, I reminded him of that from the chair and he has now returned to the question.SJ4Mr TUCKEY—Mr Speaker, this is the third day since the parliament has resumed and I have not got one question from you. What about the Leader of the Opposition asking the first—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister will resume his seat. The minister had the opportunity to respond to the question. The member for Cunningham has the call.Mr Martin Ferguson interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Batman is warned.84198419Martin, Stephen, MPMr MARTIN8I4CunninghamALP00—My question is directed to the present Minister for Defence. Minister, is it correct that Air Vice Marshall Treloar, the then Commander, Australian Theatre, sent a secret cable to the Chief of the Australian Defence Force and to the Secretary to the Department of Defence outlining the United States' plans to use Darwin as a base for a 15,000-strong American force for an East Timor operation? Minister, when were you made aware of this secret cable? Did you receive a briefing from your Defence officials on the implications for Australia of such a plan? Minister, why did you give misleading advice to the foreign minister about this matter two days ago? Is it because, as many senior Defence officials recognise, you are simply not across your portfolio?8419Moore, John, MPMr MOOREEI4RyanLPDefence10—Mr Speaker, three cables were sent: one to the foreign affairs department, one to the Prime Minister's department and one to my department. The information contained in them was canvassed by the Minister for Foreign Affairs.84198419Vale, Danna, MPMrs VALEVK6HughesLP10—Mr Speaker, my question is to the Minister for Sport and Tourism and the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Sydney 2000 Games.Mrs Crosio interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I'll make your day in a moment, member for Prospect!Honourable members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The House will come to order so the member for Hughes can be heard.VK6Mrs VALE—Mr Speaker, my question is to the Minister for Sport and Tourism and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Sydney 2000 Games. Given recent announcements by the minister on the government's tough on drugs in sport stance, what further action is being taken to reinforce this stand?8419Kelly, Jackie, MPMiss JACKIE KELLYGK6LindsayLPSport and Tourism; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Sydney 2000 Games10—I thank the member for Hughes for her question and for her concern about drugs in the community and within sport. I am very pleased to announce today another key initiative by this government to combat the use of banned drugs in sport, and that is the Australian Sports Drug Medical Advisory Committee. We have formed this committee of pharmacists, doctors and endocrinologists to prescribe for athletes who are seriously ill—and I am not talking about an earache or a headache—and do need to use, for therapeutic purposes, drugs that may or may not be banned by their particular sport. Through this medical committee athletes can get approval to use a drug. If there is a subsequent positive test contrary to their sport's regulations, and that test is within the range of treatment prescribed by those medical experts, then it will not be a positive test. This is getting very tough on athletes, because any therapeutic use of drugs must be approved by this committee, but it is also protecting athletes' rights to access drugs when they have a serious medical illness by not restricting them to what is on the banned lists.The committee will be chaired by Professor Ken Fitch AM, a highly regarded medical consultant and sports physician with extensive domestic and international experience in the anti-doping field. He will be joined by Dr Hugh Hazard, who is the Chief Medical Officer for the National Rugby League; Dr Sue White, who is the Medical Officer with Netball Australia and a member of the Australian Paralympics Medical Commission; Dr Peter Harcourt, the Anti-Doping Medical Officer with the Australian Cricket Board; and Professor Peter Fricker, the Deputy Medical Director of the Australian Olympic Team. The calibre of the team is outstanding.This is another blow against drugs in sport. It is particularly important at this time, with Australia hosting the Olympic Games next year and with the legacy that we hope to leave the Olympic movement as it goes on to Athens and beyond.84208420Martin, Stephen, MPMr MARTIN8I4CunninghamALP00—My question is directed to the Minister for Defence. Minister, have you now had time to consider my question of Monday, outlining how a soldier who, even after receiving his meagre tax cut, will still have his disposable income cut by $117 a week as a result of the government's FBT changes? Do you now accept that your answer of Monday was incorrect? Minister, isn't it also the case that thousands of ADF families who rely only on the ADF member's income are now also likely to lose their family allowance, family allowance supplement, family health care card, and carers allowance if they have any special needs children—in fact they will lose access to all government assistance they are now receiving, because of the FBT changes? Minister, will you, as the responsible cabinet minister—don't flick it to your mate down the end—guarantee that the outcome of your review ensures that the Prime Minister's promise of `no losers' under the new tax system will also apply to members of the ADF?Honourable members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Minister for Veterans' Affairs will resume his seat.8I4Mr MARTIN—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. I point out that my question was directed to the cabinet minister responsible for defence issues. That is the Minister for De fence—the now President of AWOL, Minister of Yesterday. He is the one responsible for this particular matter, not the junior minister.WI4REITHMr Reith—Mr Speaker, on a point of order: my point of order is simply to say that the minister who should answer a question is the minister who is responsible for the subject matter of the question.Opposition members interjecting—WI4REITHMr Reith—It is quite clear, disappointed as we all are not to have the Minister for Defence to do you over, the fact is that this is the minister responsible, and he is the one who should answer the question.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—As all members in the House are aware, the standing orders provide that the minister responsible for the particular issue is the minister who will answer the question, or someone deputised by the Prime Minister. I call the Minister for Veterans' Affairs.8420Scott, Bruce, MPMr BRUCE SCOTTYT4MaranoaNPVeterans' Affairs; Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—There is nothing greater than the hypocrisy of the Labor Party on this issue. When the Labor Party went to the federal election last year, their policy was to further the widening of the FBT reporting on individuals. What they are complaining about is the policy that they took to the federal election last year. They made no mention of exemptions for ADF personnel, and that is the fact of the matter. Going back even further, it was the ALP that introduced the FBT regime, and at the time they specifically refused to exempt defence.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order on relevance. The question is quite specific, to the relevant minister, about their intentions in regard to this. This answer is completely irrelevant. The FBT regime never applied to the defence forces and never would have applied to the defence forces as implemented by us.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister has the call, and the minister's references to FBT are entirely relevant to the question asked. He will now move from the history of the FBT to the specific question asked.Mr Beazley interjecting — YT4Mr BRUCE SCOTT—Settle down, mate. Look, I am just reminding you of your policy.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—If the minister does not come straight to the question, he will resume his seat.YT4Mr BRUCE SCOTT—As I advised the House yesterday, the government is going to take a very careful look at this issue. In answer to a similar question yesterday, I said that we are reviewing this issue to make sure that there is no inequitable treatment of defence families due to geographic location. That is exactly what we said yesterday—we are going to take a very careful look—and that is what we have said consistently through this week.84218421Lieberman, Lou, MPMr LIEBERMANXU5IndiLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Forestry and Conservation, Mr Wilson Tuckey. My question is: what is the government's policy for creating jobs in the very important timber industry in Australia?4I4McLEAYMr Leo McLeay—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The question is clearly out of order because it calls for an announcement of government policy.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Watson is correct. In fact, the question called for a matter of policy. The member for Indi may care to rephrase his question.XU5Mr LIEBERMAN—It is the outcome of the policy that I want the answer on. I ask: what is the outcome of the government's excellent policy for creating jobs in the timber industry?4I4McLEAYMr Leo McLeay—Mr Speaker, on a point of order: you have been very generous with him. Maybe you should have been a little bit more generous, because he has clearly once again said that he wants to know what the government's policy is.Government members interjecting—4I4McLEAYMr Leo McLeay—If he wanted to know what the outcome of the government's policy is, you and I know how he should have framed it. Maybe someone else should have told me that, too.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I do not think anyone in the House would deem the chair's action towards the Minister for Forestry and Conservation to have been generous. I invite him to respond to the question, which refers to the outcomes of existing government policies.8421Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEYSJ4O'ConnorLPForestry and Conservation; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister10—I thank the opposition whip for his vote of confidence in me. If he didn't want to hear me, it was very—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister will come to the question.SJ4Mr TUCKEY—As I was outlining previously, the government reversed the policy that was laid down by the Keating Labor government in their National Forest Policy Statement.UU5HORNEMr Horne—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order on relevance. In the rephrased question he was asked about the government's policy and he is not addressing that. He is talking about the former government's policy, and you asked him to talk about his policy.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I have already asked the minister to come to the question, which is what he has done. He has been on his feet for a whole 35 seconds, and I invite him to respond to the question.SJ4Mr TUCKEY—The purpose of making that point was to explain to the House that, with the approval of the Prime Minister, a process that was 80 per cent directed towards buying people out of their businesses and encouraging them to sack their workers and giving them some redundancy has left people in very many parts of Australia, who were subject to that policy, sitting in houses they cannot sell, waiting for the miracle job that they were promised by some other action of government, and they are still unemployed.We took the attitude that that was inappropriate and that, if you wanted to conserve the forests, if you were obliged to reduce the amount of timber harvested from those forests, you should look at the opportunities available in very high valued markets in other parts of the world that will pay us up to $7,000 and $10,000 a cubic metre for wood that is being sold within Australia for $500 a cubic metre. You should encourage and help businesses to invest in a process where they can add that value through kiln-drying, planing, and finger jointing, using all that state of the art equipment that those people went to Germany to see because they had a vote of confidence in the federal government's policy.We turned the policy around to say that the FISAP money we provided would be to help, particularly the smaller sawmills that lacked capital, invest in those processes and treble their turnover whilst actually harvesting less wood. That is our policy. That is the big turnaround that we made in the regional forest agreement policy, which of course the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the Opposition in Western Australia have abandoned. They have abandoned their own policy. But the fact of life is, as I was explaining to the House, we had a state government in Queensland that stood on a policy and were elected on a policy of reducing unemployment to five per cent.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The minister had a question redirected to him after standing orders were asserted upon the questioner that actually produced a very limited question in relation to that outcome. What we are now getting is the same canvassing previously based on a much broader question, the same canvassing of those issues beyond the point of the question that was asked. I would urge you to bring the minister back to the question that is now effectively the question asked of him.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The question asked referred to job creation, as I saw it, and for that reason I was allowing some leniency. I call the minister to respond to the question.SJ4Mr TUCKEY—Let me give you an example of the outcome of a policy as created by this government and negotiated in Western Australia. The outcome of the policy signed on 4 May was that, for a lengthy period thereafter, not one sacking was announced in Western Australia. When the Prime Minister signed in good faith with the Premier of Western Australia, he delivered a policy where not one person was sacked. In that process, a virtual halving of timber harvesting was agreed to by the industry and there was a reaching of the JANIS targets for reserves—the highest of any agreement signed yet.That was an outcome that has now, by just one opportunistic decision, seen 200 jobs lost overnight, and I have not heard one complaint from the member for Bendigo, the member for Braddon, the member for Lyne, the member for Paterson or the member for McMillan. I have not heard one of them complaining about job destruction in industries where they have a direct responsibility. There is now a new senator called Joe Ludwig, and we know who his father is. I will be very interested to see how he votes on the regional forest agreement legislation.UU5HORNEMr Horne—Mr Speaker, I take a point of order. Having been named in the answer, I will remind you again of relevance. He was asked about government policy and outcomes of government policy. He is certainly ranging far from that.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Paterson will resume his seat. The minister is, I believe, concluding his answer. I invite him to do so.SJ4Mr TUCKEY—The point is that in terms of outcomes we now want the Queensland government to tell the people of Queensland and their timber workers how many jobs they want to knock off so they can keep some Green preferences for a couple of impending elections.ZD4HOWARDMr Howard—Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper .Miscellaneous8422842215:23:008422Moore, John, MPMr MOOREEI4RyanLPDefence10—In the course of answering a question today I said there were three cables. In fact, there is one cable and a number of copies.Questions to the Speaker842284228422Martin, Stephen, MPMr MARTIN8I4CunninghamALP00—Mr Speaker, has your attention been drawn to the presence in the gallery of what appears to be a television camera? My understanding of an agreement that was reached in this place—and certainly I know raised by members of the government when in opposition—was that a protocol existed that saw any television footage of this place taken from the direct feed that is provided to all television stations and to anyone else from the cameras that are mounted in the chamber and that there were strict protocols in respect of still cameras in here as well. I also note that the still camera persons were sitting in the front row of the galleries today. Has there been a change in that policy? What is the reason for the television camera, or what appears to be a television camera, in here? Were members of the opposition advised of this, particularly the Manager of Opposition Business and the Chief Opposition Whip, a point that had clearly been made by those on the other side when they were in opposition?4I4McLEAYMr Leo McLeay—Mr Speaker, adding to the matter raised by the member for Cunningham, we were not advised that any photographers were going to be in the gallery today. Indeed, I intended taking up that matter after the member for Cunningham did.8423Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—In response to the member for Cunningham's question, I will follow up the procedure to see if there was anything that ought to have been attended to that was overlooked. I was advised that there would be photographers in the gallery today. I was advised that all of the requirements that were expected had been pointed out to them and that they were here under the supervision of the Sergeant-at-Arms. But I will follow the matter up. They are here to photograph a government member.8I4MARTINMr Martin—What have they been up to?10000Mr SPEAKER—I thought the member for Cunningham may have had some interest in my response. I will follow up the matter to see if there have been any protocols or procedures that have not been fulfilled.4I4McLEAYMr Leo McLeay—On that matter, Mr Speaker, does it now intend being your position as the Presiding Officer, and maybe the position of the government as well, that we will have days here with people filming the government? If, as you said, the government had the photographers in here today, why were they photographing from the government side to the opposition side?Mr Howard interjecting—4I4McLEAYMr Leo McLeay—Mr Speaker—10000Mr SPEAKER—The Chief Opposition Whip will find himself out of the chamber if he responds to the interjection and interrupts me. He will resume his seat.4I4McLEAYMr Leo McLeay—Mr Speaker, I hadn't completed my question. The end of my question is: can you give me and other members of the House an assurance that things that were raised by the Prime Minister just then won't occur?10000Mr SPEAKER—Let me respond to the point made by the member for Cunningham and the Chief Opposition Whip before I call the Treasurer. As I have already indicated, so far as I was aware, all of the protocols had been met. If that is not the case I will report back to the House. It is certainly not my intention to in any way relax the rules that apply to the filming in this chamber—not in any way at all. I will check out the procedures and report to the House. I did not hear any interjection made and, for that reason, I was not responding to the latter part of the Chief Opposition Whip's comment.CT4COSTELLOMr Costello—Mr Speaker, just on the same point, the question was asked about a movie camera which is filming across to the government side of the House. Could I also alert you to the fact that the movie camera had a boom microphone? A boom microphone was being directed on proceedings during the course of today. I ask you, when you look into this to see whether the guidelines have been complied with, to see if there are any guidelines about boom microphones because I have certainly never seen one in here on previous occasions. 10000Mr SPEAKER—May I respond to the Treasurer and to all members of the House by reassuring the House that as long as I occupy the chair I have no intention of seeing any relaxation of the existing guidelines. If there has been any relaxation in the way in which this filming has occurred I will require that the filming and the audio be made available to see that there is no intrusion into the privacy of the House or of members.Auditor-General's Reports842484248424Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I present the Auditor-General's audit report No. 7 of 1999-2000 entitled Protective security audit—Operation of the classification system for protecting sensitive information .Ordered that the report be printed.Documents84248424Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—Papers are listed on the schedule circulated to honourable members earlier today. Details of the paper will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings .Business8424842415:29:008424Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—I move:That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent:(a) the immediate introduction of a Bill for an Act to alter the Constitution to insert a preamble;(b) the passage of the Bill through all stages by 6.30 p.m. this day, without delay; and(c) the mover of the motion—That the Bill be now read a second time—being heard without interruption.This motion is necessary to facilitate the House today considering legislation which will, in effect, change Australia's Constitution. It relates to one of the questions to be put to the Australian people in the referendum to be held on 6 November.I do not intend to take the time of the House to explain the processes, other than to say that the Constitution requires the referendum to be held not less than two months nor more than six months after passage of the bill. The legislation which effects the process allows for the presentation of a pamphlet which contains both the yes and the no case. That has to be provided to the Electoral Commissioner, and then by law it has to be provided to all electors at least two weeks before the referendum date.Obviously, to meet these timetables, it is important that the parliament deal with matters in a timely fashion. In fact, if we are to have a referendum on that date, the bottom line is that we need to see the passage of this legislation by the end of this week. The actual cut-off date is 20 August, but we are not sitting next week so it is either this week or not at all. So I move this procedural motion to that effect. I understand there will be only one opposition speaker. I thank the opposition for their cooperation in ensuring the passage of the legislation. As you will note, the proposal is that there will be a debate through till 6.30 p.m. today. Obviously the whips will be coordinating the opportunities for people to speak. I commend the motion to the House.15:32:008424McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN5I4CanberraALP00—We do not want to take time debating the process because the time to debate the matter in question is too short, but we will have to take some time to indicate our concern about and opposition to some of the terms of the motion which has been moved and to the abbreviated and abrupt process.In particular, our concern—which would be the concern of any opposition in these circumstances—is that, first and foremost and obviously, the government is treating the House with absolute contempt. There was an agreement come to some time during the morning when the Prime Minister folded in the face of some opposition about this preamble. Members who read the AAP wire would have become aware of it during the early part of the afternoon. Then those opposite came into question time and, now, straight after question time we have this motion.There has not been one opportunity for anybody—other than that small coterie of people who were involved in the discussion—to consult with their colleagues or to consult with any part of the community. The priority here is to give consideration to how something designed to be a profound statement about our priorities as a nation might be worded and expressed. A number of members on both sides have had views and have been involved in discussion and consideration of this.Treating the House with contempt is something to which we have become accustomed since March 1996. In this instance we are treating the people of Australia with contempt, and we do not take that lightly. It is not that we are so fussed about the time limits. Of course we would always like more time, but we appreciate that, if we are going to deal with the thing, the amount of time is not ridiculously short even though we would like more. It is the amount of time to consider the matter before it comes in here that we are concerned about. As the Leader of the House said, the matter does not have to be dealt with until 20 August, so it is the convenience of the government and its parliamentary sitting schedule that is being considered, not the convenience of the people. We have the situation that, whenever the Libs and the Australian Democrats now come to an agreement, that becomes the law. Soon we will get it by press release and it will retrospectively apply to the day that Senator Lees agrees to it.Even when that was done with the tax bills the Australian people had some time to comment on the matters before they came in, but in this instance there is no time because this is designed to be rammed through the Senate tomorrow. No Australian will be aware that it has happened until it has passed. Consultation on this preamble was promised. Significant consultation was undertaken on the Prime Minister's first draft—and that is why it was thrown out. After consultation, everybody said it was no good—and that obviously includes the Prime Minister because now he puts forward a different one. We thought that consultation meant with all of us; now we find it is only with some of us.So we oppose this motion about the process. The Leader of the Opposition will make our position clearer when he rises to speak. I will take no more time, other than to point out the serious inequity and anomaly in a motion which moves that the poor Prime Minister must be able to move the motion without interruption. As if that is not extraordinary enough, in the drafting they forgot to suggest that the reply of the Leader of the Opposition should be treated equally. Actually, this is a clear indication of the partisan nature of the whole process. It is here in the motion for all to see. It is just another sneaky little trick. We oppose it.Question put: That the motion (Mr Reith's) be agreed to. The House divided. [3.40 p.m.](Mr Speaker—Mr Neil Andrew) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 ——Voting lists are recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.Question resolved in the affirmative by an absolute majority.Bills8425r8978425Bill presented by Mr Howard, and read a first time.842515:45:008425Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—On behalf of the government, I am very pleased to present this measure which will put in process a chain of events which will allow the Australian people, on 6 November, to decide not only whether or not this country should change its current Constitution in relation to the Governor-General, the Queen and the introduction of a President elected by two-thirds of the members of the Commonwealth parliament but also whether or not, for the first time since the enactment of our Constitution in 1901, we can in fact have within our Constitution a preamble of our own relating to the Constitution itself.It is worth while saying at the outset that some people erroneously speak as though we have a preamble to our Constitution at the present time. The words, as best I can recall, invoke reliance on Almighty God and the formation of an indissoluble federal Common wealth under the Crown of the United Kingdom and Ireland. That is not a preamble to our Constitution. Rather, it is a preamble to the imperial statute which established our Constitution, which had been approved by a vote of the people of the then colonies of Australia. It is in fact a preamble to that act of the British parliament and not a preamble to the Constitution.The government has been committed to reaching agreement on a preamble because there are many in this country, irrespective of the views they hold on a republic, who believe that at the centenary of Federation we should attempt to state some of the fundamental verities and fundamental values of Australian society and the Australian community. We should attempt to state them as best we can in an aspirational sense, not that they may become a binding legal code, because, as the legislation I have just presented to the parliament indicates, the words of this preamble, if it is supported by the Australian people under section 128 of the Constitution, will not be used to interpret either the Constitution or any law of the Commonwealth applying to the Commonwealth or any part of the Commonwealth. Rather, the purpose of these words is to make a statement about the kind of Australia that we hold dear and about the fundamental values and verities of Australian society in 1999.I want to take a moment, because it is important, to read into Hansard and to read to the parliament the words of the preamble that, if this bill is passed by the parliament, will be presented to the Australian people for a vote on 6 November. The preamble reads as follows:With hope in God, the Commonwealth of Australia is constituted as a democracy with a federal system of Government to serve the common good.We the Australian people commit ourselves to this Constitution:proud that our national unity has been forged by Australians from many ancestries;never forgetting the sacrifices of all who defended our country and our liberty in time of war;upholding freedom, tolerance, individual dignity and the rule of law;honouring Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders, the nation's first people, for their deep kinship with their lands and for their ancient and continuing cultures which enrich the life of our country;recognising the nation-building contribution of generations of immigrants;mindful of our responsibility to protect our unique natural environment;supportive of achievement as well as equality of opportunity for all;and valuing independence as dearly as the national spirit which binds us together in both adversity and success.It would never be possible to get unanimous agreement from the Australian people as to an ideal set of words. Each man and each woman in this country who hold this country and its values dear will have their individual version of what is the best way to express a common love and a common commitment to Australia and to the future of Australia and its people. I do not pretend to this parliament, nor will I pretend to the Australian people, that this represents the one and only expression of patriotism and the one and only assertion of the common values that bind us together.But it is an honest attempt, at the centenary—the 100th birthday—of the Australian nation as a federation, to record some of those values. It speaks appropriately of a common hope in God; it speaks appropriately of the contribution and the place in our community of the indigenous people; it speaks appropriately of the massive contribution made to Australia by successive waves of immigration in successive generations. It speaks of our democratic institutions; it speaks of our respect for the rule of law; it speaks of our federal system of government. It recognises appropriately the massive sacrifices of those men and women who gave their lives to preserve our freedom and it also acknowledges, in the course of doing that, the contribution of many who fought and contributed on the home front during both World War I and World War II. It also recognises a number of values that are important to the aspirational future of this country, particularly our belief that achievement and excellence is something to be encouraged and that a spirit of independence is quite compatible with and consis tent with the spirit that binds us together in both adversity and success.The parliament will be aware that when the first draft preamble was released there was considerable debate in three areas. There was considerable debate about the style in which that preamble was written, about the wording that was used in relation to Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders, and about the inclusion of the word `mateship' in the preamble. I have taken note not only of the many submissions that were made regarding the document but also of comments made through the draft preamble originally agreed to by the Labor Party, the Australian Democrats and the Australian Greens about the style and some of the content of the original document.Although some of my critics on this issue, both in the past and perhaps today, will say that the changes either do not go far enough or go too far or are still inadequate, I did detect in the reactions to the original document a view that perhaps the style of it could be different. People who compare the two documents will recognise that there is some change in style. I think that, as a result, we have a better document, one which states more succinctly and clearly some of the aspirations that we hold in common.There has been a lot of debate about the way in which we describe the role of Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders within our community. It is fair to say that, as I think most people in the parliament will know, I have had some discussion over the past week with the Leader of the Australian Democrats and with Senator Ridgeway, who has recently come into the Senate as a Democrat for the state of New South Wales. As a result of that discussion, we have been able to reach agreement on the words that appear in the bill regarding references to the indigenous people. Once again, they will not be deemed, in the eyes of everybody, perfect and appropriate, but I think they are a fair and honest attempt to say what everybody wants to say, particularly at the 100th birthday of Australia, and that is that these people do occupy a special place in our society. Every Australian wants to say that—except for the most mean-minded and petty. I have said on numerous occasions that it would be a terrible shame and a dereliction of duty by the members of this parliament and a dereliction of leadership on the part of all the members of this parliament if we were to pass up this historic opportunity to say something generous, positive, relevant and uniting about the role of the indigenous people in our community.We may differ, argue and bicker about different policies, but surely on this occasion in this document at this time we can reach a common agreement on some things that all of us together can say, and that is what that paragraph attempts to do. It honours them, recognises their role as the first people of our nation, acknowledges their deep kinship with their lands and also salutes the continuing contribution to, and enrichment of, our nation that their culture makes.Can anybody disagree with that? Can anybody seriously say that that is an unreasonable, excessive, overgenerous, inappropriate thing to say? Surely, for all the partisanship we may have on other issues, none of us, not any of us, can possibly say that that is inappropriate or out of place. Given the history of this country and the history of the interaction between the original inhabitants and those who came in in their successive waves after British settlement 200 or more years ago, surely it is not too much and surely it is an appropriate level of generosity that we at least say that. Those who say that, because that might not be enough, we do not want any of it are participating in passing up a historic opportunity to say something that will unite all of us, whatever our political views are and whatever our views may be on indigenous policy.I hope that this resolution, particularly that part of it, unites all members of this parliament of all political persuasions in both houses and that we can, as one united parliamentary voice, go to the Australian people and say, `Vote for this.' Whatever your views are on the republic, put that to one side. Whatever your views are on that issue, at least on this issue it may be possible for people to come together.In the course of reaching agreement with the Australian Democrats on this issue, it would be self-evident that I in particular and the government in general have agreed to leave out of this document a word that I hold very dear, the word `mateship'. I love that word. It expresses a quintessential Australian attitude. I think that millions of Australians love that word. It would have been so easy for me to have said to the Australian Democrats, `If you won't agree to "mateship", we can't have a preamble.' That would have meant that we would have passed up a historic opportunity to say something decent, noble and generous about the indigenous people of Australia.Much and all as I wanted `mateship' in this document, I wanted a reference to the indigenous people even more because, in terms of the future of our country and what is right and proper to do on a great symbolic occasion, putting some words in the document about the first people of this nation was even more important. I do not agree with the Democrats' reservations about `mateship'. I do not think it is too blokey. I think it is more than a description of something that speaks of the friendship and comradeship in adversity of Australian men. I think it speaks of a lot more than that.But the reality is that there are others of my parliamentary colleagues who do not hold that view and have reservations about it. And, in the end, it was a question of whether I allowed a personal passion for one word to defeat the achievement of something that was more important than any personal, individual satisfaction. The answer to that was clearly that I ought not and that members of the government ought not. After consulting my senior colleagues in my party room, we were all very much of that view—whatever our common disappointment in the fact that that beautiful Australian word will not be in this preamble.We have also had the opportunity to include in this preamble two other issues that were not in the original draft. One of those relates to a reference to the natural environment. It is fair to say that this country has travelled a long way in relation to environmental issues. During question time I saw the minister responsible for the centenary celebrations handling a booklet that was put out at the time of the jubilee of the Commonwealth in 1951. If you had been trying to write a preamble in 1951, nobody would have even raised the issue of some reference to the natural environment. Twenty years ago, perhaps, people would not have thought it was appropriate to put into a preamble, but the environment is now a matter of mainstream universal concern to all Australians. I believe it was an omission in the original document that a reference was not made to the environment.Perhaps because so many of us on both sides of the House have an instinctive respect for and an instinctive desire to honour those who have given so much, many of them making the supreme sacrifice to defend this country, we rather took it as understood that we always honour those who have given service and died in defence of Australia, but there was no particular reference to that. We repair a defect and respond to an omission by including a paragraph reminding Australians never to forget the sacrifices of all those who defended our country and our liberty in time of war.It is also important that the preamble express those great principles of liberal democracy to which all of us subscribe: freedom, tolerance, individual dignity and the rule of law. The great strength of the Australian nation is built upon those inherited values that we have. It is not built upon a formal bill of rights; rather it is built upon the instinctive values of the Australian community and those institutions, including this parliament, the federal system and the democratic character of our nation that provide the underpinning of the free society in which we live.I hope that this bill will receive the unanimous support of this parliament. That is a matter for the Leader of the Opposition and I respect his position on this. I will be interested to hear what he has to say. I make no comment beyond that in relation to anything that the opposition has previously said about the preamble. We do not agree on the republic; we do not agree on a lot of things. I ask him to support this. I ask him to support this because, if he does support it, it will make it far more likely that the measure will be carried by the Australian people.He has a right as the Leader of the Opposition not to support it, just as when I was Leader of the Opposition I had a right not to support things that were proposed by the former government—and many of them I did not, some of them I did. I would find it very hard to believe that there is anything in this document that the Leader of the Opposition and the good men and women in the Australian Labor Party could not support. They may think it does not go far enough. They may think they could express it better. They may think it should have something else in it. They may think this or that word should be in a different place or that a semicolon, a comma or an adjective should be in a different place. Of course they might, and they might in relation to some things be right and in relation to others they might be wrong. But, at the end of the day, for all our political differences and for all the fact that we may with passion argue with each other over taxation, we may argue with each other over the issue of whether we become a republic or not and we may argue about industrial relations and foreign policy, I would have thought—with my experience of the Australian people and all the years I have listened to the views put passionately by the Leader of the Opposition's predecessors as the leader of the Australian Labor Party—that there is nothing quintessentially Liberal or National Party in this document; that the values expressed in this document are Australian values. They are not values that I own to the exclusion of the Leader of the Opposition; they are not values that my colleagues who sit behind me own to the exclusion of those who sit opposite. Surely we all share a common love of the values that are enshrined in this document.The opposition leader may not like the processes that have been adopted in relation to putting this together. Opposition leaders, I have to concur, rarely like the processes that are followed by governments. I had long experience of that. But, at the end of the day, what the Australian people want to know is whether it is possible for all of us here to actually occasionally agree on something that is good and is positive and is proactive. I hope that the Leader of the Opposition can lend his support, and I hope, if he does, that we can all work together on this so that whatever may be the result on 6 November in relation to the republic we can at least together achieve the assent of the Australian people to a formal statement of some great Australian values—particularly, but not only, a recognition of the role of the indigenous people in the Australian community; particularly, but not only, an acknowledgment of the massive contribution made to the building of this country by people of many ancestries and the contribution of immigration to this country. It is impossible to think of the story of Australia, especially over the last 50 years, without thinking of the massive contribution made by immigrants to the development and diversification of this society.Can I say but two other things. I do want to express my gratitude to Senator Lees, the Leader of the Australian Democrats. As with the negotiations I conducted with her concerning taxation, I found her to be direct and forthright, a person who stated her view, who recognised that where we hit a brick wall as far as reaching agreement, the sensible thing was not to try to convert each other but to move onto the next issue. I found it a very positive experience to deal with her on this issue. I do not have any romantic views about future policy cooperation in every area. There are going to be a lot of issues in the future where the Australian Democrats and the coalition will be a country mile apart. I do not agree with reservations of many in her party about the word `mateship', and I still feel keenly the loss of that particular word, but for the reasons I have outlined it was a loss appropriately conceded, however reluctantly, in the greater good of getting agreement on the rest of the words in the document.Finally, not only do I hope this bill receives the support of all parties in the Commonwealth parliament but also I hope that, on the basis of that, we can build very strong support for the document and for the preamble within the Australian community.I committed myself and I committed the government to moving towards a preamble some months ago because I thought it was something that we could do that would bind people together, that would put something in the document that all of us could own, whatever our political views and whatever our views on other subjects. It will, over the course of the next few months, be government policy to secure a yes vote. The government will be asking the Australian people, as a united group of men and women, to support the preamble. We will not be requiring—I suppose I could put it this way—a three-line whip in relation to every member of the parliament. If some people are perhaps not as enthusiastic, that is understood, but all the ministers of the government will, at the very least, be giving positive assent to what is in this preamble because, as a government, we are saying to the people of Australia, `We think it ought to be supported.' Unlike the position we have taken in relation to the republic where, as an act of maturity and in recognition that there are genuinely held views amongst people within a common political philosophy, there will be a free or open vote.I am very proud of these words. They are not perfect. They are not the only way of saying what is in our hearts on these issues—there is never one way of saying what is in our hearts about things of this kind—but they do represent an attempt to say something positive about decent, enduring Australian values. I hope all the members of the parliament will support them and, on that basis, I hope the Australian people take to themselves, in their own words and in their own way, a preamble for their Constitution for the next century. I present the explanatory memorandum to this bill. I move:That this bill be now read a second time.16:10:008430Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—Oppositions are treated with discourtesy as a matter of routine in the House of Representatives, and even from time to time in the Senate. We in the Labor Party are, when we are in government, as guilty of treating oppositions with both disdain and discourtesy from time to time as is any other political force in parliament. I do not therefore claim any unique status in that regard. But I have never before seen a situation when a matter as significant as an amendment to the Constitution was cowboyed through this parliament in two days flat in the way in which this has been without the opposition being given the courtesy of a time for a party meeting to consider it, without the normal notice of a week's gap between consideration for deliberation to take place on it and with an insistence that the Senate reach a conclusion on it within 24 hours of consideration by this parliament. I have never seen an opposition or a parliament, certainly in my time in politics, which is now quite lengthy—and I am not ignorant of the political history of this country—do such a thing. I cannot recollect any other occasion when a matter for constitutional change has been treated in such an extraordinary, cavalier fashion by a government seeking, with the sort of sentiment that the Prime Minister expressed, broad community support for the position he wants to adopt.Going through the consideration of the motives for this, there is no doubt in the minds of the opposition why the government want to have a preamble before us in this way. If they had any other motive in this regard, they would take pretty seriously their obligation to have this considered with a modicum of detail by the parliament. This is being put forward precisely so that the Prime Minister can have something to campaign on positively when essentially he has been negative on the primary issue that will be before the Australian people on 6 November. We cannot honour that motive. We cannot join him with a cheerio for that particular motive. Whatever the content of the document, we cannot join with him in cheerioing that particular motive.We do not dispute the fact that it would be useful to have a preambular statement to the Constitution that properly reflects the sentiments of the community. We have absolutely no quarrel with that proposition. We understand too that, as the Prime Minister pointed out, the document is largely irrelevant to the Constitution. Unlike most preambles to most constitutions, we are specifically reserving this preamble to have no effect. Generally speaking, people are proud enough of their preambles to have them as defining documents for their constitutions. But the Prime Minister has been wise enough to decide in these circumstances that the preamble should have no effect as far as the Australian Constitution is concerned. Therefore, as a matter for deliberation by the Australian people, it is vastly inferior to the other proposition that they will have to consider and which will have a profound effect on the character of Australian institutions and our Constitution. Therefore, I suppose the cavalier fashion in which the Prime Minister has chosen to treat this has at least the justification of the constitutional irrelevance of the document which he has placed before us, but no other. If it is to have the sounding-board effect that the Prime Minister is talking about—that is, a document to express at this point in the century our feelings about ourselves—and have no other effect, then it would be particularly useful, I would have thought, to expand the consultation process.I ask you to compare and contrast. We had, in dealing with the republican issue, an all-party committee which the government took seriously. We had, in the preparation of the question, a Constitutional Convention which the government took seriously. I have criticisms of the long title of the bill—the Constitution Alteration (Establishment of Republic) Bill 1999 . I have no criticism at all of the processes by which the government has handled the republican issue in the parliament, apart from, as I said, the issues on which we have moved amendments, and that is only appropriate in this place. The handling of it was exemplary. The handling of this is the lowest point in political relationships in a parliament for consideration of a constitutional matter which the government wishes to attach weight to and which the government wishes the Australian people to believe has a weight greater than it actually has in constitutional terms. What a tragedy that is that that should be so.Really, the definition of ourselves as a people will be reflected in the extent to which we as a people are prepared to have sufficient confidence in ourselves to determine whether or not an Australian should be head of state. That will be a statement about the Australian people at this time in the century. That will be a statement about whether or not we have fully developed enough confidence in our own institutions that we are prepared to seize all elements of them and thoroughly Australianise them. That is a question which will define us as a people. That is by far and a long way the only significant thing that we will have to come to consider.But what we have here is an opportunity, and it is an opportunity unnecessarily being missed. Let me acknowledge this: this preamble is a country mile from the humiliating and ghastly piece of work that was handed down by the Prime Minister as the product of his work, and almost his work alone, some months ago. I must say my objection to it was not that it contained the word `mateship'; my objection to it was that it was a negative defensive document representing 25 years of late 20th century Liberal Party grievances. It was the opening lines of a prime ministerial rah speech to the Lane Cove branch of the Liberal Party to get across the point of view that somehow or other the world had done them in since the days of the Vietnam War. That was what that particular statement was all about when it had things in it like this:Australians are free to be proud of their country and heritage, free to realise themselves as individuals, and free to pursue their hopes and ideals. We value excellence as well as fairness, independence as dearly as mateship.Australia's democratic and federal system of government exist under law to preserve and protect all Australians in an equal dignity which may never be infringed by prejudice or fashion or ideology . . . Our dignity was never to be infringed by Carla Zampatti. Not under any circumstances was that to occur. It was an extraordinary piece of rubbish, and it was treated for the rubbish it was by the Australian people. It provided them a week or two's hilarity.At least it did one thing. Sometimes there is a view—unjustified—out there in the general public that a person who spends their life professionally in politics might actually be able to pen something about politics, about the Constitution, better than somebody who devotes themselves to other callings. At least it had this democratising effect when it was released upon the unsuspecting public: everybody in Australia knew they could do better than us when it came to penning a preamble, and everybody in Australia did. I do not know about your offices, but my office became impossible as people sent one after another suggestion to replace the preamble that was proposed. I move:That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:"the House resolves(1) that consideration of the proposal be adjourned for 7 days to give Australian citizens an opportunity to consider the matter and have an input into the contents of the preamble; and(2) that it should meet again at a special sitting on or before 20 August to enable the views of citizens to be considered before the House completes its consideration of the measure".It is not our wish to delay this proposition, so it cannot be considered on 6 November, but there is a week available to you for that problem not to arise, and that week should be fully seized. No doubt we will have them coming up and saying to us that it is a bit expensive to call back the parliament once—too embarrassing, too difficult to call the parliament back for one day to consider a proposition to stand in the Australian Constitution for all time. I am sorry, but if you are going to amend the Constitution you can at least be prepared to contemplate the possibility of putting us all to the inconvenience and the expense of one further day's consideration of this matter so that the Australian people can be included within this. Because I am afraid you sitting down for a chat with Meg Lees is not a sufficient basis either on which to draft the Constitution.I say about the content that it is vastly improved and has the capacity to be acceptable. You would not want to junk these words in the way in which you absolutely had to junk the words of the previous proposition before us. There is dignity in a lot of these words. There is an opportunity here for precisely the thing that the Prime Minister asked for if he is prepared to entertain a sensible process for the consideration of it. I suppose this goes not just for his consideration but also for the Democrats as well.I would hate it to be a motive in the minds of the Democrats as they consider this to have this thing cowboyed through the Senate in 24 hours flat because they fear they will be overrun with the concerns of their supporters about the way in which they have handled several issues here. If I have a complaint with the Democrats' handling of this, it is this: if it is, as the Prime Minister states, that they went to the wall on the issue of mateship and not on the issue of a decent statement about our indigenous people—if it is true, and it may not be, that they went to the wall on that rather than on the other—they are condemned. I suspend judgment on all of the undertakings that they have been giving members of our indigenous community for a very lengthy period because I do not know the details of those internal discussions, but the haste with which they seek this issue to be put makes me suspect that the details may be as I have suggested and may become public in very short order.I do not think the word `mateship' belongs in a constitution, but I do not have any problems with it. If it happened to be sitting in this document and the other sections of it were better, it would not worry me for a minute. So, Prime Minister, here is this: we will stick your `mateship' back in here, if that is what you want; give the Aboriginals something decent on indigenous matters. You do not need to deal with them. You name the amendment you want on mateship and we will pass it. We have the numbers here to do it. We have the numbers in the Senate to do it. We will pass whatever you want on mateship. That is our offer. Whatever you want on mateship we will pass, provided we have a recommendation that actually unites all of the Australian people—and, most importantly, the indigenous community—on that section that talks about indigenous people.I would have thought that that is a pretty fair offer. We will cop mateship; you cop decency in the treatment of the Aboriginal people. There are no problems with that as far as we are concerned. I must say I have not followed that through with every single member of their caucus, but they are now committed. Among other things, we have not had an opportunity to call a caucus meeting on this. I know that from time to time it may not trouble our political opponents that we do not have that time, but I think it is extraordinary, when you have something like this, to rush it through.You announced immediately before question time that this was how you intended to handle it. You invited the opposition to have a meeting on it by abandoning question time and then walked in immediately after it. As I said, there have been discourteous treatments of the opposition including many inflicted by ourselves, for which we bear a great shame, but we have never managed anything as low rent as this.There are a number of things that need amendment in this. They go beyond just simply the question in relation to custodianship, and I think we need to think it through. Prime Minister, I do not think you should say, in what is otherwise an excellent sentence `never forgetting the sacrifices of all who defended our country and our liberty in time of war'. I think it is important that you delete the word `war' and put in the word `conflict' which has a significant meaning to Vietnam veterans, to those involved in the Malaysian emergency and, for that matter, Konfrontasi. None of those events were legally defined as war but they were undoubtedly conflicts. Other Australians have lost their lives during peacekeeping operations, which also do not qualify in terms of the word `war' but qualify in terms of the word `conflict'.We will move an amendment in the Senate to delete the word `war' and incorporate the word `conflict' for fear that, if we fail to do so, we will offer unnecessary insult to Vietnam veterans and veterans of all of those other campaigns. Whilst I would look to other sections of the preamble, I thank our Vietnam veteran for drawing that to my attention. We will make certain that the Senate has a full opportunity to declare themselves on the subject of whether war should be substituted with the word conflict. I also believe we need to alter in the preamble the words `honouring Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders, the nation's first people'. The first problem with that statement is that it automatically opens up a dispute between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders as to `first people'. The Torres Strait Islanders are not the first people; the Aboriginals are the first people. So as a bare minimum `nation's first people' has to be altered to nation's first peoples.I think it would be commonsense for you to use the expression `indigenous'—for us all to use the expression `indigenous'—as far as it applies. If you use that, your particular wording might be more in keeping. This is simply a statement of historical fact; it does not need any further argument. If you wish this to be historically accurate, it is the Aboriginal people who were here first. The Torres Strait Islanders were not, though they pre-dated us by a very considerable margin. We also have in the preamble the words `for their deep kinship with their lands'. I understand your interpretation of that basically incorporates kinship for lands that they currently occupy. A proper rendition of this would go more to the proposition that you have before you from the Reconciliation Council—your Reconciliation Council, I might say, since you restructured it—in which they say:We value the unique status of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the original owners and custodians of traditional lands and waters.That is an expression in which the people whom you appointed to that council have placed great store. We ourselves have a preference for the original group of occupants in that reconciliation committee. We made our views clear on that at the time but you appointed others and they have come to that conclusion.If you are seeking in this document an opportunity to encourage at this stage of the century by this process reconciliation with the original inhabitants of this land, then some amendments to those clauses along those lines would be sensible, for simple historical accuracy and, again, minimisation of offence. I think the Vietnam veterans are entitled to have any potential offence removed from their position and the Aboriginals have an entitlement to have any particular offence in histori cal terms removed from their position. I think you ought to take that a point further and make adjustments in a way that brings it into accord—you could not use exactly the same words, because they are not structured in the way in which your other words are—with your reconciliation committee.Prime Minister, if you are prepared to contemplate things along these lines, you will have exactly what you asked for. I think what you have asked for is pure gold. Anybody who has devoted his life and career to politics would want it and you ought to avail yourself of the opportunity. Unfortunately, you do not have much time to consider it, as we do not have much time to consider it, over the next 24 hours. You can laugh and joke all you like about us having had our opportunity. We did put out our preamble and I am pleased to see that the sort of structure you have adopted conforms with the structure that we put out, and that you have come closer in the way in which you have presented your points and arguments to the document that was largely penned by my colleague Gareth Evans. I acknowledge the fact that your document now reads much more appropriately as a starting point of any constitution.From that point of view, I accept the fact that bits and pieces of our approach have been picked up and that it is a much better document for it. If it is going to be a document that has reasonable structure, content and expression for a preamble to a Constitution, that is one thing, but if it is going to be a document to do the things that you want it to do, then it has to be a document with some changes to make sure that all folk have an opportunity to find it acceptable.I may be being exceptionally cynical but, with the way in which reconciliation issues have been handled in this country over the past two or three years, you will pardon me for thinking that the mere fact that we might want to see amendment on that point is, from your point of view, pretty irrelevant as to whether or not you should contemplate movement away from your hard and fast position on this document. You may well like to go around and talk to your colleagues, after the point I have made in relation to the Vietnam War—give in on one thing and you immediately destroy your case for giving in on others, and therefore you ought to leave the document in relation to that as it stands. Prime Minister, it is precisely the point that we have incorporated in our second reading amendment to this particular proposition. If you are genuine about seeking bipartisan support, it is ludicrous to approach a parliamentary debate on a constitutional change like this by handing this down as some ex cathedra document and saying, `You deal with this or you do nothing else.'You were very proud of an appointment you made some time ago of a gentleman named Gatjil Djerrkura. When you appointed him, you expressed a profound confidence in his chairmanship of ATSIC, and a profound confidence that you had in Gatjil a person with whom you could deal on these matters. Let me read what you had to say:Seriously, I think the appointment of Mr Djerrkura is one of the more important appointments that has been made by the government. I had the opportunity today of meeting and congratulating all the new members of the ATSIC board—and you went on to talk about Mr Dillon. You said:I believe both men will bring very great talents and particular capacity to the work of ATSIC.Mr Djerrkura is extremely well qualified for the job. He is a senior tribal man of the Wangurri people in the north-east of Arnhem Land. He is very aware of the importance of traditional indigenous culture and also the problems facing indigenous people in the remote areas of Australia.That is what you said about Gatjil when you appointed him.Here is what he said about you in response to the clause that he, like the rest of us, has just had the chance to read:The changes negotiated between the Federal Government and the Australian Democrats have served to weaken rather than strengthen the recognition of Australia's first nations in the proposed preamble.This is clearly a lost opportunity to acknowledge our ongoing custodianship of this country.Once again, we miss out.That is the considered opinion of Gatjil Djerrkura, the man whom you appointed, speaking on this occasion in his official position as the chairman of ATSIC.You may or may not be disappointed in that reaction, but you should be disappointed. You may see in that reaction an opportunity. You may see an opportunity in the attitudes of the Aboriginal people to these particular clauses, but what you should see is a tragedy that that should be the attitude with which they approach this issue. Prime Minister, we are going to move amendments. I know you have said that this is set hard and fast, but we are not going to let the veterans down. I am certainly not going to let my colleague on the backbench down as far as that is concerned.We will be moving amendments that will more properly reflect the gratitude—I know you attempted to properly reflect it—that we ought to have to Australians who have fought and died in areas of conflict. Irrespective of the fact that you have said that this is a hard and fast document that cannot be adjusted, we will try to adjust it. We will also try to adjust it because we do take seriously the view that you express on the preamble. Where the words are meant, we take seriously the expression of them, and they are that you seek to see this as uniting.If it is your view that some people of European origin in this country will object to it because they do not think that the Aboriginals should be recognised at all, that is potentially a problem; I do not dispute that. It is a sad thing if folk feel that way, but in a life pretty long in politics—though not as long as yours—I have been around most parts of this country at different points of time and talked to people of most backgrounds. I have talked to people who are quite hostile to Aboriginal aspirations and to Aboriginal benefits—people who have very judgmental views about Aboriginal lives, with attitudes and enormous jealousies and anger about what they think is special treatment. But I have never met one—not one—who does not believe that the Aboriginals were the original occupants and custodians of this land. I have not met one! They might say, `They didn't do anything with it and they deserve to have it taken off them,' and, `It is a bad thing that they were here,' and `What a shame,' but I have never heard one of them say they were not here. I have never heard one of them say they did not have original custodianship of this land—not one of all the folk that I have met in that regard.I do not think it is a very big hurdle to leap to have a more accurate historical reflection of the circumstances in which the Aboriginals find themselves. But it would be a tragedy if, to produce an outcome, nearly all the indigenous people of this country took offence to this particular phrase. There is a risk of this, and I hope it is not so; I really hope it is not so, because in the end this may be the question that gets put unless the Democrats can really get an act together and operate decently on this.I think that it would be an opportunity missed for a genuine act of reconciliation. And it is without penalty. There are some who might argue that if you did something like that in a normal preamble for a normal constitution, you would create all sorts of potential legal challenges through aspects of administrative practice and laws that may be governing the affairs of your country, and you would want to think pretty darn carefuly before you did that. But in a no-risk preamble that has no legal meaning at all—no legal meaning whatsoever—which this unusual preamble would have, then to not do a reasonable job on this in terms of at least an opportunity for reconciliation, is a great pity; it is a really great shame.My offer is good. Cop the amendments that we make in relation to all our veterans and the amendments that we make in relation to the Aboriginals—or some variant of them that is appropriate to you—and we will cop mateship. If that is the thing that has disappointed you most about your handling of this document, I think we can fit mateship in here somewhere: `and valuing independence and mateship as dearly as the national spirit which binds us together in both adversity and success'—that is not a bad place to put it. Okay, we could have mateship there. That is an appropriate place in which to put the expression mateship and we could all be happy. We will do that, you do something in relation to the Vietnam veterans and the Torres Strait Islanders, and we can have that wonderful document that you want, we can get it out there into the community, and we can all jointly campaign for a yes vote on it.This will not necessarily be our view subsequently. This is a matter for the party to sit down and determine. We will be voting against this prospect in the House now, and it is a pity. We have not had the opportunity to have a party meeting on it. We will vote against it, I should say specifically, if our amendment is put down, because we think that this is an act of great discourtesy. That will not necessarily be the view that we hold when this matter is subsequently considered by the Australian people, but it is the view we hold now and it is related entirely to this process.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! Is the amendment seconded?JK6McCLELLANDMr McClelland—Mr Speaker, I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.16:40:008436Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—I speak today with pleasure in support of the Constitution Alteration (Preamble) Bill 1999. It is clear that the Constitution lacks a preamble which reflects the development of Australia into a fully independent nation with a distinctive national character.While there is a preamble to the act of the United Kingdom parliament which legally established our Constitution, as was mentioned by the Prime Minister, there is no preamble in the Constitution itself. The preamble to the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act is an interesting piece of history. It records the agreement of the people of the colonies of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland and Tasmania to unite in a federal Commonwealth. It reads as follows:Whereas the people of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland, and Tasmania, humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God, have agreed to unite in one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and under the Constitution hereby established: And whereas it is expedient to provide for the admission into the Commonwealth of other Australasian Colonies and possessions of the Queen:As a Western Australian I am particularly aware that the preamble to the Constitution Act contains no reference to the people of Western Australia. Western Australia is not mentioned in the existing preamble because it did not vote to join the Commonwealth until after the Constitution Act of the United Kingdom had received royal assent on 9 July 1900. By the time Queen Victoria issued a proclamation on 17 September 1900 proclaiming that the Commonwealth of Australia was to come into existence on 1 January 1901, Western Australia had joined. Western Australia therefore agreed to join before Federation occurred on 1 January 1901 but after the passage of the Constitution Act.The existing preamble reflects the age in which it was written, both in content and in style. Now, 100 years later, it is entirely appropriate that the Australian people have the opportunity to consider a contemporary preamble and to consider the inclusion of that contemporary preamble in our own Constitution.A preamble proposal became a prominent issue in the debates at the Constitutional Convention in February 1998. While the convention considered the issue in the context of change to a republican form of government, the two issues do not need to be linked. Change to a republic does not necessarily involve the inclusion of a new preamble. Nor should consideration of a new preamble be seen only as part of a broader change. The issue deserves consideration in its own right and has attracted enormous interest since the proposal has been raised in public debate.The government will present the preamble question as an entirely separate and self-sufficient question at the referendum. In fact, amendments to the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984 have already been passed by the parliament to enable the two questions to be presented on separate ballot papers of different colours.The convention recommended a series of elements to be covered in a new preamble, and the form of words now proposed by the government stands well against the list. The statement `We the Australian people commit ourselves to this Constitution' embodies both the sort of introductory language as recommended by the convention and a powerful statement of the sovereignty of the Australian people. The proposed preamble includes a measured reference to God as well as recognition of our federal system of government, the rule of law and the objective of equality of opportunity for all. It also includes a sincere acknowledgment of the importance of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, their cultures and their relationship with the land.The Leader of the Opposition suggested that it would be a tragedy if the provision that is included in the constitutional preamble proposed by the Prime Minister were divisive of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and of, in effect, the indigenous people and the non-indigenous people. I would simply comment that the use of language like `tragedy' is unfortunate in this context when what is sought is unity. In this context, to achieve unanimity is something really beyond hope, but to achieve substantial agreement on all fronts is, I think, a genuine prospect with the language that is used in the preamble. There are also strong references to cultural diversity and respect for the natural environment. There are references to immigration and the impact that that has had. It is perhaps worth noting that almost all of the 140 members of the House of Representatives and the 76 members of the Senate are descendants of immigrants or immigrants themselves.The inclusion of a tribute to those who made sacrifices in times of war was not among the convention recommendations but surely must have the support of Australians. The formulation is inclusive of those who sacrificed their lives, those who put their lives at risk and those who supported them, whether overseas or in Australia. The Leader of the Opposition raises issues in relation to this of the type that could be raised in relation to almost every provision in any attempt at a preamble and highlights the fact that there will be different views on different formulations no matter how hard you try to get unanimity.The convention was particularly concerned that care be taken to draft the preamble in such a way that it does not have implications for the interpretation of the Constitution. The Leader of the Opposition referred to this as though the provision in the Constitution Alteration (Preamble) Bill 1999 referring to the preamble not having legal force was an entirely negative quality. I remind the Leader of the Opposition that he was a delegate to the Constitutional Convention which took that view by a substantial majority. It recommended an express statement in the Constitution that the preamble not be used to interpret other provisions of the Constitution, and the government has included a carefully drafted clause in the bill. It provides that the preamble has no legal force and should not be considered in interpreting the Constitution or in fact any law in force in the Commonwealth or any part of the Commonwealth. The provision proposed is in the form of a new section 125A which reads as follows:The preamble to this Constitution has no legal force and shall not be considered in interpreting this Constitution or the law in force in the Commonwealth or any part of the Commonwealth.This is not intended to signal that the preamble can just be ignored. If approved at a referendum, it will be a powerful public statement of the values and aspirations of contemporary Australia. How laws should be developed to pursue those values and aspirations must however be a matter for judgment by the elected representatives of the people and the open processes of legislation. It should not be a matter for judicial determination based on the interpretation of what are necessarily broad statements and it should not be the occasion for judges to engage in the pursuit of personal agendas. That opportunity is presented if very broad statements are seen as the basis of legislation.The development of the preamble follows an extensive public debate on the exposure draft released in March this year by the government. Nearly 700 submissions were received in response to the government's invitation for comments, and a wide debate ensued in the media on other drafts. Daily, there was more than one draft in newspapers from different sources. Given the extent of the public contribution, to contemplate that 148 members of the House of Representatives and 76 members of the Senate would not have different views on the formulation of particular words is pie in the sky. Obviously, in this particular case, individuals would draft things differently. There may well be 224 different versions of a preamble if each individual member of the Commonwealth parliament were given the responsibility. What we have is a draft which should be acceptable to almost everybody.The proposal now before the House has taken into account the extensive public discussion that ensued and the numerous submissions that were received in response to the government's invitation and that were presented in the media. That public debate appeared to reflect a genuine desire on the part of Australians to have the opportunity to vote for a preamble which expresses the contemporary values of Australians. Passage of this bill will give the electors of Australia the opportunity to express their views.I commend the bill to the House and I urge members to support it. I indicate that the government does not support the Leader of the Opposition's amendment.16:51:008438McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLANDJK6BartonALP00—The most interesting thing about the Prime Minister's speech is that, instead of it being a unifying and proud speech, it was made very much in the defensive. It was made very much in the context of describing a process of political negotiation and compromise. That stance, I suppose, was made necessary because of the way that this government has presented the Constitution Alteration (Preamble) Bill 1999. It goes without saying, as we all know, that any proposed amendment to any act of parliament, no matter how trivial, is first tabled with an explanatory memorandum. The public is then consulted and the opposition have the opportunity to prepare their argument.As the Leader of the Opposition indicated, there could be no more significant amendment to our Constitution—indeed, to the very heart and soul of our Constitution, the foundation of not only our legal system but our political system—than an amendment to the preamble. It is an absolute disgrace and an indication of absolute incompetence that that was not done. As the Leader of the Opposition indicated, it quite easily could have been done.On 31 May, the Attorney-General referred two referendum bills—the Constitution Alteration (Establishment of Republic) Bill 1999 and the Presidential Nominations Committee Bill 1999 —to a joint select committee. Page 4,516 of Hansard will show that he specifically excluded from the terms of reference a consideration of the preamble issue. So all the work that has been done by that committee well and truly could have covered this issue. I was a member of that committee and many witnesses were chomping at the bit to have their say on the preamble and were not given that opportunity. Indeed, we were precluded from considering it.I agree with the Leader of the Opposition that, by and large, it is a good document. It is certainly a substantial improvement on the former draft, which was best described to me by a constituent as the Leyland P76 preamble. It certainly harked back to a prior era. It had no class and effectively was a dud. But this document does have some class to it. It is misleading for the Attorney-General to say that you are not going to get a document to satisfy all Australians. What it lacks, and it stands out straightaway, is reference to custodianship. As today's media release from ATSIC which the Leader of the Opposition referred to stated:The word custodianship has value in this context because it has become accepted amongst Indigenous people as the English word most closely approximating our deep and enduring relationship with our country.So to impose, in a very patronising, parental sense, a preamble on indigenous Australians in a matter so crucially important to them without consulting them is, quite frankly, an insult and quite contrary to a unifying process—all the more so when you realise what the Prime Minister has been about. He has been advancing the need for a preamble for the politics of the issue. For instance, on 8 February this year, the Prime Minister said, in response to a question from the Leader of the Opposition:Let me tell you my view on the preamble. I think that, as we approach the Centenary of Federation, there are a growing number of Australians—Liberal and Labor, republican and anti-republican alike—who would like to see embedded in the basic document of this country some recognition of the prior occupation of the landmass of Australia by the indigenous people. That is my view. As I go around Australia, I find a greater unanimity of support for that than I do on the issue of the republic.Where is it here? With respect, it is not here at all. Again, on 24 March this year, and again in response to a question from the Leader of the Opposition, the Prime Minister said:The existing preamble is part of the enabling act of the British parliament to which the Australian Constitution is a schedule. The purpose of the exercise is to insert for the first time a preamble in our Constitution. There is no reference in the existing preamble within the British enabling act to the indigenous people of this country.I think it is the desire of everybody, if there is to be a new preamble, a real preamble to our Constitution, to have an appropriate reference to the indigenous people. But, in order to have an appropriate reference, you need to have words that will gather the maximum degree of support.Clearly he has not, and clearly no genuine effort has been made to achieve that, because indigenous Australians have not been consulted. Instead of being a document by Australians for Australians, this is a document done in the backrooms in a political deal between the government and the Democrats for politically expedient purposes. It belittles the whole process.We are aware of the criticism that will be repeated from eminent Australians as to the absence of reference to custodianship of the land by the Aboriginal people. We are reminded of the comments of Malcolm Fraser and of former Senator Viner's comments as well. These are notable Australians from the conservative side of politics, but they are all acutely aware of the intensity with which indigenous Australians regard this issue. It is literally a tragedy—and I use that word despite the Attorney-General's objections—that indigenous Australians clearly will be so profoundly disappointed with this document for that omission. To omit that word is, quite frankly, small. It is not leadership at all. It is a small act.The Prime Minister is entitled to appreciate that, as the leader of the nation, he does have substantial kudos attached to that office. If he picked up the ball and ran with the issue Australians would fall in behind. There is no concern at all, to be realistic, that there would be any significant objection to the inclusion of a reference to custodianship. The Prime Minister on a previous occasion has said that the reference may have some legal significance, and I assume there he is talking about the context of native title claims. The first answer in response to that is, as the Attorney-General read out, proposed section 125A of the document will prevent that having any legal significance. Not one notable Australian, eminent jurist or academic has been brought forward to say that reference to custodianship in the preamble would in any way, shape or form affect the native title debate.I recall the Prime Minister in fact being on the record as saying that he personally had no objection to the term. If he has no objection to the term, he should pick the ball up and run with it. He will carry the day in parliament and he will carry the day with the Australian people, and it will be a document and a moment that he can be proud of. There have been numerous steps. There is no doubt at all that this document, as proposed, is not an advance on the steps that have occurred; it is a retrograde step.As early as 1975, Senator Neville Bonner moved a motion recognising the prior Aboriginal ownership of the Australian continent. At that time, that was unanimously supported in the Senate by both sides of politics. In 1988, after significant pressure by the religious leaders of the nation, the very first act of the parliament in this House in our bicentennial year was for the Prime Minister to move a motion. The first two clauses that Prime Minister Hawke moved were:That this House—(1) acknowledges that:(a) Australia was occupied by Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders who had settled for thou sands of years before British settlement at Sydney Cove on 26 January 1788;(b) Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders suffered dispossession and dispersal upon acquisition of their traditional lands by the British Crown;That motion was unanimously supported in both houses of parliament, and the historical significance of that motion cannot be disregarded.But Prime Minister Hawke's comments are very pertinent to the debate at hand. During the debate he said:We must add one logical step and draw one conclusion of ultimate significance. We must, if we are truly to fulfil our responsibilities as the elected representatives of the Australian people, express our utmost determination to promote reconciliation within our community, and we must do it today. We must, in the words of the third part of this motion, state the desirability of the Commonwealth further promoting reconciliation with the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander citizens,—That is a profound statement of the required leadership. Indeed, he said:It's a politician's job to recognise when the will is there to do something; but they also have a responsibility to create that will.And there is no doubt that we all have that responsibility. Certainly the Prime Minister as a national leader has that obligation, because a preamble serves a purpose that is educative, unifying and uplifting. This is a document with which the Prime Minister could really make his mark on Australian history by showing some generosity of spirit, some leadership, and by taking forward even those who perhaps may be unwilling. They will go gently, mark my words.Another significant marker, which we are all of course aware of, is the Constitutional Convention's recommendation of February two years ago. That unanimously resolved that the preamble should include:Acknowledgment of the original occupancy and custodianship of Australia by Aboriginal peoples and Torres Strait Islanders;Clearly, when you have people like Bruce Ruxton, Digger James and representatives of all walks of life supporting unanimously such a proposition, to disregard it is, again, a tragedy. Of course, as recently as 3 June of this year the Prime Minister quite appropriately moved a motion recognising the issuing of the draft declaration for reconciliation. That is, I believe, unanimously supported by both sides of parliament. It said:We value the unique status of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the original owners and custodians of traditional lands and waters.We respect and recognise continuing customary laws, beliefs and traditions.So there we have a significant history of this parliament unanimously expressing the reality of prior ownership of this land and, indeed, the recognition of Aboriginal custodianship of this land. Indeed, that historical fact is now a legal fact since the High Court Mabo decision of 1992. We can all recognise that in our Constitution because it is, as I have said, a legal and historical fact.The Leader of the Opposition has offered a compromise which can easily be achieved. With good spirit and goodwill on both sides, there will be no problems in achieving a document which, as I have said, is unifying, educative and uplifting of the Australian people. The parliament, however, has left itself open to criticism and, indeed, to the potential for a genuine and successful legal challenge to the referendum to include the preamble in November.I say that because there is significant debate as to whether section 128 of the Constitution allows an amendment to anything other than the Constitution. The preamble will not be included in the Constitution but, rather, will be included in the preamble to the Constitution, that part of the British enabling act. That is a live area for debate. I do not think there would have been a snowflake's chance in hell of that ever being raised as an issue if this document was a unifying document. But the fact is that it will not be. That such tremendous resentment has been caused leaves the result of a referendum on the preamble open to becoming a futility because of legal challenge. That is regrettable, but that could now happen because of the irresponsible, incompetent, uncaring position adopted by this government instead of a strong position of leadership unifying this nation.17:07:008441Worth, Trish, MPMs WORTH8V5AdelaideLP10—Madam Deputy Speaker, a constitutional preamble should pay respect to our past, acknowledge our achievements, define our values and provide inspiration for their preservation. The wording of the preamble before the House succeeds on all these criteria. The move for a preamble illustrates a growing national maturity. We now feel confident enough to put in writing as a precursor to our Constitution what we believe in, who we are and what we want.The preamble acknowledges our diversity and the high price we have had to pay to preserve our values of freedom, tolerance, individual dignity and the rule of law. It acknowledges the original inhabitants of this vast land and the important obligation we have to its preservation for future generations to enjoy. Most importantly, the dominant themes are unity and equality between all and for all Australians.The current preamble, which has been most adequately explained by the Prime Minister, the Attorney-General and the shadow Attorney-General, is actually a preamble to the act of the parliament of the United Kingdom. It is interesting to read and reflect on what is there as it is spelt out at the moment. It says:An Act to constitute the Commonwealth of Australia. [9 July 1900](The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom at Westminster)Whereas the people of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland, and Tasmania, humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God, have agreed to unite in one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and under the Constitution hereby established:And whereas it is expedient to provide for the admission into the Commonwealth of other Australasian Colonies and possessions of the Queen:Be it therefore enacted by the Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:-1. This Act may be cited as the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act . 2. The provisions of this Act referring to the Queen shall extend to Her Majesty's heirs and successors in the sovereignty of the United Kingdom.And so it goes on. There probably would be few Australians who would understand that this is what stands now and that it is an act, as has been stated, of the British government. I would challenge those who might have at some time argued that we do not need a preamble to be aware of what stands now because it spells out the need for us to be doing something about it. I have said to colleagues in the past that I thought there would be marching in the streets if it was widely promoted that this is what we have the chance to replace. I congratulate the Prime Minister for being a driving force for this change. For the opposition to argue that there has not been consultation and that there has not been time to deal with this adequately is really quite false because it has been on the agenda since the Constitutional Convention last year.The preamble before the act of parliament of the United Kingdom is clearly outdated and inappropriate for modern Australia. It makes no reference to the state of Western Australia, but there are good reasons for that. At that time in 1900, Western Australia had not decided whether it wanted to be part of the Commonwealth and was just in fact a colony. It squanders the opportunity to provide definition and inspirational goals for the community.I thank the Prime Minister again for bringing forward this preamble along with the referendum because these issues go straight to the heart of our national identity and will have an enormous impact on Australian civics. It is worth reading the preamble once again because to have listened to the debate from some of those opposite one would question whether they have seriously looked at it and what it means. It states:With hope in God, the Commonwealth of Australia is constituted as a democracy with a federal system of Government to serve the common good.We the Australian people commit ourselves to this Constitution:proud that our national unity has been forged by Australians from many ancestries; never forgetting the sacrifices of all who defended our country and our liberty in time of war;upholding freedom, tolerance, individual dignity and the rule of law;honouring Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders, the nation's first people, for their deep kinship with their lands and for their ancient and continuing cultures which enrich the life of our country;recognising the nation-building contribution of generations of immigrants;mindful of our responsibility to protect our unique natural environment;supportive of achievement as well as equality of opportunity for all;and valuing independence as dearly as the national spirit which binds us together in both adversity and success.The Prime Minister and the government have sought to bind people together, to bring people together. In introducing this legislation, the Prime Minister said that he is proud of these words. I say it is a preamble for the next century. I am disappointed that the opposition has chosen to find fault with this. There are times when there is opportunity for robust debate in this parliament, when there should be genuine conflict, when the community expect us to argue about policy, but there are times when the community expects us to work on things together.As I have already said, this has been on the agenda since the Constitutional Convention last year. It has been talked about on radio. There have been long stories in the daily press. Individual political parties have put forward their preferred preamble. I have even written my own and sent it to the Attorney-General and to the Prime Minister. It was not accepted, and I accept that because I suspect that every one of us in this place would like to write our own preamble. The important thing is that we have a preamble that is fitting for all people in Australia, that proudly gives credit to our indigenous Australians and their continuing culture as first inhabitants, that pays them that respect, that mentions immigrants to this country and the part they have played in establishing it. That is particularly important for my own electorate with people coming from a number of nations around the world all doing their bit and now being proudly Australian.It is very important that this preamble mentions the environment. I am pleased that it is there. It is a reminder to our young people of what they will inherit from our generation to care for into the future. The preamble has words that bind us, words that we can feel proud of and words that the younger generation can hold dear. In the portfolio in which I now serve and having a lot to do with young people I am constantly reminded of their need to feel connected with their community and their country, and connected with those with whom they work and grow up. I think that this preamble to our Constitution achieves all that it sets out to do.I ask the opposition to view this differently, to recognise that they have had opportunities to have their say and join with us, so that when we go to the people on 6 November there will be those in the government who will be arguing for yes and no and there will be those in the government who will be arguing yes and yes—as I will be arguing. I say to all of us that the Prime Minister has been generous. He has been driven by a need to have a preamble and I commend him and his cabinet colleagues for that.17:15:008442Melham, Daryl, MPMr MELHAM4T4BanksALP00—Above all, a preamble should be a uniting document. It should be an uplifting document. It should be one that brings the nation together. But it should also be accurate. I wish to restrict my comments to that part relating to our indigenous brothers and sisters, our first Australians. The proposed preamble is a nonsense. It is historically inaccurate. In terms of grammatical and anthropological aspects also, it is a nonsense. The proposed preamble reads `honouring Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders, the nation's first people'. Torres Strait Islanders, as the Leader of the Opposition has already pointed out, are not the first people. It is our Aboriginal brothers and sisters. And you do not turn around and refer to them as `people'. This is in act after act. The Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation's draft document talks about `peoples', because they are not the same; there is diversity. They are not `a people'; they are peoples. That is not just a pedantic term. There is diversity in the indigenous community, if you look at those from the centre, those from the desert, those from Victoria, et cetera. At the very least, `people' needs to become `peoples'. There needs to be a change of wording. The Prime Minister should look at his own document, his Draft declaration for reconciliation , produced by a council mostly of his appointees. They have circulated a draft. Who was on that drafting committee? Aden Ridgeway was there as the Democrat representative at a public consultation process. It states:We value the unique status of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the original owners and custodians of traditional lands and waters.That covers all things. The Democrats were on that. The government's own representative Sharman Stone was on that. It is part of a consultation process.Our document for reconciliation, our Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation Act, went through this parliament with unanimous support. The council has indigenous and non-indigenous representatives on it. It has representatives of the major political parties. This preamble does not have broad community support or participation. The process is flawed. It is all right for the Democrats and the government to do a sleazy, grubby deal behind closed doors when it comes to the GST, but when it comes to the preamble—an alteration to the Constitution—we should be facilitators for a people's document, a people's preamble, that is uplifting, that we can all be proud of. We do not want to politicise this. Do not turn around and label us as wreckers when we oppose it—when you cannot even get it right.`Kinship with their lands' constitutes both a grammatical and anthropological nonsense. Individuals or groups can have kinship with one another but not with land. Indigenous responsibility for specific country might be totemic or custodial in nature or derived from—among many possibilities—responsibilities for creation songs or stories relating to land. But it cannot be seen or characterised as kinship. We are waiting for this Prime Minister to launch a ship that actually floats. Initially it was mateship. That has sunk without trace. Now it is kinship. That will sink faster than the Titanic, because it is not appropriate. Why? Because people got together, well intentioned—and this is an improvement on the original document that was launched by the Prime Minister earlier—but where were Aboriginal people? Aden Ridgeway is now the token indigenous person consulted. I love Aden. I have enormous respect for Aden. He is a wonderful representative for his people. But he does not represent the voice of all indigenous peoples.What we need to do is take the politics out of this. My friend the member for Cowan has blown out of the water the reference in relation to our veterans in terms of `liberty in time of war', and he will speak on that. Why? Because what has happened is that this process has been flawed. It has not been inclusive. It has been an attempt by the Prime Minister in his hubris and the Democrat leader and her party in their hubris with a new balance of power to play politics. I say to the Democrats that this preamble, if it is not altered, if it is not more inclusive, particularly with respect to indigenous Australians, is doomed. And what a lost opportunity.The government's own appointment, Gatjil Djerrkura, someone whom they appointed—and the Leader of the Opposition talked about it—cannot be seen as a Labor man. This is what he says, in relation to this:The changes negotiated between the Federal Government and the Australian Democrats have served to weaken rather than strengthen the recognition of Australia's first nations in the proposed preamble.This is clearly a lost opportunity to acknowledge our ongoing custodianship of this country.Once again we miss out.Why is this process flawed? Because certain politicians with hubris have captured it. Do not turn around and label us as wreckers. What did the Constitutional Convention—half appointed, half elected; republicans, monarchists—agree on unanimously? What did they applaud when it went through? Custodianship. They had a two-week meeting. They agreed on it. Who torpedoed it? The Prime Minister. He is the only person in the nation that I can recall who objected to that word. I can re member the RSL representative saying, `We don't want it in the preamble. Put it in the body of the Constitution where they get substantive rights.' Bruce Ruxton and his colleagues and Dame Leonie Kramer all got behind it. We are saying that this is not good enough, because we need to be above that.I think that, with a bit more work and a bit more goodwill, there need to be amendments that we can all embrace, and then let us get on with the blue over the republic. But what I do not want is to have second best. I do not want a backroom deal that is dishonourable, that perpetuates what happened at the time of Federation. The indigenous people were not at the table then, nor were women. There was a perception of, `We know what is best for you.' I do not know what is best for Aboriginal people. They do: let them make their own mistakes.I say to this Prime Minister that you are merely the custodian of the office of Prime Minister. You will be remembered as the Prime Minister who failed to apologise; you will be remembered as the Prime Minister who failed in relation to our indigenous Australians, if you do not pull back from this and bring in our indigenous brothers and sisters. They do not ask for much, because this is not going to be a preamble that gives rights.What we have got is a series of pieces of legislation where there was absolute division. The ATSIC Act at the time had a preamble. It has never been altered by this government since it has been there, and it acknowledges that we are dealing with people whose descendants are now known as Aboriginal persons and Torres Strait Islanders and were `the inhabitants of Australia before European settlement', and states:AND WHEREAS it is also the wish of the people of Australia that there be reached with Aboriginal persons and Torres Strait Islanders a real and lasting reconciliation in these matters . . .The Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation Act was unanimously passed by the parliament. The Native Title Act, again in its preamble, acknowledges:The people whose descendants are now known as Aboriginal peoples— `peoples'—and Torres Strait Islanders were the inhabitants of Australia before European settlement.Aboriginal people were at the table when those acts were discussed. They were not at the table in relation to this preamble. We are going to make the same mistake of, `We know what is best for you; take it or leave it,' and yet you are asking us to not be wreckers! If the cap fits, wear it.You have come a long way, Prime Minister—I acknowledge it and I am glad that you have—but you have not quite got there. Open up your heart and start listening. Your Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation is now working on a document. It is inherently different from the words you used. `Kinship' sounds like Dad and Dave or the Beverly Hillbillies. It does not relate to connection with country or land. We do not understand that. How do I know it? Because I have listened to Aboriginal people. Where are they at the table? A document like this, for our Constitution at the turn of the century, with a government that says, `We are committed in our second term to reconciliation,' has to have Aboriginal people at the table as a part of the process. Do not repeat the mistakes of the past, because they dealt savagely with indigenous Australians. They thought they were going to die and go away. They are a rich, vibrant culture: give them a place at the table.Opposition member interjecting—4T4Melham, Daryl, MPMr MELHAM—As my colleague says, they are a strong culture. `Kinship' is an insult. It is not the appropriate word. Relook at it, Prime Minister. You have got the opportunity; you do not have to do a sleazy deal with the Democrats on the basis of the lowest common denominator. Let us have everyone at the table: Labor, Democrats, Liberals, National Party and indigenous people. As I said, you will find some changes to this document, and I think the member for Cowan has already blown a hole in that part relating to his area of expertise and knowledge. Then do the same for indigenous Australians. Then we will have a preamble where we are all in the same boat, and it will float; it will not sink without trace like this will.17:26:008445Entsch, Warren, MPMr ENTSCH7K6LeichhardtLP10—I rise to give my full support to the preamble and I must congratulate the Prime Minister on his excellent work in bringing this together. I see the member for Banks focusing on Aboriginals' concerns with regard to their inclusion in this preamble—or, as he suggests, their lack of inclusion. I was rather interested to hear him make a comment that the Aboriginals were the first people of Australia and not the Torres Strait Islanders. I think the Torres Strait Islanders may take exception to that, because the last time I looked at a map the Torres Strait Islands were in fact part of Australia—and, of course, the Torres Strait Islanders were part—Mr Melham interjecting—7K6Entsch, Warren, MPMr ENTSCH—They were settled in the Torres Strait. Clearly, as an expert in indigenous issues, you do not understand fundamental facts. The fact is that Torres Strait Islanders were certainly there well before European settlement into that area. Having said that, I have to say to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that this is certainly bringing our vision up into the 21st century. It is certainly, I believe, a vision or an aspiration of a greater sense of identity for Australian people and pride in who we are, where we have been, where we are going into the future and what we are at the moment. It is all recognised in here and is appropriately shown.Going through it, I think initially there has been some concern about the fact that we had included the word `God', and I found that absolutely amazing. I think that, given the country that we are, it is appropriate to have the inclusion of:With hope in God, the Commonwealth of Australia is constituted as a democracy with a federal system of Government to serve the common good.I think that is great start for it. I think it is important also to acknowledge in there the service and the sacrifice of those who have given their lives for this wonderful country. That inclusion, as an extra from the original proposal, will be very much appreciated by the veterans of our community and by the families of those who have paid the ultimate sacrifice and by those who have returned from giving to our country service that has helped to make us what we are today.Also, the reference here to the Aboriginal people—and, of course, recognising the Torres Strait Islands people as a separate indigenous group—is very, very important. So I think the wording of that, in honouring Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders, is very important to give us that difference. Of course we acknowledge historical facts, that they are in fact the first people in this country, both in the Torres Strait and in mainland Australia.As the representative of an area that has the third or fourth largest Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander population in this country and from talking to the communities—taking the politics out of it—I do not believe that they would have a major problem with that statement because in it we are appreciating their culture. This is a positive document not a negative document, and that is important.We also need to acknowledge the contribution made by our immigrants. These days, with a growing awareness of and a real focus on the environment, having a statement about the environment included is very positive, and we should be proud that it has been included in this preamble. I think that generally it is an excellent document.The member for Adelaide expressed her disappointment at the lack of support from the opposition. I suggest to the member for Adelaide that the opposition are the Democrats these days. The Labor Party have long since dealt themselves out of the debate on a whole raft of important issues in this country and, as a consequence, they are totally insignificant.One disappointment I have is that we were not able to include the word `mateship'. That is something that is uniquely and truly Australian. It does not matter where we go in the world, everybody recognises mateship as something that is purely and uniquely Australian. Given that this is purely and uniquely an Australian document, it is a pity that we could not be allowed to include the one word that gives us that real sense of identity as Austral ians. Nevertheless, I am certainly proud to give my full support to this preamble.17:32:008446Edwards, Graham, MPMr EDWARDS83RCowanALP00—The concluding remarks of the previous speaker, the member for Leichhardt, really do not do this debate much justice at all. This is a debate that ought to be above politics, that ought to come from the heart of those people who come into this chamber and that ought to come from the heart of those people who represent the great Australians who collectively make this nation. I want to urge the Prime Minister to defer this debate and I want to urge the government to support the second reading amendment. Out of respect for the people of Australia, we do need to give ourselves a week so that we can go back to our electorates and give people who feel strongly that they want our preamble to be able to stand up for the next 100 years and proudly reflect what we are about as a nation to have an opportunity to comment on it. If we force this bill through today in the time frame that the government has set down, then we will certainly not be doing justice to the debate, to the preamble or to the people that we represent. The Attorney-General is right to say that it would be pie in the sky for anyone to think that the 150-odd members of this chamber could collectively write a preamble. It is equally pie in the sky to say that one person—namely, the Prime Minister—could capture the things that importantly make up any preamble. How can one man reflect the character, the diversity, the suffering, the triumph, the tragedy, the humour, the courage and the sacrifice of the people who make up this nation? How can one man possibly capture all of those characteristics, particularly—and I do not mean this unkindly—a person who has spent so many years in parliament so often away from the mainstream experiences of people in our nation? It is simply not fair, nor is it dinkum, for him to endeavour to confiscate from the people of Australia the opportunity to have a reasonable say and a reasonable input into what should be our preamble. Equally, it is wrong for the Prime Minister to confiscate from this parlia ment the opportunity to adequately and fully debate this preamble. I think we have this preamble wrong in a few areas. All of the previous speakers from this side of the House have indicated that, in our view, we have it wrong in relation to our indigenous people. How can we possibly impose on our indigenous people a section in the preamble without talking to them? Indeed, how can we impose it on them in any sense? Surely the indigenous people themselves of this nation should have an opportunity to write their own section into our preamble.As has been said before, this preamble ought to be about bringing people together. It is not going to work that way if we push this legislation through in the way that has been moved today. It will become a divisive document that will do nothing to unite and to pull Australian people together at a time when we should be doing just that—a time when we should be celebrating 100 years of nationhood. The other area where quite clearly we have it wrong is the reference to veterans. I congratulate the Prime Minister for putting that in. As a veteran, I was pleased when I saw that reference. But, as a Vietnam veteran, let me tell the House that I was absolutely horrified when I saw the wording of the section that I am referring to, which reads:. . . never forgetting the sacrifices of all who defended our country and our liberty in time of war . . . Many Vietnam veterans, when they came home from Vietnam, were told that they did not take part in a real war. They were turned away from RSLs and they were shunned by many people in this nation—shunned, ostracised and turned out in the cold. I know how Vietnam veterans will feel on this issue. It is not just Vietnam veterans, however. What about those who served in Borneo, Malaya, Indonesia and in those other areas of conflict where war was never declared?Twenty minutes would not be enough time to talk about something that I feel very strongly about and, in order to give my colleagues as much chance as they can to have a say, I do not intend to say any more. I will conclude, however, by again urging the Prime Minister to consider the amendment that has been moved by Kim Beazley. I want to thank Kim Beazley for making that point earlier on today about Vietnam veterans. I urge the Prime Minister to consider this amendment and, in fairness to all Australians, support the amendment.17:38:008447Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLP10—Every so often in life we do get the opportunity to stand up and be statesmanlike, to espouse principle, to rise above the hurly-burly of politics, to stand up with the Australian people and to deliver what the Australian people would like us as politicians to deliver. We all know that politicians are seen as being people who will oppose what the other side of politics suggests, no matter how good that proposal is. We are expected to be confrontationalist, we are expected to be self-serving and we are expected to be small-minded and petty.When the Prime Minister came into the House and announced the Constitution Alteration (Preamble) Bill 1999 and what the government was seeking to achieve, I have to say that I had a great sense of pride to be part of a government that, as we approach the centenary of our Federation, is prepared to stand up and define where we are as we reach the threshold of the next millennium. The Prime Minister initially talked about a preamble in March this year. There was widespread discussion in the Australian community. There was much comment. The Prime Minister has taken on board all of the feedback. He has come into the chamber and he has brought forward this noble document, this preamble of which all Australians can be proud—and, I must say, a document which I would have expected would have gained the support of the opposition. It is a pity that the Leader of the Opposition has chosen to play partisan politics. It is more than a pity; it is a tragedy that Labor speaker after Labor speaker participating in this debate is seeking to impugn the motives of the government and the Prime Minister. They are seeking to politicise this attempt by this government to espouse where we stand as a nation.When we look at the preamble itself it refers to `hope in God'. The Commonwealth of Australia is constituted as a democracy with a federal system of government. And then, without actually reading the preamble, it includes many things. It refers to the fact that we share many ancestries, that people have made sacrifices in time of war to make sure that the country is what it is. It refers to the freedom, the tolerance, the individual liberty and the rule of law. It refers, most importantly, to our indigenous Australians in a very statesmanlike and elegant form of words. It refers to the migrants, those people who have come from the four corners of the world to join us as Australians. And it also highlights the fact that we must take into account the importance of our environment. It talks about the support of achievement and the equality of opportunity. It stresses independence as dearly as we value the national spirit which binds us together. This document is a defining document, which will I believe gain the support of Australians throughout the country in the referendum on 6 November. I am someone who opposes Australia becoming a republic because I think we have a system of government which has served our nation well; a system of government which contributes to the freedom, stability and way of life that we enjoy. But I am very supportive of this preamble and I do intend to vote yes on 6 November because I want to be part of a government, a parliament, which is prepared to make a statement as to our national aspirations, our national position.It is not too late for the Labor Party to join us. It is not too late for them to rise above the petty, cheap, nasty partisan politics that we have heard uttered by the member for Banks and other Labor speakers. I am immensely sad that I am standing in the federal parliament today, having listened to the contribution of those opposite. The member for Banks said that a preamble should be uplifting—a document of which we can all be proud. This is such an uplifting document. The member for Barton said that the Prime Minister should display generosity of spirit and leadership. Even the Leader of the Opposition said that the form of this preamble takes on board some of the criticism which was advanced following the release in March. In fact, he even suggested that the form of wording was very close to the wording of the member for Holt. The Prime Minister has shown enormous generosity. Members opposite have participated with disgraceful contributions. The member for Banks referred to backroom deals with the Democrats—sleazy deals. He claimed that the Prime Minister has failed. The people of Australia will, I believe, reject that rhetoric. They know that rhetoric is wrong. They know that it is despicable.In the remaining time that I have I want to plead for bipartisanship. I want to ask the opposition to rise above the partisan morass of politics in this country. I want them to join with us, hand in hand, as we march to the next century with an important statement of where we stand as a nation. The Prime Minister is a statesman; I ask the Leader of the Opposition to also become a statesman.17:44:008448Murphy, John, MPMr MURPHY83DLoweALP00—I support the proposed amendments to the Constitution Alteration (Preamble) Bill. Today is a very sad day for all Australians, for the Prime Minister is attempting to ram through this legislation and not provide proper opportunity for a debate on his latest version of the preamble. The Prime Minister would be well advised to take up the invitation of my leader, the Hon. Kim Beazley, and allow this parliament a further day's sitting to consider this very, very important issue.I thought the preamble was meant to be inclusive—that is, for all Australians. Clearly, the Prime Minister's latest preamble does nothing to give any confidence to our indigenous brothers and sisters in the promotion of reconciliation. Even the Chairman of ATSIC, Gatjil Djerrkura—the Prime Minister's own appointment—has lost faith with the federal government. His press release just released this afternoon is titled `Proposed preamble a profound disappointment'. The Chairman of ATSIC concludes his press release:I'd be very surprised if many Indigenous people share the view that this new draft preamble promotes reconciliation or in any way advances their aspirations. I am disappointed on a personal level having made all political parties aware of our position and I will be interested to hear the rationale for this proposed preamble.Indeed, all Australians will want to know the rationale for the Prime Minister's proposed preamble.All Australians should have the opportunity to express their views about something which will be forever enshrined in our Constitution. In a press release that I received in my office a moment ago—at 5.15 p.m. precisely—the Leader of the Australian Democrats, Senator Meg Lees, has once again demonstrated to the Australian public that she is a de facto member of the Liberal Party who is even prepared to do a deal on such a sensitive and important issue as this. I was positively nauseous reading the opening sentence to her media release of a few moments ago, and I will read it to the House for the record:I am delighted that we have been able to reach an agreement with the Prime Minister on a preamble.She goes on:I would like to pay tribute to the Prime Minister for the manner in which he conducted the negotiations. His willingness to explore the issues and to seek common ground has resulted in a preamble of which, I believe, all Australians can be justifiably proud.Clearly Senator Lees is embracing the Prime Minister and abandoning indigenous Australians. This is a shocking case of the blind leading the weak.Truly, after her GST deal with the government and now this, those who have supported her and her party will take a stick to her at the next election, if those decent Democrats do not topple her first. Obviously Senator Lees's leadership is terminal and without credibility.In relation to the member for Leichhardt's statements about mateship, clearly Mr Beazley has made an offer and has indicated his preparedness to include `mateship' in the preamble. We have no problem with that. In relation to the member for Fisher's comments, I would have thought that Mr Beazley's statements here this afternoon were very generous in terms of his offer.We must ask ourselves some fundamental questions about this preamble. Why won't the government recognise Aboriginal people as the first inhabitants, the original owners of our land? Why is the government so intent on pushing its own agenda and not giving the Australian public an opportunity to express their opinions on this latest preamble? I will tell you: the government is just intent on slamming the door in the faces of indigenous Australians. The government is totally disingenuous in its commitment to Aboriginal reconciliation. Moreover, the government does not care what the majority of Australians think on these very, very important issues.Finally, for the sake of democracy and decency, I implore the Prime Minister to heed the words of the debate on this side of the House and permit further debate whereby the interests of all Australians can be protected.17:48:008449Causley, Ian, MPMr CAUSLEY4K6PageNP10—A lot of members of the opposition have called for the preamble to the Constitution to be inclusive. They have the opportunity to have it inclusive, because they are the only members of this parliament who are standing outside that. I listened with some disbelief to the speech of the Leader of the Opposition. He had an opportunity. As the member for Barton quite rightly told this parliament, in the past oppositions have agreed with governments. This is my second parliament, but I believe that in the past the opposition on a number of occasions agreed with the government on significant issues, and the parliament voted accordingly. This is an opportunity for the Labor Party to show that they can become part of the debate.It is rather interesting that the member for Lowe just indicated that he was disappointed about the fact that the Democrats had had dealings with the government on this issue. If the Labor Party had indicated that they were prepared to negotiate, then they could have been in that position. I think that is the problem that the Labor Party have at present: they immediately say no to everything and they are excluded from any discussions.I have listened to the arguments put forward here, and I have to say that most of what I have heard is pedantic. I have to say that I was disappointed by the contribution from the member for Banks. He talks about people being inclusive but, with the venomous contribution and uncharitable words that he had to say about the Prime Minister, it is very difficult to see how he could get inclusion with any group of people. I note that the member for the Northern Territory is here. I dare say his contribution will be similar.Arguments have been put forward. The member for Banks talked about Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander `peoples'. I have never heard `Australian people' called `Australian peoples'. I think that is a rather pedantic argument. There is no doubt that they are two totally different people and in the preamble they have both been mentioned. The Leader of the Opposition in fact was trying to argue that there was some flaw in this preamble because of the fact that Torres Strait Islander people were not the original people. For goodness sake, the Torres Strait Islanders have been a part of Australia for a long, long time, and I think they would expect that they are the original people in those areas. So I cannot see where that argument stands at all.The member for Cowan raised the issue of the recognition in the preamble of those who have laid their lives on the line to protect this country. I think it is very pedantic to start to say that those who participated in the Vietnam War would be excluded from that. Growing up, I always knew it as the Vietnam War. I knew the Korean War as the Korean War. There is only one argument, I suppose: you could say that the Malaya campaign was always called the Malaya campaign, so we will acknowledge that that might not have been called a war. But there is no doubt that the others were.The problem that the member for Cowan has is the fact that the Vietnam War was the first war that was ever politicised, and there is no doubt that the Labor Party politicised it. For the first time in Australian history we had troops on foreign soil who did not have the support of the total Australian nation. That is where the problem comes in. It was nothing to do with the Vietnam War not being considered to be a war; it was. Those who fought in Vietnam have just as much recognition from this country as anyone else.There is no doubt, as the member for Leichhardt said, that one of the disappointments in this is that the Labor Party ranted and railed about the fact that the Prime Minister, in his original preamble, included the word `mateship'—and now we have the audacity of the Leader of the Opposition, because he knows the Democrats are opposed to the word mateship, saying, `We will now include it if you accept all of our amendments.' That is a cheap shot, if ever I have heard one. He knows dash well that he is on safe ground there. There is no doubt that that statement is absolutely insincere.I come from the grassroots of the labour movement. My first job was a menial job, piece rate work. I am proud of the mates I had in that job, and we are still mates. We can still go to the pub and have a beer and a yarn. I was listening to the radio here in Canberra only yesterday morning and a female presenter on there, when talking to her male counterpart, said, `Okay, mate'. It is part of Australian idiom. It is quintessentially Australian, yet the Labor Party, which say they represent the working class, cannot get themselves to accept it. I guarantee that, if this had been the Labor Party's idea, it would now be the greatest word in the Australian language.WF6DANBYMr Danby—He has just said he will put it in; are you deaf?4K6Causley, Ian, MPMr CAUSLEY—Yes, he said he will put it back because he knows it will not be accepted now, but he did not say that weeks ago. That is a cheap shot and you know it. The Labor Party have proven here today that they are not interested in the good of Australia, the welfare of Australia; they are only interested in petty politics, and we are seeing a great example of that here today.17:54:008450Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDONIJ4Northern TerritoryALP00—During his contribution this afternoon, the Prime Minister used the following words in relation to how we should view ourselves in the context of the preamble. He said it would be a dereliction of our duty if we were not generous, positive, relevant and uniting about the role of indigenous people in our communities. Those were his words. The problem with the Prime Minister's position is that he has a fundamental misunderstanding about the nature of indigenous peoples in this country. This proposed preamble shows his ignorance.Before going to my next point, I make the comment that I am quite surprised the Democrats fell for this trick. I say to Meg Lees, as the Leader of the Democrats, that when you start ringing around the country getting advice from other Aboriginal persons, indigenous Australians, apart from Aden Ridgeway—who, I might say, is a very fine person and someone for whom I have the highest regard and highest respect—they will tell you that you are wrong.In my community, the Northern Territory community, we do not talk about Aboriginal people as one unit, we talk about Aboriginal peoples—whether they are the Gumatj, the Aranda, the Warlpiri, the Yorta Yorta in Victoria, the Miriuwung Gajerrong or the Bardi. They are acknowledged as distinct peoples by other Aboriginal people. It is blatantly incorrect to refer to Aborigines as the `nation's first people'—Aboriginal peoples, maybe; Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, why not? But in the current construct of this document, it is flawed and for that very reason it should be amended. It is just incorrect.I understand in the context of international jurisprudence—there are many noted lawyers in this place, and I am not one of them—that the word `peoples' is what is recognised. The member for Banks earlier this evening talked about the way in which these issues have been addressed in previous parliaments with other legislation. The other aspect of this that I find a bit disturbing, in the context of indigenous Australians, is honouring these people for their deep kinship with their lands. What the hell does that mean?The member for Banks went through what I think is a fairly good summary about the problem with this statement. I think the government and the Prime Minister, and those who advised him, have confused social relationships with the custodial responsibilities Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people have to the country, and their prior occupancy and ownership. We are talking here of the difference between a social obligation and their rights to property. This recognises a social obligation in a very weird way—I might say—but it does not recognise that indigenous Australians were the prior occupiers and owners of this nation.When we deliberate about that, we will see that this is really a bit of a sideshow because, as the Leader of the Opposition pointed out, this will have no force. It is important as a statement, but it will have no force in the context of the Constitution. The main game really is whether we should have an Australian as our head of state—let us be clear about that. If it goes through as it is, without the amendments, it will be forcing Australians to vote against this proposition, and I suspect that is what the Prime Minister has at the back of his mind: `If I can confuse the debate, we will be inviting people to vote no for this and for the republic.'I have mentioned in this House previously that, when the Northern Territory community was asked questions like this, when there were confusing elements, they voted them down, and that is what I am concerned about. As parliamentarians, we should be able to walk out of this place with the clear knowledge that both sides of parliament are going to advocate a yes vote for both questions, and certainly for this question. At the moment, it is going to be very difficult for me to do that unless the Prime Minister accepts that there needs to be substantial amendments to this portion of it.I might just complete my contribution by alluding to another point. The Leader of the Opposition and the member for Banks both talked about the draft document of reconciliation. Surely what the Prime Minister is doing here this evening by promoting this document is pre-empting the whole reconciliation process. In the last weeks, members of the Reconciliation Council have been trouping around Australia, having public consultations about a document which talks about valuing the unique status of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the original owners and custodians of traditional lands and waters, and here we have the Prime Minister white-anting that approach directly and without shame. I say to the Prime Minister: for the sake of unity—something you refer to in your contribution—let us go back and think again. Make the necessary amendments so we can get an agreed document and go out campaigning for this proposed preamble.18:00:008451Lieberman, Lou, MPMr LIEBERMANXU5IndiLP10—I support the Constitution Alteration (Preamble) Bill 1999, and I congratulate the Prime Minister because I believe the preamble does reflect what the substantial majority of Australians would regard as a very appropriate set of words. It is one that reflects very important values and characteristics about Australia. I do not propose to be involved in any bickering, but the proposals and criticisms about the preamble that I have heard so far from members of the opposition are quite ludicrous and inconsistent.The Leader of the Opposition's amendment is proposing that no decision be made on the preamble until a period of seven days passes by and Australian citizens input into it and that a special sitting of parliament then be held. If the members of the opposition were consistent and fair dinkum, they would not be getting up now and making judgments and severe criticisms of the preamble—and, indeed, rejecting it. There is no logical consistency with that. Therefore we are seeing, regretfully, an exercise to politicise an excellent preamble and to derail it. That is as clear as anything; anyone could see that logically. If the opposition say, `Hang on, don't make your mind up on the preamble until after consultation and a special sitting of parliament to consider input from Australians,' how then can they get up today and reject the preamble, as they have done? That speaks for itself; I will say no more about that. As an Australian, I do not believe that you can possibly get everyone in Australia to agree to every word, but you can get everyone in Australia with good will to agree in substance, because the words are appropriate.I am an Australian with a dad who served in two world wars and a brother who was a Rat of Tobruk, and I am a former national serviceman myself—fortunately, never having to go overseas and face a war. I am a person who tries very hard to understand Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and to learn from them, and I have many friends who are Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. As a member of the community and a member of parliament, I think I understand the characteristics of Australians. The preamble answers and responds favourably and reflects the characteristics of those things.Finally, my own dad came from London. He was not a migrant; he came under his own steam via America after the First World War. He was a very poor but proud man who, as a boy, carried a photograph of some of Australia's beaches in his pocket, dreaming one day that he would come to Australia—and he did. He brought his mother and he brought his brothers and sisters to Australia. That is my background.5V5SMITHMr Stephen Smith—He would vote for the republic!XU5Lieberman, Lou, MPMr LIEBERMAN—I do not know; my father has passed on, regretfully. But the traditions and emphasis that he gave to me and all my brothers and sisters was to love your country, to serve it as best you can, to put something in and to thank God every day for the wonderful country that we have. It so happens that one of his sons believes that we should have an Australian head of state who is not elected by the people. So, if you want to know my inner thoughts, there they are. I support the Prime Minister's preamble because it honours the people that have served us so well and it also honours people from other countries.I am a patron of the Kosovars, which is just a contemporary reminder of how dreadful a war can be and how Australia over the years has been a new home to people. My brother-in-law came from war torn Germany-Austria after the war. The preamble honours those people but it also says to Australia's first people—our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people—that we honour them and we note their deep kinship. There are various categories of Aboriginal people: there are people who are native title claimants, there are people who are traditional owners under the Northern Territory Aboriginal land law, there are community members, and there are traditional owners. There is a whole range of people in the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities who have different aspects to their presence in Australia today. What better words—because you cannot encapsulate in a word all the other aspects—than to note their deep kinship with our lands? That is very appropriate.You can have a view that is something different from that, and I respect that, but you have to try to get a substantial agreement on a measure of words that is accurate and fair and something that we can all be proud of. I intend to remain proud of those words and to do my best to make sure people do not get frightened off by petty bickering politics as shown today by the Leader of the Opposition's attempt to derail it before the special sitting of parliament by saying it is no good. Humbug; absolute humbug!18:06:008452Hall, Jill, MPMs HALL83NShortlandALP00—The Prime Minister's obsession with the preamble to our Constitution is designed to distract Australians' attention from the real issue, which is whether or not Australia should become a republic and have an Australian head of state. John Howard is opposed to Australia becoming a republic, as we all know. So what does he do? He tries to distract people. He tries to distract Australians by saying that we can have a new preamble to the Constitution to celebrate Federation or to celebrate the new millennium, but we cannot have a republic. He says he will not support the republic. He will do everything he can to confuse the issue of whether or not Australia should become a republic and have an Australian head of state. This is a feelgood solution. It is dishonest, it is designed to create confusion, and it is very much in line with the dishonest approach the Prime Minister has had to this whole issue. Anything he can do to muddy the waters, he does. It is a Clayton's change. It is a change to the Constitution that will have no legal force. It is a change you have when you do not have a change, and it is very much a spoiling tactic.At the public hearing in Melbourne of the Joint Select Committee on the Republic Referendum, Malcolm Fraser came along and addressed the hearing. He said:I do not believe the preamble should be put before the people for a vote until after the referendum on a republic or otherwise has been held. There is a very simple reason for that: if a decision is taken to move to a republic, that should be reflected in the preamble.Those are the words of Malcolm Fraser, a former Liberal Prime Minister of Australia. He is a person who strongly believes that we need change in this country and who supports Australia having an Australian head of state, but he says that any change to the preamble should reflect a change to the Constitution. So if the referendum is successful then that should be encapsulated in a preamble. I agree with Malcolm Fraser. It is not the time to put a preamble before the Australian people. We need to look at whether or not we will become a republic and whether we are going to have an Australian head of state.The latest proposed preamble is better than the Prime Minister's first attempt. I will give him that. But we still have problems with custodianship, as mentioned by previous speakers on this side of the House. I would like to refer again to Malcolm Fraser. He did not like the previous preamble, and one of the things that he was really upset about was that he thought that the preamble ought to have the word `custodianship'—or at the least `former custodianship'—in reference to Aboriginal Australians, the original inhabitants of this country. The Prime Minister continues to skirt around this issue. There is no way that he will include that in a preamble. A preamble should be unifying; it should bring all Australian people together. The Prime Minister is continuing to create a situation which will cause division.The whole process of consultation has been bad. Consultation is not going off and talking to the Australian Democrats; it is talking to the Australian people. You have to bring the Australian people with you if they are going to have ownership of the preamble. But the Prime Minister is frightened of consultation. I think he will go down in history as `Do a Deal John' because he is out there doing a deal with the Democrats—anything he can do to get his question through so that he can muddy the waters in the republic debate. His preamble and his approach to this whole issue has been in a 1950s mould. He sits in his chesterfield lounge and looks back to the past. He is not prepared to look at the issue in a way that is going to inspire Australians and give us something to look forward to in the next millennium.In Newcastle, the committee was addressed by Andrew Buck, a lecturer in politics at Newcastle University. He said that a preamble needs passion and words that all Australians can aspire to—not something that is alienating like the words in this preamble. The Prime Minister does not have the exclusive knowledge of what should or should not be in a preamble. He cannot speak for all Australians. He needs to consult. This is a sad excuse for a republic.18:12:008453Nelson, Dr Brendan, MPDr NELSONRW5BradfieldLP10—This is arguably, in one sense, one of the most important things that we will discuss in the parliament during this session, but in another it is not. I think it was on Monday night when I heard some of my colleagues all around the chamber speaking with great passion, and about passion, about the need or otherwise for Australia to be a republic. I thought at the time that it is a pity that the same people would not become just as impassioned about suicide, drug use, homelessness, houses that have been repossessed, our aid programs or any one of the other things that we do to try to eliminate human misery and to give some meaning to being an Australian.The BBC ran a program a couple of years ago about civilisation. Kenneth Clark, the well-known historian, in reviewing society's long past, said that, no matter how complex it may be, society is fragile. And it is lack of confidence more than anything else that kills a civilisation. We can destroy ourselves with cynicism and disillusionment just as effectively as with bombs. As we are told every day, we stand—many with great trepidation—on the verge of a new century, a new millennium. It is a time when we ask ourselves as Australians, `What will we leave in this century, and what do we think important enough to take into the next?' That is why this preamble to the Constitution is extremely important: the destiny of our country is not going to be determined by much of the legislation that is passed in this parliament, nor is it going to be determined by many of the banal, meaningless and frequently idiotic things that are said by members on both sides of the House. It is going to be determined by our values, our beliefs, the way we relate to one another, and the way we see our place in the world.The preamble to our Constitution, in introducing the foundation for governance in this country, is very much a statement of who we are and, more importantly, the sort of people that we believe we have been and the sort of people that perhaps we want to become. It is not the preamble that I would have written; it is not the preamble that I think anyone else in the parliament would have written. In fact, we could have 18 million preambles if we asked Australians what they would like to have. But this preamble embodies the fundamental principles upon which the country has been built. It brings some people who might prefer to stay in the 20th century into the 21st and it restrains some others who perhaps want change seemingly for its own sake.I have referred in the parliament in the past to a book that I received from a constituent. The book was authored by the German physicist and philosopher, Bernhard Philberth. It is entitled Revelation, and it is about change. It is about how people deal with changes in their lives and in organisations. Philberth said:Progress leads to chaos if not anchored in tradition. Tradition becomes rigid if it does not prepare the way for progress. But a perverted traditionalism and a misguided progressivism propel each other towards a deadly excess, hardly leaving any ground between them.This preamble brings Philberth's traditionalists—many of whom I believe are or were acolytes of Ms Hanson and her One Nation Party—to an understanding of what our core values are as a nation and embodies them in the preamble. But it also restrains the progressives who neither understand nor respect the fundamental values that built this country 100 years ago.I strongly support this preamble. I urge some other members in the parliament, par ticularly on the other side, to rise above the mediocrity of some of the contributions that I have heard. This is not a Labor-Liberal issue; this is an issue for us as Australians, and there are critically important reasons why we need to get this through. I heard my friend and colleague the member for Lowe denigrating, for example, the passage that refers to indigenous Australians. For God's sake, it was put in there by an indigenous Australian—a member of the Senate, apart from anything else. I strongly commend this to the parliament, and I thank the Chief Government Whip for giving me the chance to speak.18:17:008454Emerson, Craig, MPMr EMERSON83VRankinALP00—In the short amount of time available, I wish to make a few brief points. Firstly, the Leader of the Opposition's proposal that this debate on the Constitution Alteration (Preamble) Bill be adjourned for just seven days is full of merit. When you think about it, the preamble that is voted on in November may well be the preamble to the Constitution for the next 100 years. We have had this document put on the table today and now the debate and the bill are being rushed through with indecent haste. Surely, for a matter so profoundly important and so enduring, there is the opportunity for an adjournment for just seven days.Secondly, I also agree with the opposition leader's comments that this preamble is vastly improved—it is. It is a very good basis from which we could make some modifications to achieve full bipartisan support. On the question of `never forgetting the sacrifices of all who defended our country and our liberty in time of war,' we believe that the word `war' should be replaced with the word `conflict'. In my own electorate of Rankin, there are very many veterans of the Vietnam War, the Malayan Emergency and the Indonesian Confrontation. I pay tribute to them. I recognise them and I think they should be recognised in the preamble.The next point is on the issue of custodianship. Custodianship of the land by indigenous people is not a value judgment; it is an observation of fact. I cannot for the life of me see why the Prime Minister has such difficulty in acknowledging a fact of life. But he seems to have that difficulty, and I worry that the motivation behind his refusal to use the word `custodianship' is a very ungracious one. He cannot hide behind legality, saying that that would set some sort of precedent or affect any legal cases; we know that is not the case. I urge, in the strongest terms, the Prime Minister to include the word `custodianship'.Finally, this government is not living up to equality of opportunity. A lot of its policies, particularly in the education area, are against equality of opportunity. I think it is a terrific phrase. I fully support it, but I do believe that a government, in its actions, needs to support that as well.18:20:008455Baird, Bruce, MPMr BAIRDMP6CookLP10—I rise to support the preamble. I will be voting yes on the republic and I will also be voting yes to the preamble. I believe that this brings together the aspirations of a nation at the dawn of a new millennium. It gives us a great opportunity to reaffirm those things which are important to us as a nation. A nation's flag, its national anthem, its currency and its constitution are symbols which should reflect a nation's sense of identity, what it honours and what it aspires to.The education campaign under way at present highlights the fact that practically every man, woman and child living in the United States knows that the first President of the United States was George Washington and points out that, by comparison, Australians do not know that Edmund Barton was Australia's first Prime Minister.The preamble to the Constitution of the United States, which became effective on 4 March 1789, is a passage 52 words in length. It extols the virtues of justice, peace, defence, welfare and prosperity. The rights secured for citizens of the United States are important ones. These things, too, are held dear by Australians, but the preamble to the US Constitution is a far less mature document than the one which we consider today for an Australian republic. The US Constitution does not, for example, mention spiritualism. It pays no tribute to those who sacrificed to ensure the blessings of liberty. It does not acknowledge the place of indigenous Americans—the Indian Americans—within the union. It focuses on rights and not on responsibilities and, surprisingly, it does not mention democracy at all.The proposed preamble that we are putting forward to this House tonight reflects Australia's pride in its history and our commitment to our future very well. In the preamble we acknowledge faith in our Creator. I am pleased to see Deputy Speaker Quick in the chair. I am sure that he—like me—is glad to see that included. I am pleased to see that we as a nation acknowledge our trust in the Almighty and that we see our future as being under His care and protection. To place that centrally into a statement of what the nation believes in to me is significant and important.We also commit ourselves to the ideals of democracy. We as a nation have been blessed in the democratic institutions we have in this country—the way that governments can come and go without having the military involved—and the way this parliament operates. We value these great ideals in our community. We also take pride in the enrichment that different cultures have brought to this nation. The bringing together of the wide spectrum of different ethnic groups and different communities has added to the richness and vibrancy of this great nation of Australia. We celebrate that in the preamble.We also celebrate the sacrifices by Australians in the conflicts in New Zealand and the Sudan, in the Boxer Rebellion, the Boer War, World War I, World War II, the Korean War, Malaya, Vietnam and the Gulf War. It is significant that we honour those who have fought and died for this country.As a member of the Liberal Party I am also proud that the preamble celebrates individual dignity as much as collective freedoms. That also is significant. We honour Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders. As the member of this House who represents the seat of Cook, which includes Kurnell, the site of the first European settlement of our nation, I believe it is significant that we recognise in the preamble the important role that our indigenous people have played in this country. In this time of reconciliation, as we head into the new millennium, let us constantly be aware of that as we move towards greater reconciliation with the indigenous members of this country.`Recognising the nation-building contributions of generations of immigrants' is also important. They bring, in each wave, a significant contribution to this nation. Then we take responsibility for this country's environmental wellbeing. In identifying it we are taking responsibility for its future and allocating it a sense of national priority. To recognise that the environment and its preservation in all aspects is significant to us is an important addition to the preamble. Finally, there are the words `and valuing independence as dearly as the national spirit which binds us together in both adversity and success'.This preamble brings together the elements of this great nation of Australia in recognising our past and our indigenous people. We recognise our position before Almighty God. We also recognise the diversity that has been brought to our country by many generations. We celebrate democracy. We celebrate the value of the individual. Most of all, we celebrate the great concept of freedom under our democracy and our hope for the future. I am very happy tonight to support this preamble.18:27:008456Andren, Peter, MPMr ANDRENKL6CalareIND00—At first, when this preamble bill appeared in the House today, I looked at it and I thought it looked fairly good. It was well written and contained some great sentiments. I was prepared to consider it, perhaps even to support it. Then I thought I had better check just how it had emerged. I am not in the loop around this place, and I don't mind that, but today's events certainly show how far the people of Australia are out of the loop. They know nothing about this preamble that has been presented to the parliament today. What did I find when I made a few phone calls and checked with Gatjil Djerkurra and the Democrats and so on? There had been no consultation, apart from with the Democrats, on this. Aden Ridgeway, fine gentleman that he is, was the only Aboriginal input into this preamble. I have found out from Gatjil Djerkurra that there has been no consultation. As he pointed out in the media release that was read earlier today, he is desperately disappointed about the word `custodianship' and it is the only one that should be included in such a preamble. This has all been done in unholy haste. As the member for Shortland pointed out, we are putting the cart before the horse again. We should not have a preamble until such time as we have a republic in place. The member for Banks pointed out that the word `kinship' does not reflect the Aboriginal feeling for their land. `Custodianship' is the only English word that goes any way towards expressing that deep sentiment.This preamble requires proper input, and the referendum question that is being put to the people should have had proper input. The preamble should be a product of the people and not something that has had one poet and one PM as the original writer and the Democrats ticking it off today.The Leader of the Opposition has traded off mateship in his contribution to this debate this afternoon. It is not a tradable issue as far as I am concerned. How can he stand up and say that he is prepared to trade mateship for the Prime Minister to adopt custodianship? It is a highly flawed process and seven days is not enough. I want to judge the feedback from my electorate. I suspect that, like me, they will say that there are many fine words, but they are flawed words—as we have seen—and they are certainly not the best words. It should be a product of a long process and part of a properly constituted convention. Certainly I am supporting the amendment. Seven days is not enough, but I need that time to judge the feedback from the electorate. I will be supporting the opposition amendments. At this stage I cannot support this preamble.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The time allotted for the remaining stages of the bill has now expired. The question is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.The House divided. [6.34 p.m.](Mr Speaker—Mr Neil Andrew) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 ——Voting lists are recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.Question so resolved in the affirmative.Original question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.84578457Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—The question now is that the remaining stages of the bill be agreed to and the bill be now read a third time.The House divided. [6.43 p.m.](Mr Speaker—Mr Neil Andrew) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 ——Voting lists are recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.Question resolved in the affirmative by an absolute majority.Bill read a third time.Matters of Public Importance8457845710000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER— I have received a letter from the honourable member for Melbourne proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:The requirement for probity, integrity and transparency in Commonwealth financial management.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—18:47:008457Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TANNERYU5MelbourneALP00—What a big week it has been for government transparency and integrity! First we have seen the 25th anniversary of the fall of President Nixon and the Watergate affair. Now the government has seen to mark this in an appropriate way: first, by calling a secret inquiry, kept secret in order to ensure that problems with respect to the Telstra float are concealed from the Australian public and investors; and now some of the truth starts to emerge about the gross misuse of funds arising from the first Telstra sale that have been used for the Federation Cultural and Heritage Program. We are now starting to see the full story of the rorting, that this government has been up to for its own naked electoral advantage, out of $70 million of taxpayers' money allocated for that program from the sale of Telstra.Let us consider the facts one by one to see the true magnitude of what this government has been up to. On 31 August last year, which members may recall was the day the Prime Minister went to the Governor-General to call the election, he also did something else. He found time to sign a letter. He found time to sign a letter that gave explicit approval to 60 grants under the Federation Cultural and Heritage Program, and 16 of these 60 did not meet the criteria that had been set down by his government, by his own internal processes, as to which particular projects should be funded. His own departments had established a set of criteria specifying a points system that totalled up to 24 points. It was indicated that in order to qualify an individual project would have to get 15 points out of 24. There were 114 applicant projects which achieved a score of 15 points or more and 70 of those 114 were ultimately not funded; 44 of them were. But 16 projects which did not score 15 or above, according to the government's own criteria, did receive funding. Why did they receive funding? Because the two ministers, Senator Alston and Senator Hill, intervened. They overrode the recommendations of their own public servants in accordance with the criteria established under the program. Why? Because it was necessary to ensure that certain money was spent in certain marginal conservative electorates. We know that 22 of the 60 grants went to conservative marginal seats—there were three in the seat of Bass alone—and $21.5 million of the $70 million went to conservative marginal seats.The departmental criteria stated that projects that scored under 15 points `did not compare well in terms of significance or community benefit to the highest ranked projects' or did not `answer concerns about the ability of the organisation to deliver the project on time and within budget' or `had ongoing viability problems'. So, according to the departments and the government's own criteria, 16 out of the 60 projects that were funded either had ongoing concerns about their viability, were not likely to be able to deliver on time and within budget, or were inadequate with respect to the quality of community value that they would deliver.The winners of this rorted, twisted process were actually announced during the election campaign. The losers—the projects that did qualify but did not get funded—were advised that they had lost out after the election was over. What an extraordinary coincidence. Today we have had, amongst the numerous lines being put out by the government about this absolute scandal, the statement:That was the bureaucrat's rating, and ministers are allowed to tell bureaucrats that they have got it wrong sometimes.It will be very interesting to see what the Auditor-General has to say about that approach to the expenditure of public money.Of course, there was a very different line coming from the government a few years ago when they were in opposition and they were pursuing the former minister for the environment, Ms Ros Kelly. The Treasurer said on 7 February 1994:If governments get the idea that they can spend $30 million to buy elections, that is the end of open, fair and honest elections in this country.Perhaps we might invite the Treasurer over to this side to repeat his long and deeply held views on these issues in this debate.The government is also, perhaps even more seriously, endeavouring to cover up its misdeeds in this matter. First, Senators Hill and Alston told the Senate that there were 12 non-complying projects that had been funded. Now, in very recent times, it has become 16—the shonky 16. The government spokesperson challenges Labor, and Peter McGauran, the minister for the program, today challenged Labor to say which of these 60 programs should not have been funded. Well, there is a slight difficulty for us in doing that: they refuse to tell us which of the 60 constitute the shonky 16. They refuse to say which of the 60 projects that were funded did not meet their criteria and were only funded because of ministerial intervention. So it is a little hard for us to be able to specify which of those projects should not have been funded, when they will not even say which of them were funded wrongly, in breach of their own criteria.Let us have a look at what the government says on some of the other aspects of this issue. We have sought, through the FOI process, statements of reasons as to the considerations that determined the outcome of the 60 successful grants. This is what we got, and we see more black-out than words. Of course, what we have received is simply a list of the successful projects and, in every case, on page after page, you see that the reasons are blacked out. That is all that is there.8I4MARTINMr Martin—Where is the minister to answer the charge?YU5Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TANNER—Particularly, where is the Minister for Finance and Administration? He is the first finance minister in the history of this country to refuse to stand up and defend the integrity of a public spending program which is under threat. He would not even answer a question in question time today. At the same time as the government is challenging us to say which of these projects were improperly funded, it is also saying, `It would not be fair to reveal which projects benefited from the minister's reassessment.' It would not be fair. Again, I recall the Treasurer, in his previous guise, saying on 22 November 1993:I say to the Minister: Where are the documents that explain why you gave $30 million of taxpayers money out in a three-month period? How did you select who was to benefit and who was not?Treasurer, we ask the same question now. We would suggest that you go to your lackey, the Minister for Finance and Administration, and to junior ministers who were associated with this outrage and force them to answer the questions that you asked several years ago about another program involving grants to community organisations.The government's handling of this whole matter has clearly been in breach of the Auditor-General's guidelines that have been adopted in what is described as the `Adminis tration of Grants Better Practice Guide'. It is in breach on two fronts. Firstly, in accordance with those guidelines, the government set up a process. It established the process to determine which projects should get grants and which would not. Unfortunately, it chose to ignore its own framework. Twenty-seven per cent of the grants that were given were not in accordance with its own decision making framework: 16 of the 60 projects that were funded did not meet the criteria.The second ground on which they have failed to comply with the Auditor-General's requirements under the better practice guide for the administration of grants is that it is intended to avoid `complaints of inequitable treatment, political and other forms of patronage or bias' and that all stages of the assessment process `should be documented with reasons for decisions . . . accessible under FOI provisions'. We have seen what the outcome of that has been: total censorship of the reasons, complete refusal to even identify the 16 that did not qualify, much less to provide reasons for each particular decision. It was notable that the Minister for the Arts and the Centenary of Federation refused point-blank today to answer that question in question time. He ignored the question totally, following the lead of the Minister for Finance and Administration who was so frightened that he would not even stand up and answer a question—full stop.I now turn to the government spin, the government defence—possibly the most fragile, most frail and most ridiculous defence that we have ever heard in this place from a government accused of using funds for electioneering purposes improperly. Senator Alston says, and the Minister for the Arts and the Centenary of Federation repeated this in here today, that all 60 grants were eligible; they all met minimum criteria. Of course they did: they all proved that they had answered the right advertisement, they all got to the starting blocks, they all were about the things that the grants were supposed to be about—cultural and heritage proposals.What he did not say was that, yes, they got to the starting blocks but there was a race, and the government had a set of criteria to determine who was going to win and who was going to lose that race. The race was conducted, and the government then said, `Oh well, to hell with the criteria. This bunch of 16 losers in the race are now the winners.' That is what he ignored.We have seen the even more absurd and even more ludicrous proposition that commercial in-confidence reasons are the reason that no more detail can be provided. Is the government really suggesting that a grant for the restoration of the Midlands Town Hall or a grant for the extension of the Commonwealth Railways Museum in Adelaide is in some way critical and to be kept secret for reasons of commercial confidentiality? It is not a building contract, it is not some sort of tender process; it is a community organisation saying, `We want a grant.' It is not being pursued for commercial reasons. This is public money, and the government is required to show, and the public is entitled to see, what that money is being spent on and what reasons were behind the government's decision to spend it.In short, what we have here is a program that was, from its outset, inherently intended as a rort. It was created for the purpose of pork-barrelling: $70 million to fund the re-election of the government. But that government was so desperate and so besieged by the GST issue, by travel rorts and by the consequences of its own incompetence that it decided to ignore its own rules. So, even though the whole program was set up as a rort to enable it to do these things, that was not sufficient. It had to go one step further. Ministers intervened to take 16 projects from the no pile, the rejected pile, and put them on the yes pile. And, in order to do that, 16 projects that otherwise would have been funded because they did qualify missed out. Of course, there were dozens of other projects that did qualify but that missed out as well.As a result of this, it breached the Auditor-General's guidelines, and all of this was approved by the Prime Minister, by a signature on the letter, on the very day that he called the election. You do not get much more shameless than that; you do not get much more blatant than that. The fact is that 22 of the 60 projects were in marginal Liberal seats. The government refuses to release the information on which were the 16 projects, it refuses to release the details of the reasons for the decisions and, on the breaches of the Auditor-General's guidelines which say that reasons for decisions must be given, it simply refuses to answer questions.In the most extreme case today the Minister for Finance and Administration—the person who has responsibility for, the person who has control of, public expenditure in this country, the person who ultimately is accountable for whether government expenditure is proper—even refuses to stand up and approach the dispatch box. He is too gutless and too cowardly to stand up and say, `I say that this was in accordance with the Auditor-General's guidelines.' That is a disgrace. The government's defence is a joke. They say, `These were only bureaucrats. Ministers can interfere and overturn bureaucrats' advice any time they like. These were all eligible anyway. They all got to the starting blocks,' ignoring the fact that they had set in place a process, a set of criteria, which they then overturned arbitrarily for their own political purposes.They say to us, the Labor opposition, `You should say which of the 16 are the ones that should not have been funded.' Given that they refused to identify which were the projects that they funded, contrary to their own guidelines, and given that they refused to publish the reasons for the decision in each case, how on earth can we identify which of the projects were crook? All we see is the bland description of what the project actually involves.And finally they say `commercial-in-confidence'. We have now got to the stage where government grants are commercial-in-confidence. I look forward to the budget next year where we will see the Treasurer stand up and say, `Sorry, folks, but the budget is commercial-in-confidence this year,' and that is the end of the speech. What we have here is the rort to end all rorts. This is government by brown paper bag. It is pork-barrelling being elevated to an art form.It is not just one minister that is involved. You have the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts and the Minister for the Environment and Heritage who are in charge of the whole exercise; you have the Minister for the Arts and the Centenary of Federation who has administered the detail of the rort; and you have the Minister for Finance and Administration, who sat back and allowed this all to occur, who allowed the Auditor-General's guidelines to be blithely ignored and who, when asked to answer questions about it, does not have even the guts to stand up and answer the questions. Then finally at the very peak of the process you have the Prime Minister, the person who signed the letter on the very day the election was being called to set the detail of the machinery of the rort in train.It is time that the Auditor-General investigated this outrage. It is time that this scandal was brought to bear against the government—against people who have rabbited on in this place at length about accountability, about integrity in government and who constantly, week after week, day after day, acted directly contrary to their own words. (Time expired)19:02:008460Andrews, Kevin, MPMr ANDREWSHK5MenziesLP10—You know the ALP is struggling for any relevance when it takes an inaccurate newspaper report and then launches a weak attack—an attack which ran out of steam about halfway through, and the honourable member for Melbourne launching it simply had to repeat himself—with huge dollops of hypocrisy thrown in. Today is another example of the ALP's national irrelevancy. Not only has the ALP dealt itself out of the tax debate in Australia and out of the future for the economy of Australia by the decisions it took in the last few weeks but also today it dealt itself out of the debate about the framing of the preamble.The honourable member for Melbourne now comes in here and throws around a few words like `shonky' and `rort' and expects everyone to take some notice. The only thing that one can say about the ALP is that failure seems to have gone to their heads. If we are going to speak about probity, about integrity and about transparency—because, after all, that is what this matter of public importance is meant to be about—then one would have thought that the proponents of this matter might have come in here with clean hands. Let us consider part of the ALP's record when it comes to matters of probity, integrity and transparency in government. There is the most famous of all in recent years—the l-a-w law tax cuts. Of course, as people know, in the run-up to the 1993 election the Labor Party promised all of Australia two rounds of tax cuts. They went to great lengths to reassure the people of Australia that this was not just a promise; this was something that was meant with great sincerity. Mr Keating, as Prime Minister, said to the people of Australia, `This is not just a normal election promise. Rather, these are things that are enshrined in l-a-w law,' and he assured the electorate of Australia that this made the world of difference. It was not just a mere promise; this in fact was law. But, as we know, the undertaking was a complete fraud. Where was the probity?YU5TANNERMr Tanner—Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order: a passing reference can perhaps be permitted, but the honourable member is way off the question.YT4SCOTTMr Bruce Scott—Do you have a point of order?YU5TANNERMr Tanner—Yes, the point of order is on relevance. The member has now spoken for several minutes on something that has absolutely nothing to do with the question at hand.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—I hear the point of order, but I think the question of probity, integrity and transparency being advanced as an example by the member for Menzies regarding the so-called l-a-w tax cuts is relevant.HK5Andrews, Kevin, MPMr ANDREWS—This is from the honourable member who wants questions of probity, integrity and transparency raised in this place, but once questions of probity about his side of politics are raised he wants to get up on a point of order and run away from them. I have a few more examples. If you want to come in here, then come in with clean hands.Let us talk about no new taxes. `What I am promising is not to put up tax,' is what Mr Keating told the Australian people on the Lateline television program back in 1992. This is the man who said, `The second pledge is to deal honestly with the people of Australia, to tell them the truth.' What happened after that promise not to put up taxes? During the subsequent year the total cost of Labor's dishonesty to Australian families and Australian taxpayers went up by well over $7.3 billion.Mr Danby interjecting—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—The member for Melbourne Ports.HK5Andrews, Kevin, MPMr ANDREWS—Do not worry about him, Mr Deputy Speaker. Where, I ask, is the probity, the integrity and the transparency in relation to these matters? Then there was the great Medicare assurance. I quote Dr Lawrence in a press release when she was a minister in the previous government in June 1994. She said:Claims in this morning's newspapers that the Government `is set to increase the Medicare levy' are demonstrably untrue . . . There is no proposal to increase the levy and there won't be.`No proposal to increase the levy and there won't be.' How about some integrity and probity coming into consideration when, in the 1995-96 budget, the Medicare levy was subsequently increased from 1.4 to 1.5 per cent? Clean hands? Probity? Integrity? Transparency? Then there was the broken promise about pensions. Labor's commitment was that any pensioner who earned income would not have to pay tax, and immediately after the election before which that promise was made Labor repudiated that commitment as well. On top of that we had the announcement, with great fanfare, of a reduction in company tax rates. With considerably less publicity Labor also changed the timing arrangements for company tax payments. And then there was the promise in relation to the Commonwealth Bank. The then Treasurer's letter in the Commonwealth Bank prospectus said:The Government has no intention whatever of further reducing its shareholding.A question was asked of the then Treasurer on the Business Sunday program, and the Treasurer said:We've made it quite clear in the legislation that went through the Parliament to authorise this sale, that we would not go below the 50.1% mark. The interviewer asked this question:So unlike before, this time your commitment is iron clad?Mr Willis, who was then the Treasurer, replied:Absolutely, yes.We know what happened with the Commonwealth Bank. Where is the integrity, the probity, the transparency, in relation to this?What about the probity in relation to unemployment figures when the ALP said that they had created 600,000 jobs but forgot to mention over 300,000 jobs that were lost in the recession that we had to have. That former great icon of the Labor Party said `whatever it takes'. In contrast with this we have a situation where this government has introduced a charter of budget honesty and has also introduced accrual accounting—two measures which have brought a degree of probity and transparency to Commonwealth financial affairs that had not existed prior to this.I am surprised that the honourable member at the table made mention again today of the investigation into the Credit Suisse First Boston matter. I have a considerable degree of respect for the honourable member at the table, but I must say I was extremely surprised when he was reported on Radio 5AN on Tuesday this week as saying that the investigation was being done in secret by the husband of one of his own party colleagues—a reference to former New South Wales Supreme Court Judge Andrew Rogers who is well known as the husband of Senator Coonan. This is a reference to a man who, for a period of some 14 years, sat on the bench of the highest court in the state of New South Wales—namely, the Supreme Court of that state—and about whom no question of probity had ever been raised at that time; a man who not only had been appointed to positions by the government of the time but also, according to my information, had been appointed by the New South Wales Labor government and reappointed as director of its Treasury Corporation, a body the New South Wales Labor government itself describes as `one of the major investing institutions in NSW and the leading issuer of semi-government securities in Australia, playing a key role in pioneering theory and practice of public sector liability management'. I trust that this was one of those mistakes on the part of the honourable member in raising the matter in this way, but I would have thought that he might have issued some apology in relation to it. I am surprised, I must say, that the honourable member has come in and raised this matter again today.Let us deal with the specific matters which the honourable member raises. As I said before, if you are going to come in here and raise questions of probity and integrity then you ought to do so with clean hands. Your side of politics has hardly got clean hands in relation to this matter. But let us deal with the matters that you raised. This is an argument that ran out of steam after about five minutes and the honourable member had to repeat it two or three times. Let us look at the points that were made. The first is based on an article in the Sydney Morning Herald that claims that 16 projects did not meet the minimum criteria. That was repeated by the honourable member. That is quite wrong. The minimum criteria were met; otherwise the projects would not have gone forward. None of the projects that were rated as ineligible were funded by the government. So the first point of this so-called attack—if one can glorify it as such—is, on a factual basis, completely inaccurate; it is completely wrong. Then the honourable member tried to build a case based on these shifting sands.Secondly, there is the claim that somehow the caretaker convention was breached again. This is a claim that is made in the article in the Sydney Morning Herald and once again repeated by the opposition. But approval for funding of these projects was given before the election was called. The caretaker convention did not come into play until the election was called, and there is no prohibition on the announcement of projects during an election period in situations where decisions have already been taken. If there was such a provision then it would have ruled out many announcements not only by this government but also by the opposition itself when it was in government over the years. It is simply a red herring to raise this particular matter. The third thing the report suggests is that the process was in breach of Australian National Audit Office guidelines. In fact, the process and the approach that were adopted by the government in relation to this matter were fully based on those guidelines. But somehow the honourable member suggests that because guidelines are put in place there should not be some discretion in relation to the way in which these things operate. Advice is taken into account by a range of bodies. Advice is taken into account by the National Council of the Centenary of Federation. What is the honourable member suggesting—that this advice should somehow be disregarded in relation to a matter such as this? Surely not.Then, finally, the article in the Sydney Morning Herald suggests that there was some political bias in the distribution of grants. If one looks at the 60 successful projects, then 38 of them—38 out of 60, which is 64 per cent—are located in 62 per cent of the electorates which were held by the coalition, so 64 per cent of the grants going to 62 per cent of the electorates held by the coalition. Eighteen of the successful grants—that is, 30 per cent—were in 33 per cent of the electorates held by the Labor Party. Three of the successful applicants—five per cent of them—were in five per cent of the electorates held by Independents, and one project went across multiple electorates.If there is something wrong with this—those figures do not suggest that somehow they are completely out of kilter with the actual representation of the people who are in the parliament—if there is anything behind this, that just proves how out of touch you were with the Australian people, that so few of you were represented in this chamber at the time. But the actual allocation is roughly in accordance with the representation of electorates in this chamber. It is simply nonsense to suggest that in any way there was something wrong.But I ask again—they know, Mr Deputy Speaker, what each of these successful 60 applicants were; they have not come in here and pointed to one of the successful applicants that was in some way inappropriate— what are you saying? Was the restoration of the Great Synagogue Tower in Sydney in the electorate of Sydney inappropriate? Was the restoration of one of our most important historic ships, the Polly Woodside, in Melbourne in the electorate of Melbourne Ports—and the member was here earlier—an inappropriate allocation? Was the development of the museum to honour the contribution of Sir John Quick in Bendigo in the Labor held electorate of Bendigo somehow inappropriate? Was the restoration of the naval stores in Brisbane—one of that city's most important heritage buildings—again somehow inappropriate? Or was the work on St Andrew's Church in Fraser or the Tuggeranong Homestead or a variety of other projects that have gone to Labor electorates inappropriate? The simple answer is they were not.All this debate reminds me of is that line in Shakespeare about the member `strutting and fretting his hour upon stage'. All I can say is that this is `a tale full of sound and fury, signifying nothing'. All this debate shows is that the ALP have nothing to say, but they certainly take a long time saying it.19:17:008463Rudd, Kevin, MPMr RUDD83TGriffithALP00—If you go to the guts of what this government stands accused of in this debate in its administration of the $70 million FCHP program, it boils down to three basic charges. The first is that a ruling by the Australian National Audit Office stipulating that applications for community grants programs be assessed and determined against fixed and transparent criteria was ignored by ministers Hill and Alston in at least 16 of the 60 grants awarded. The second is that the determination by the Audit Office that grant determinations be well documented and accessible under freedom of information legislation again was ignored, as demonstrated by the document held aloft by the member for Melbourne. The third is that in defiance of all convention we have the Prime Minister formally approving his ministers' actions on the day the election was called and that a number of new policy announcements arising from this program were made during the election period itself.Of course, there are those who are going to argue that this would not matter much if we were just talking about a bit of loose change, but the bottom line is that we are not. We are talking about a $70 million program. We are talking about $25 million worth of projects within that program, which probably represents the total value of those project applications which did not meet the minimum criteria laid down by the bureaucrats assessing which projects were acceptable and which were not. We are not just talking about a modest piece of pork barrel here; we are talking about a pork road train. We are talking about a pork road train that you would see out in the west, one with three trailers on it. We are talking about the original gravy train in this debate. We are talking about whether we have in fact two ministers who in response to electoral requirements perverted the system laid down by the bureaucrats for assessing which of these projects were going to be acceptable and which were not.This attempt by these ministers to rort the system represents fundamental perversion of the way in which grants are supposed to be administered in this country. It is as if we had this pork road train pull up outside the ministerial office suites over there on the Senate side, loaded up with pork, and the single instruction given to the driver was, `Head off to those seats which are marginal, of interest to the coalition in the lead-up to an election campaign, and make sure you deposit your pork at the right spots.'Let us have a look at these charges, one by one. The first is that ministers Hill and Alston directly politically intervened to secure approval for 16 of the 60 projects, despite those 16 not meeting minimum criteria. Let us just go over the facts as they relate to this matter. We all recall the so-called sports rorts affair of 1994. I seem to recall that a certain minister in this chamber in fact made his reputation out of the sports rorts affair, and I refer to the Treasurer. As a consequence of that affair, which arose in this parliament, the Auditor-General of the Commonwealth then set about developing better practice guidelines for the administration of grants.We all remember in the lead-up to the 1996 election campaign the series of moral posturings by the Prime Minister, lectures from on high about the intention of the incoming coalition government, should they be elected, to restore moral probity and integrity to the administration of public funds in this country. What happened as a consequence of that? When we got to this particular Federation Fund proposal, when we got to the way in which it was to be applied, the bureaucrats responsible for it then translated those better practice guidelines developed by the Auditor-General into guidelines specific to the particular program. Again, they sought to apply the two generic principles—the first being there must be a well-documented and transparent decision making process—and for these purposes they developed a point system between one and 24, the pass mark being 15. The second element, of course, was that the documentation associated with this process would all be subject to and amenable to FOI disclosure, should that become necessary.That interdepartmental committee then put its recommendation to the two ministers. The result, as the member for Melbourne has reiterated, was that, of 114 applications, 60 were successful. Of these 60, 44 were above the cut-off mark of 15 points and 16 were below. This 16 was not fessed up to by the ministers concerned until it was dragged from them, kicking and screaming, at the Senate estimates process. We all know that when we have project applications that have not passed the minimum points score that other criteria are likely to have been introduced into the decision making process.We have managed to find out that nine projects were above the minimum points score of 15—in fact, they were in the highest category of points score; somewhere in the range of 19 to 24—and that those nine project applications were rejected by the ministers concerned. So, what do we have? We have 16 which did not pass muster, which went well below 15 on the points register, and we have nine which did pass muster but got knocked on the head. As someone with an amateur interest in basic political geography, I am curious as to where the 16 that did not pass muster on the points register lay and where the nine that did pass muster on the points register lay. Of course, it could be one large coincidence if a large proportion of those 16 happen to be located, were we able to discover it, in areas proximate to coalition marginal seats. What did we have counsel for the defence saying on this matter today? I refer here to Minister McGauran and his performance in the parliament this morning. Essentially, he offered two lines of defence. One was the ministerial evaluation which mysteriously took place between the middle of August last year and 29 August last year—a concerted two-week period before the election, an event of some significance to us all, was announced on 30 August. Of course, this is a period during which those two ministers would have had nothing sordid or political on their minds! In addition to taking into account the recommendations of the IDC laid down by the bureaucrats—the member for Menzies referred to this as well—they also took into account the recommendations of the National Council for the Centenary of Federation. Well, that is absolutely terrific!The problem is: of the 16 projects which did not pass muster, of the 16 projects which did not exceed 15 points on the Richter scale of acceptability, do you know how many were separately recommended by the National Council for the Centenary of Federation? Do I hear a number from the member for Menzies? Two of that 16 that we know of were recommended by the National Council for the Centenary of Federation. That leaves 14 hanging out there in the never-never. You cannot construct a defence on the basis that the 16 must have been dragged over the line by a set of recommendations from elsewhere because that patently was not the case. That leaves about 14 projects unaccounted for. We are talking here about a cool $10 million to $20 million swinging out there in the breeze, subject to some form of ill-defined ministerial discretion.Then we come to the second line of defence which I think is even less ingenious than the first. Minister McGauran says that, of the 60 grants made, all of those passed a basic form of eligibility. They may not have passed the points test but they passed a basic form of eligibility. That is just terrific in terms of how basic eligibility for this program was defined. I suppose if you put your name at the top of the form, tick the right boxes, whack your signature on the bottom, and so long as the grant application does not suggest you are going to take yourself and the family off on a free trip to Tasmania and get a colour television on the side, that would pass basic eligibility in terms of the criteria for this whole great application process.Basic eligibility is a nonsense process; it is simply whether the form has been completed correctly. It does not go in any sense to the substance of the projects which are being applied for within the document itself. In the trade that is what would be described as a form of bureaucratic minimalism. It is what you would describe as the bonsai approach to public accountability—so minimalist that it reduces and slides off the edge of the table. Based on these criteria, we had these extra couple of projects—this shonky 16, as the member for Melbourne referred to them—suddenly appear on the table and become subject to ministerial endorsement. You get the impression that, if a bunch of sheep had put together an application and so long as they came from the right paddock and it happened to be a marginal seat paddock, they would still get the tick.The second charge of course goes to the question of the application of the Auditor-General's guidelines on the FOI question. As the member for Melbourne has said, if this is the response to governmental transparency on this issue then, frankly, I do not know what their definition of transparency is. This document has more black holes in it than can be discerned from the Mount Stromlo Observatory. If you look at this document, it looks like those prison uniforms the Beagle Boys wore in the Donald Duck cartoons. This has removed from it every basis of decision which the bureaucrats put to the minister in evaluating each of the projects which were subsequently decided. The bottom line in this entire debate is that the decision which has been taken by the ministers in recommending these projects is unsustainable and it is for that reason the member for Melbourne's call for the Auditor-General to investigate this matter should be taken seriously. We look forward to the Auditor-General taking appropriate action.Debate interrupted; adjournment proposed and negatived.19:28:008466Bishop, Julie, MPMs JULIE BISHOP83PCurtinLP10—We have had a deluge of words and a drizzle of thought from the opposition, and it is what we have become accustomed to. The opposition seek a requirement for probity, integrity and transparency. Let us put their request in context. In 1996, after 13 years of Labor, the Australian public voted in a new government, a government committed to raising ethical standards, increasing the level of fiscal transparency and accountability, and hence increasing the level of trust people have in government. We on this side of the House believe it is fundamental to the survival of our democratic processes and to the notion of responsible government, fundamental to the survival of our democratic institutions that people trust government. So why were we voted in? Under 13 years of Labor, public trust in government was sorely tested.One only has to take the breathtakingly arrogant position adopted by the Labor government over its last budget, handed down in May 1995. This is just one example: they announced it was a budget surplus—cause for great celebration and backslapping at the time. Admittedly they moved away just a smidgen from their heralded surplus, but it was not until this government came to power that all was revealed. A budget surplus? How about a $10 billion underlying cash deficit? And people wonder why public confidence in government declined under Labor.The coalition campaigned and won an election on the promises that included a charter of budget honesty. This was a major structural reform of the way Australia would present and run its fiscal policy. Of course it has all the charm of novelty for Labor, but we have ensured that the accounts of the country are presented in a fair, honest manner, with integrity and transparency, so the public can be informed truthfully as to the state of the budget, the economy and fiscal policies. You could not trust Labor to do that. We are setting the standards for honesty and integrity in the running of government. Where was Labor's charter of budget honesty? Or would that be the ultimate oxymoron?We have gone further. We have built on the high standards for fiscal transparency and accountability established through the Charter of Budget Honesty and adopted accrual accounting. The intricacies involved in the move from cash to accrual budgeting is a topic that probably keeps chartered accountants awake at night—probably the Treasurer too—but to the rest of us it was reassuring to learn that this government had taken yet another step forward to provide more transparency, more integrity and greater accountability in the management of the biggest business of all—the business of government.And there is more. Parliament's capacity to restrain the exercise of executive power lies within the conventions of individual and collective responsibility. During the 13 years of Labor, those conventions became all but obsolete. To the extent that there was any adherence to ministerial responsibility, it was highly politicised, with probably the most obvious example being the then sports minister, Ros Kelly, and her whiteboards. Even then, her resignation was not driven by any adherence to the doctrine of ministerial responsibility; it was a result of the media attacks rather than any sense of improving standards.When John Howard became Prime Minister in the first coalition government since 1983, he saw the need to introduce a ministerial code of conduct. After 13 years of Labor's breaches of conventions on collective and individual responsibility, it was up to this government to set the standards—to improve the standards within the doctrine. There is no doubt that individual and collective principles of conventions guiding ministerial responsibility have been adhered to far more during the course of this government than any other in the past 30 years.These are just some of the significant measures that we have introduced, and the opposition has the hide to ask for probity, integrity and transparency in this government's management of the business of government. We are committed to them, we have enshrined them in legislation and they are having the desired outcomes of greater probity, integrity and transparency.This issue raised today is not about the management of Commonwealth finances; it is about grubby political point scoring. If the members opposite wonder why the level of cynicism about politicians around the country is so high, just look in the mirror. These pathetic attempts to label any act of this government that involves ministerial discretion as corrupt, dishonest or a rort will be seen for what they are. Quite frankly, the people are sick of it. Dress it up as you like; it is this level of political attack that ensures public disaffection with the whole parliamentary process.The historian Walter Bagehot once wrote that the government's most important attribute for sustaining public trust was not efficiency but dignity. The dignity of government, as measured by the conduct of its members, is what shapes the public view of government, and there is not a shred of dignity in this attempt to discredit the allocation of grants moneys in what is a superb initiative for the Centenary of Federation.Let us turn to the conspiracy theorists. The opposition's attack is entirely baseless. They have not provided evidence of anything on the part of the relevant ministers that lacks probity, integrity or transparency. They have not named one project out of the 60 that should not have been granted funds. Find one! As such, they have made an attack on all projects. We are talking about community projects designed to enhance or retain our culture, our heritage and our environment. I challenge the opposition to name the projects from which they would say that grant funds should be withdrawn. These projects were chosen because the ministers, acting on advice from a number of sources, decided the projects were deserving of support.The opposition trivialises the process of application. Organisations lodged their applications in good faith and put some effort into doing so. They lodged their applications in the genuine belief that, if successful, their projects would represent a magnificent contribution to this country at a time when we are meant to be celebrating all that is positive about our country—celebrating our achievements in the 20th century, celebrating our future as a country with a strong and vibrant economy, and celebrating a country that is proud of its heritage and proud of its people and their diversity.At a time when we should be showing some dignity, we have the opposition squabbling over the allocation of grants to worthy projects in electorates throughout Australia. As the Minister for the Arts and the Centenary of Federation informed the House today, if one tried to mount an argument for an attack on bias in the allocation of grants based on electorates, it fails miserably when one looks at the statistics. They speak for themselves—64 per cent of the grants to 62 per cent of electorates held by coalition members, 30 per cent of the grants to 32 per cent of electorates held by opposition members, and the balance held in seats by others. This is not an electorate based decision. It is self-evident. Every single project is supported by written reasons on merit. The opposition has a list. You know the electorates they are in. Go through it and say which ones you would take the money from. There is an idea for you.As part of our commitment to our nation's 100th birthday celebrations, we also allocated $30 million to 1,000 local projects across Australia—$200,000 was allocated to every federal electorate. If we had been taking a lead out of the Labor Party's whiteboard policy, we never would have done it. Every electorate received a grant. I am waiting for you to squeal on that one. This is Labor's paranoia, or what we should call a loser's paranoia. Try to find a political bias in that one! I am sure you will be able to.The list of projects receiving funding under the Federation Cultural and Heritage Projects Program is a very worthy list. In my own electorate of Curtin I am delighted to say a wonderful project has received funding. Is the opposition suggesting this is pork-barrelling for the seat of Curtin? Ask some of the members in marginal seats. Ask the member for Hughes, who has a marginal seat. Her electorate did not receive one of these grants. How is the conspiracy theory holding up?A successful organisation in my electorate, the Meerilinga Young Children's Foundation, was advised by letter dated 15 October 1998 that their project was approved for funding. How is the conspiracy theory going? They were advised on 15 October. I will be presenting the cheque in the presence of the patron of the foundation, the Governor of Western Australia, Major General Michael Jeffrey, on Friday. I will be presenting the cheque in the presence of the vice-patron of the foundation, Kim Beazley Sr.The grant is for the restoration of a federation building that has long been associated with the development of the kindergarten movement in Western Australia. The home is considered to be the spiritual home of work relating to kindergartens and early childhood and has great aesthetic, historic and social value to the people of Western Australia. Without this Federation Cultural and Heritage Projects Program, the state of Western Australia was in danger of losing another piece of its unique heritage. Is this a project about which the opposition complains? The entire process leading up to the distribution of grants in this program has been documented, is transparent and can be subjected to report by the Auditor-General in the normal course of his work, as the opposition well knows. This government is proud of this $70 million program, and the opposition should put up or shut up.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The discussion has concluded.Adjournment8468Motion (by Mrs Stone) proposed:That the House do now adjourn.846819:38:008468Sidebottom, Peter, MPMr SIDEBOTTOM849BraddonALP00—I have spoken of the problems confronting Tasmania's public health system in this place before. It is therefore cold comfort for me that, under the Howard government, the prognosis is little better for the rest of Australia. The public health sector in my home state, as in the rest of Australia, is in dire need. Moreover, it desperately needs an injection of funds to arrest what could ultimately be a fatal decline in public hospital services. It is a situation mirrored in public hospitals around Australia.The seriousness of the problem is not lost on state and territory leaders, but I am sad to say the Prime Minister will not accept that Australia's public health system is at a breaking point. State and territory leaders unanimously called for a Productivity Commission inquiry into our health care system. They all agree it is under unsustainable stress—a rare show of unity that transcends political boundaries. Yet what was the Prime Minister's response? The Prime Minister rejected it. It begs the question: does John Howard believe all is well in our public health system? Australia's state and territory leaders certainly do not believe it is. Ordinary Australians who are going without proper health services know all is not well.As I have said, the health dilemma in Tasmania is the legacy of the former state Liberal government and is now being aided and abetted on a much wider scale by the Howard federal government. When will this government wake up and realise that the health system around Australia is in free fall and is at risk of sliding further into crisis because Commonwealth funding of public hospitals is drying up? When will its obsession with private health insurance end? What is the sense in allowing a public system to run down, unless of course there is some hidden agenda to ultimately destroy Medicare?Medicare must be strengthened if we are to overcome the ills now confronting our health system. That is why funding arrangements for public hospitals and the delivery of services need thorough and wide ranging scrutiny. I welcome a Senate inquiry into Australia's health system to examine public hospital funding, to look at the role of public and private sectors and to assess national health standards. Yet the Prime Minister is insisting that an inquiry is unnecessary. He says an inquiry would be a waste of time. Would it be a waste of time to look at the effectiveness of the Australian health care agreements and whether there is adequate funding to meet the demand for public hospital services, as outlined in the terms of reference for a Senate inquiry? Would it be a waste of time to look at ways of improving efficiencies or promoting better health care? Would it be a waste of time, as the Prime Minister suggests, finding out whether there has been any reduction in demand on public hospitals as a result of the private health insurance rebate?Clearly, the biggest problems in our health system stem from the tremendous demands placed on our public hospitals. The argument remains whether the $1.7 billion that private health rebates are costing should be spent on the public hospital sector. Imagine the difference $1.7 billion would make to the public system. We need answers to these questions, and these are the questions this government is avoiding. John Howard and the Minister for Health and Aged Care stand accused of turning their backs on the plight of our health system.I find it difficult to believe the federal government would commission a national inquiry into gambling but not into a very serious problem that will affect the health and welfare of all Australians. Indeed, if the government is not forced to act it will be ordinary Australians who will ultimately pay the price for its refusal to live up to its responsibilities. Its current attitude shows indifference not only towards the public health system but towards all Australians.Let this government end the growing suspicion that it is endeavouring to short-change the states in the provision of health care. We need an inquiry to get the facts on the table. If it is not to be a Productivity Commission investigation, then I support the shadow minister for health and Labor state health ministers in their call for a Senate inquiry. As shadow health minister Jenny Macklin has put it:A Senate inquiry can produce a strong report that will show how to improve Medicare without ditching its principles.Judy Jackson, the Tasmanian health minister, has demonstrated that the Howard government has short-changed the states by nearly $200 million in the latest dispute over indexation of the current funding agreements. She says:The hospitals in our states are under increasing demand, and the costs of new technology mean we need to take steps now to ensure Medicare can continue to deliver a universal and easily accessible service.There is a well-founded perception in the Australian community that our universal health care system is under threat in two interrelated ways: through underfunding at the expense of resourcing a failed private health policy, and through John Howard's attitude to Medicare—ranging from initial hostility to little more than lukewarm support for it today. Make no mistake: Medicare is in the barrel. Kim Beazley quite rightly pointed this out in Perth on 6 August. (Time expired)846919:43:008469Bailey, Fran, MPMs BAILEYJT4McEwanLP10—Today I feel a particular honour to be able to stand in this chamber as one of 148 people who have had the honour of voting on the preamble to our Constitution. I am proud not just to be a member of this House; I am proud to be standing here speaking on behalf of the people I represent, and I am simply proud to be an Australian today. It is a historic occasion. Almost 100 years ago our founding fathers designed our Constitution and they put their thought and effort, which were a reflection of those times, into it. Today we have a preamble that is a reflection of where we have come as a nation. We have a preamble that says something about us as a nation and that I believe embodies our values as well as our history.The first thing that the preamble mentions and acknowledges is our federal system of government. In doing that, this preamble transcends—as it should and must—all political parties. It also transcends state rivalries. It states right up-front that our Commonwealth operates under a federal system. When I was a student at university our particular system of federation was known as a `loose union of states'. That definition may have changed somewhat today, but I think it is important that we acknowledge that. Our preamble then states:We the Australian people commit ourselves to this Constitution . . . Let us look at exactly what we are committing ourselves to in this preamble. It commits us to a pride in being Australians and ac knowledges that the national pride that we feel today was forged by many different ancestries. Many of us attend citizen ceremonies throughout our own electorates and in many parts of the country. It is wonderful on those occasions to be able to welcome people from all different nationalities. A song which I know is used at many citizenship ceremonies has the words, `We are many, but we are one. We are Australian.' I think that embodiment filters through this preamble.The preamble is also committing us to never forgetting the sacrifices of all of those who defended our country and our liberty in time of war. Those of us who visit many of the RSLs and different groups around the country acknowledge the debt that we owe to all of those men and women. I think it is vitally important that we are committing ourselves to acknowledging the debt that we owe them and also committing ourselves to understanding the sacrifices that those men and women made so that we could enjoy the freedom that we enjoy today. The preamble moves on to say that we commit ourselves to upholding that freedom. I have been a patron of the Puckapunyal Safe Haven and have got to know many of the Kosovar refugees. You have only to spend time talking to some of those people to understand how people from other nations do not enjoy the freedom that we enjoy in this country.In the short time available to me this evening, I take this opportunity to once again say how very proud I am to be able to take part in what I believe is a historic occasion for our nation, and I am sure each and every one of us acknowledges that.847019:48:008470Cox, David, MPMr COX83UKingstonALP00—The Prime Minister is letting the Treasurer walk all over Senator Lees and the deal she made before passing the GST. The government's commitment to the provision of an adequate exemption from the wine equalisation tax for cellar door and mail order sales has been substantially diluted. The precise terms of Mr Howard's agreement with Senator Lees was:Wine Equalisation Tax (WET) Historically rebates for cellar door sales have been a State responsibility. The Government and the Australian Democrats agree on the importance of maintaining cellar door arrangements. The Government undertakes to ensure that the States keep arrangements which provide a tax exemption for cellar door and mail order sales up to $300,000.The Government will also examine a number of definitional issues arising from the WET bill, which you have advised, and the scope for concessional treatment of low alcohol wine and intends that these be dealt with in a Bill to be introduced in the Spring sittings. As a consequence of these commitments the Government and the Australian Democrats are agreed that the WET legislation will be passed by 30 June 1999.Unfortunately for the wine industry, the WET legislation was passed in an unamended form by that date.The Labor Party moved an amendment to provide for a full 29 per cent exemption from the wine equalisation tax for the first $300,000 of cellar door and mail order sales—the same exemption agreed between Mr Howard and Senator Lees. It meant the states would not be unfairly required to pay for an exemption from a federal tax when the states will not receive any of the revenue—an obvious point of vulnerability to the states maintaining an adequate cellar door exemption in the long term. The industry wants an exemption so it can avoid the paperwork and cash flow burden, paying a tax and claiming a rebate. Labor's amendment would have avoided these problems but was lost on the votes of the Australian Democrats.A senior member of the Treasurer's staff informed me that the Treasurer's interpretation of the Howard-Lees agreement was a 15 per cent rebate, not a full 29 per cent WET exemption. When I told him that was contrary to the industry's understanding, he said, `We'll have to disabuse them of that.' When I pointed out that the $300,000 ceiling for the rebate was far lower than the ceilings currently applied by the states, he explained that this was an opportunity for them to save money.On 22 July I put out a press release calling on the Treasurer to clarify the situation. His office told the media that I was confused and that the agreement had always been for only a 15 per cent rebate. The next day I put out a second press release calling on Senator Lees to clarify what she had agreed with the Prime Minister. I pointed out that one possibility was that the Treasurer's office or Treasury had drafted the wording for the Prime Minister's letter which left open their own interpretation of the agreement.Senator Lees responded saying she thought there may have been a bureaucratic stuff-up and confirmed that the agreement was for a full 29 per cent exemption. However, the same day, the Minister for Foreign Affairs had attended a meeting of winemakers in McLaren Vale and had informed them the government's policy was for a 15 per cent rebate. Two cabinet ministers—the Treasurer and the Minister for Foreign Affairs—putting a definitive position in contradiction to what Senator Lees says was her deal with the Prime Minister on the GST package is more than a bureaucratic stuff-up.On 25 July I put out a third press release calling on the Prime Minister to pull his Treasurer into line or admit that he had walked away from this aspect of his deal with Senator Lees. The Financial Review reported the next day that a spokesman for the Prime Minister had said Mr Howard `agreed that the spirit of the (WET) agreement has to be met' and that Senator Lees was seeking a meeting with the Prime Minister to ensure that her agreement over the new 29 per cent wine equalisation tax is met.Weeks have passed, and there has been no meeting between the Prime Minister and Senator Lees on the issue and no clarification from the Prime Minister that the word `exemption' in his letter to Senator Lees means an exemption. If the Prime Minister takes no action, it is certain that the Treasurer's view will prevail. For many small wineries, the difference between a 15 per cent rebate and a 29 per cent exemption is going to significantly affect the viability of their cellar door operations. They are expensive to run, and it needs to be recognised that a large amount of tax has to be paid on wine consumed at cellar door tastings. Free tastings have been the basis of the wine tourism industry.The Treasurer has not been working away diligently behind the scenes to resolve the problems he has created. To demonstrate this, I only need quote the Liberal Treasurer of South Australia answering a question from the Hon. Paul Hollaway on 29 July regarding reports of the conflicting views of Mr Costello and Senator Lees and the state government's obligations under the Howard-Lees agreement. The Hon. R.I. Lucas:I saw the report in the Advertiser , and I know nothing more than the honourable member does in relation to the accuracy or otherwise of that press report. I have not been provided with any detail from the Commonwealth Government or the national Australian Democrats as to the state of their current discussions. I have asked Treasury officers to try to get further information from the Commonwealth Treasury. At this stage we have not been able to obtain any detail as to the state of the agreement and its interpretation between the Commonwealth Government and the Australian Democrats.And:In relation to our obligations, my understanding is that we have no obligations until we agree to something. At this stage we do not have a firm proposal or details of a proposal with which we can agree, and until we have that we are not in a position to agree or to have any obligations in relation to this issue.(Time expired)847119:53:008471Gambaro, Teresa, MPMs GAMBARO9K6PetrieLP10—Since the beginning of the 39th Parliament I have spoken on a number of occasions on the appalling track record of the Queensland Labor state government, particularly when it comes to managing the Queensland health care system. Queenslanders well remember the failure of the Goss state government to manage Queensland health. They remember the longer waiting queues and the mismanagement. Queenslanders also remember the appalling political grandstanding which the current Beattie Labor government was so keen to do during the previous Borbidge-Sheldon coalition government. Take the then disgraceful letter written by the Labor shadow health minister and now current minister Wendy Edmond, who wrote to her caucus colleagues in late 1996. The letter begins:Dear Comrades,Over the last few weeks we have scored some good hits on the health minister . . . please keep them coming. Please search through your representations to the minister to find letters, preferably on behalf of sad, needy constituents that have not been satisfactorily answered after, say, three to four months.But it was the way that Ms Edmond wound up her request to her colleagues that is most offensive and shows Labor's total lack of morals:Please keep those victims coming. Remember—a victim a day keeps Horan at bay.Is it any wonder that many members of the public do not respect politicians these days? With a track record in mismanagement and misinformation like the Labor Party's, is it any wonder that members on this side of the House are unsurprised by regular and gratuitous acts of base political expediency by the Labor Party?I, however, was recently really shocked to learn of what can only be described as a Labor lie par excellence. The issue came to my attention when a number of highly emotional older constituents contacted my electorate office to protest about what they had been told. They were told that the federal government had cut funds to their home and community care, HACC, visits. These elderly constituents had every right to be emotional. Many are ill, they live alone and they rely on HACC visits not only for in-home help but for human contact.What was really disturbing about their concerns was that they were not based on fact about HACC funding but on a scurrilous statement put forward by the state member for Redcliffe, Ray Hollis. A number of these concerned elderly Australians had contacted my office enraged and upset by the Labor lie put forward by Mr Hollis that HACC visits were reduced on the Redcliffe Peninsula because of federal government cuts. If Mr Hollis were interested in telling these older people the truth instead of engaging in the most deceitful act of buck-passing I have ever seen in a long time, he would have told them that the federal government has, in fact, increased HACC funding to Queensland by $11.2 million. If he had bothered to read the joint media press release issued by Minister Bishop and state health minister Edmond, he would have known this.But perhaps he does not care about the truth, just his own political hide. If he did care about the peninsular seniors, Mr Hollis would have been lobbying Premier Peter Beattie and health minister Edmond to match the contribution that other states make to federal-state HACC funding instead of welching on older Australians, particularly in Queensland. It certainly makes his 1998 statement that our senior citizens deserve a lot more respect than they are getting at the moment from a Liberal coalition government seem like crocodile tears. I am sure that the recipients of HACC services on the peninsula will agree.847219:58:008472Danby, Michael, MPMr DANBYWF6Melbourne PortsALP00—I rise to express my concern about the issue of Comcar. Comcar drivers, as many members know, provide members of this House and the other place with some degree of security and treat most of our journeys with great discretion. I do not want to speak on the substance of the industrial dispute that appears to exist between the government and the drivers, but I do want to express the strong support I feel that many members have for the discretion and the security with which we are treated.As the Attorney is here today, I want to draw his attention to the fact that, on at least two occasions in Melbourne I know of, private hire car firms that substitute for Comcar drivers these days have made indiscreet comments about the whereabouts and addresses of Family Court judges to passengers whom I am personally familiar with. That is extremely regrettable. I do not expect that the current government, given its views on privatisation, will do anything to change the situation back to what it was, where Comcar drivers dealt with federal politicians on most occasions. But I urge the responsible ministers to perhaps give stronger guidelines to these private firms about the kinds of remarks and comments they make about the kinds of people they are responsible for taking around.This is a matter of great concern. We leave our families to come up here to work during the week. We are not as confident, perhaps, when a private hire car firm turns up that they have the understanding of, and are as discreet as, the Comcar drivers. I do not claim to be a great expert on the industrial dispute that exists between the two parties at the moment, but I am confident that Comcar drivers treat Commonwealth politicians with great discretion and have a greater understanding of our security. I hope that the private firms that are appointed to take a lot of us around this country are given a greater understanding of the need for discretion and for security.10000Danby, Michael, MPMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 8 p.m., the debate is interrupted.House adjourned at 8 p.m.Notices8473The following notices were given:Mrs Crosio to move:That the House calls for a parliamentary committee inquiry into the ways and means by which the Commonwealth can advise and assist employees recently made redundant due to the insolvency of their employer, or facing the threat of redundancy, including:(1) how to organise themselves into co-operative organisations to either purchase or lease the company for which they work when it becomes insolvent or nears insolvency, if after a rigorous analysis of the company's finances such action is deemed to be prudent, sensible and standing a genuine chance of success and thereby maintain their employment;(2) how to make the required reforms to the financial structure of the company in question in order to make it economically viable; and(3) what management training programs may be necessary in order for employees to successfully administer their business and avoid insolvency in the future.Mr Latham to move:That the House urges the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission to conduct a full-scale inquiry into the medical profession, focussing on:(1) anti-competitive practices, particularly among surgeons and specialists;(2) reform of medical training practices, particularly within the College of Surgeons; and(3) areas where the medical profession does not comply with trade practices law.Ms Roxon to move:That the House:(1) notes the importance of the referendum on 6 November 1999 that goes to our identity as a nation and our system of government;(2) notes that our stable democracy will continue and be strengthened if this referendum question were to be approved by the people of Australia;(3) urges all Members of this House, whether they be monarchists, republicans or direct election supporters, to participate honestly in the referendum campaign; and(4) deplores misleading and mischievous scare campaigns on such an important national issue, such as: (a) the misrepresentation of the current powers of the Prime Minister to dismiss a Governor-General; (b) suggesting that the new constitutional arrangements would be unworkable or undemocratic; (c) understating the significance of the public nomination process; (d) mischaracterising the non-partisan role of the Commonwealth Parliament in appointing the President; and (e) the use of the preamble issue to distract from the question of whether Australia should have an Australian Head of State.1999-08-11Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Nehl) took the chair at 9.40 a.m.Statements by Members847484748474Danby, Michael, MPMr DANBYWF6Melbourne PortsALP00—Last night when I was contemplating comments I wished to make before this chamber, I was considering a number of issues. I was looking forward to praising the work of the Emerald Hill Mission, which provides crisis care for both young and old people in South Melbourne. I was considering speaking on Comcar, whose drivers traditionally provide a high standard of discreet service. I know they would never blurt out the address of a Family Court judge, as one of their privatised replacements did to a recent passenger in Melbourne.Then the unpleasant hand of fate intervened. A friend and staff member of mine in Melbourne rang me to tell me that he had been assaulted near his home on the corner of one of Melbourne's busiest strip shopping centres. He called 000 and was waiting for the police to arrive at his house; he had been waiting for some time. I called the police station myself to ensure that a unit was being dispatched. I was advised that one had been assigned, but there was a delay because the local police had arrested three car thieves, and the unit assigned was busy processing these miscreants. After an hour and a half, he gave up and was driven to the police station by another staff member of mine whom I dispatched. I decided that the Emerald Hill Mission and Comcar drivers would have to wait.My comments today are not critical of the Victoria Police but, like many, I want to bolster the confidence of Victorians who wish to walk their streets after dark. I know we have been enjoined by the Speaker against irony, but irony it is that the Victorian government, which is run by an allegedly authoritarian Premier, has presided over crime rates which have risen by four per cent in the last 11 months.In my own electorate of Melbourne Ports, people in St Kilda and other suburbs are paying more insurance because of burglary. Street prostitution is spreading and our police are under constant pressure. Instead of fighting crime, the Kennett government bean counters are closing 34 police stations, and police numbers are effectively down by 1,300. In Melbourne Ports we are thankfully losing only one station at Elsternwick as far as I know.The Kennett government cannot privatise police as it has train drivers, council workers and prison guards. It has failed to put more police on the beat and hence, expecting them to deliver illusory ideologically driven `efficiency dividends', fails to tackle crime. It may not be the only answer, but, clearly, a stronger police presence is part of the answer.The police officer I spoke to last night, who actually called me back to explain the delay in the case of my friend, was almost apologetic. That a police officer in Victoria is put in such a position is despicable. Increasingly, Victorians are waking up to a government led by `the adman', the master of the `one-liner', the quick grab, the distracting headline. For, as impressive as Jeff can be on the presentation side, it is little consolation to the victims of crime, to those lying on trolleys in the corridors of public hospitals and to parents and kids hoping for smaller class sizes and not ever more frequent external tests.When the Liberals' bloody round of preselections concludes this weekend, Victorians will have an opportunity to give the current government a `wake-up' call. Only Steve Bracks will put more police back on the streets of Victoria. We need more police on the beat in Victoria.84758475Entsch, Warren, MPMr ENTSCH7K6LeichhardtLP10—I rise to speak from the heart about an issue in my electorate that has certainly touched me very deeply, and I am sure many of my colleagues are already aware of the impact of mental illness on all those it affects, from the victims of illness right through to the loved ones who care for them. Recently, I received an insight into mental health issues from a constituent of mine who told me of the plight of families left to pick up the pieces when someone they love is diagnosed with mental illness.When Adrianne Hicks discovered that her 32-year-old son suffered from chronic schizophrenia, it turned her whole world upside down. She soon realised the complete void that existed in Cairns and Far North Queensland in terms of support for mental health sufferers and their families, but, instead of accepting these deficiencies, she set about trying to change them at a time when, she admits, she herself almost ended up being admitted as a patient.She learned about a group called the Schizophrenia Fellowship in Townsville and quickly became the driving force in establishing a community action group aimed at setting up a similar service in Far North Queensland, including a 24-hour hotline and full-time liaison officer to be based in Cairns. She mobilised the support of medical professionals, mental health services, community housing, police and, most of all, carers themselves. She was also ably supported by two very wonderful people, Naomi Wilson and Henry Pain, in this endeavour.So successful was she in her efforts that she has gained bipartisan support from federal, state and local government representatives, who are all willing to work together to address this problem. When she approached me, I was shocked and somewhat appalled at the lack of support and services available to people in this situation. In Far North Queensland there is no-one for carers to turn to in times of desperate need—no agency, no support group, no hotline, no qualified counsellor whose job it is to help these families. Health professionals know how to treat the patient, but unless there is someone to offer the practical advice and information which carers need in order to cope, I am afraid that we are merely offering bandaid solutions.Until the 1980s, government simply locked away these people in institutions, basically forgetting about them. All of us have heard the horror stories that unfolded behind those closed doors—the stories of neglect, abuse and callous disregard for the quality of human life.My question today is: are we doing any better? We embarked on a path of deinstitutionalisation with vigour. We have sent these people back into the community; we did nothing to equip them with the skills to cope or survive in a society that does not understand them and, indeed, quite often is afraid of them. As a government, I believe we are still failing in our duty to care for these people and their families. We have an obligation to protect them, to support them, to help them with their transition back into the community so that they can lead independent, healthy and, hopefully, normal lives.That is why I applaud the efforts of Adrianne Hicks and intend to lobby for her cause to ensure that the newly established Mental Health Help in Far North Queensland gets the funding and support it deserves and needs to become a vibrant and active support base for the mentally ill and their carers in my electorate.84768476Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—I wish to spend the short time available to me this morning in thanking a number of people who helped me during a visit by me in the last two weeks to improve my understanding of education issues in the Northern Territory and Western Australia.First, I would like to thank Senator Trish Crossin, my colleague Warren Snowdon, the member for the Northern Territory, Tom Stephens, the Labor leader in the upper house in Western Australia and his wife, Anne, and Paul Browning from Senator Peter Cook's staff, for helping to put together this itinerary.The people I met included the Vice-Chancellor of the Northern Territory University, Ron McKay, who, together with Charles Webb, was very helpful in explaining many of the issues that the Northern Territory University is now dealing with. Dean Patterson explained to us the great work that they have done on solar cars and their high efficiency fans. Michael Hohnen explained some of the great work that is being done at NTU as they go out into communities to develop their contemporary music program.Clare Martin, the Labor leader in the Northern Territory, has every right to celebrate not only the election of Paul Henderson in Wanguri but also the fact that Nicole Cridland achieved a 22 per cent swing in the electorate of Blain, which demonstrates the great job that Clare is doing.At Casuarina Senior College, the principal, Ruary Bucknell, explained some of the great things that are happening at the senior college, with parents and other members of the community coming to the school at night in order to have a chance to continue their lifelong learning. At Batchelor Institute of Indigenous Tertiary Education, Veronica Arbon and all of the staff there explained to us the great work they are doing. We also celebrated their recent independence on 1 July and their name change.We had discussions with Mark Crossin and Rob Laird at the AEU, and also, at the Northern Territory Department of Education, with Wal Czernezkj. At Bathurst Island, we had a chance to visit the Murrupurityanauwu Catholic School. The principal, Mrs Kilapayuwu Puruntatmera, gave us a tour of her school, and at the adjacent Xavier Community Education Centre, the principal, Steve McWilliams, showed us around as well.At Maningrida, we had a chance to meet not only with Gail Dawson and Alistair Scott, but also with a number of students at the Maningrida Community Education Centre and talk to them about some of the problems that they are facing. We also talked with former senator Bob Collins about his concerns regarding a number of education issues. At Yirrkala, Leon White, the principal of the Homelands School Centre, gave us an excellent explanation of issues facing them and the Yirrkala `Top' School. I say thank you to my old friend Will Stubbs, at the Buku-Larrngay Mulka, and to Mirrikai, who gave us a tour of the Yirrkala `Top' School.Perhaps on another occasion I will get a chance to thank those who helped me during my visit to Broome. I say to all those who helped on our visit to the Northern Territory that we learnt a lot about the issues that are facing them—the need for improved teacher housing, the need for more assistance in improving the bilingual education programs at those schools, and the need to make sure that research institutes such as the one in the Northern Territory continue to do good work.84778477Lawler, Tony, MPMr LAWLER834ParkesNP10—I rise in the House today to pay tribute to one of Australia's greats, though unknown greats. The funeral of Ron Rich was held in St Brigid's Church in Dubbo last Saturday. Ron would be squirming with discomfort in his place of honour next to St Peter at the moment because in his life he refused to be acknowledged for his great deeds. In fact, Father Pat Ruane, one of the many priests who presided at the funeral, made the point that he needed to say something of the deeds of Ron Rich and he excused himself by saying that he was in fact praising God because Ron was God's work of art, His masterpiece.Ron Rich received an Order of Australia medal a few years ago but, even more importantly, he was recognised by the Vatican when he was awarded a papal knighthood. Ron was an intensely private man whose generosity knew no bounds. For most of his working life, he was the honorary treasurer to most non-profit organisations in the city—charities, sporting organisations, churches and others. All of the recipients of his generosity were made to feel special. Not many of them knew that there were many special organisations and special people in Ron Rich's life. He had that knack of leaving everyone he met with a warm glowing feeling of self-importance. He gave endlessly of his time and his money.Ron was able to do many of his good works because of the presence of his wife, Margaret. She is a very special lady. Sons Mark, Peter, David and Michael are the people they are today because of both their parents. Ron and Margaret's belief in life and their attitude to giving is reflected in the families of their sons.Well over 1,000 people attended this funeral in Dubbo. People from all walks of life gathered to show the depth of feeling they had for this kind and gentle man. It is a mark of the character of Ron Rich that a myriad of health problems diagnosed over the past few years did not dim his care for others. He accepted a death sentence given to him by his doctors and set about preparing the people around him for his inevitable passing. It was the nature of the man that he would do this.We the people at his funeral were not in fact mourning for Ron Rich as we know that he is in a better place than that which he left behind. No, we mourn for ourselves and for the world that is a much poorer place because of his departure.84778477Sercombe, Bob,MPMr SERCOMBEQK6MaribyrnongALP00—I would like to use this opportunity to raise some dilemmas that are faced by a strongly community based, frail aged accommodation service provided in my electorate. The Keilor Hostel for the Aged Association operates a hostel in my electorate known as Holloway Hostel that provides an excellent standard of service and is a very well-managed enterprise. I must declare that I have a strong personal association with this organisation. It was named after my grandmother, so I feel a very strong attachment to it.The organisation made representations to me back in June that I have passed on to the Minister for Aged Care but have still had no response to. It might be easiest if I read some sections of their correspondence. Their letter reads:As you are aware, the Federal Government has ceased providing capital grants to Aged Hostels on the basis that they should use the monies held in the Residents' Trust Fund, which are an accumulation of the ingoing amounts, paid by those who can afford to do so. This proposal means that the Residents' Trust Fund would diminish, thereby reducing the interest value, which in fact subsidises the operating cost of the Hostel.The new mechanism for funding recurrent costs in reality has provided no additional funding, therefore, Aged Hostels who need expansion to remain solvent are in a vicious dilemma. They either increase their leveraging, by using a proportion of the Residents' Trust Fund thereby reducing the interest value or potentially go broke. Furthermore, they cannot obtain a bank loan as the bank is unable to obtain security with a mortgage over the property due to the State Aged Care act giving residents first call over the property asset. This situation exists in Aged Hostels of around 40 residents—which is what Holloway is. The letter goes on:My research of both "not for profit" and "for profit", indicates that the best Hostel in terms of facility and management, with only 40 residents, will always struggle to break even under the current formula.In terms of Holloway, where we have applied the best accounting practices with minimal leveraging, maintaining depreciation allowances and utilising a significant proportion of community volunteer help, it is only in a very marginal surplus position to repay its debt. To build a further wing to house 12 more residents, at a cost approximating $750,000 would reduce the Residents' Trust Account to approximately $250,000, thereby reducing interest and placing the interim operation in a loss position until the expansion was complete and the ingoing residents had paid a substantial ingoing fee. Furthermore, if a number of residents left the Hostel during the building of a new wing, it would leave us with insufficient liquidity to pay back the element of their ingoing, which is due to them.Another change in the act, which has caused significant concern, is the fact that a new resident has up to six months to pay their ingoing contribution. If a resident leaves, we are given 7 days to repay that which is due to them. This used to be on the basis that a refund would be provided when a new resident, providing an ingoing, replaced them. You can see that the difference in the two policies is such that it significantly depletes our liquidity and yet there is no increase in government subsidy to offset such a situation.(Time expired)84788478Cameron, Ross, MPMr ROSS CAMERON3K6ParramattaLP10—As we reflect on what are the critical ingredients in the secondary curricula of high schools around Australia, I note that in New South Wales we now have selective schools for, for example, students who want to specialise in sport and who hope to make a career in sport. We have a selective school in my electorate for students who want to specialise in the creative and performing arts, and the high school at Northmead is doing an outstanding job in that regard. We have specialist schools in, for example, the field of agriculture. James Ruse Agricultural High School in my electorate of Parramatta is almost undisputedly the school with the highest academic standards of any school in Australia, taking 18 out of the top 20 places in agriculture at the HSC last year.As we reflect on the question I want to put on the agenda of this government, and hopefully of the New South Wales government, the question of how we stimulate a spirit of entrepreneurship among young Australians. Surely, one of the things we have to do is to stir the animal spirits of capitalism in the hearts and minds of young Australians. We have to create that instinct not just to find a job but to create a job. One of my criticisms of our approach to, for example, vocational training is that it is focused too much at the high school level on, `Where can I find a job?', rather than, `What new job can I create?', `What business can I create?' or, indeed, `What industry can I create?'I want to salute in particular the outstanding work of Norm Owens from Australian Business Week. He is going into about 80 schools around Australia this year with a program to simulate the business environment. He will reach tens of thousands of young Australians and provide them with a taste of business.I want to go one step further. I want to suggest that while we have schools for the dramatic and performing arts, while we have schools for agriculture, while we have schools for sport and for technology, I would like to see us create a school for business and entrepreneurship. I want to see us create a secondary school where the qualification to get in is that you already have a part-time job somewhere and that you have a business plan for how you want to create a new industry in this country. I want to see its board filled by entrepreneurs from around the country. I want to see its curriculum focused on giving young people the confidence to take a risk, because ultimately it is that small band of risk takers who create jobs, who create industry, who lift our gross national product that will turn around our current account deficit. We have to start with young minds.The time has come for Australia's first secondary specialist school in business and entrepreneurship. I believe since James Ruse was the first settler in Australia to take himself and his family off welfare—off the government store—that school should be in my electorate of Parramatta.UNKNOWNMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Order! In accordance with standing order 275A, the time for members' statements has concluded. The committee will now consider government business.Bills8479s215Consideration resumed from 30 June.847909:59:008479Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.This bill makes a number of changes to the Copyright Act 1968 which are of great importance to the development of the information economy in Australia. The changes will promote open systems, or `interoperability' of computer programs and products, and facilitate error correction and more effective security of computer systems.The information economy arises from the revolutionary new opportunities for storage, transmission and accessing information made possible by digital technology. The digitising of information is entirely dependent on processing by computers. Computers consist of the software or computer programs for the various digital processes and the computer hardware by which people can manipulate the programs. Even in that very generalised description, the vital role of computer programs in the whole of the new information economy can be easily perceived.With the enormous proliferation of computers and computer technology and the networks connecting them, notably the Internet, there is an obvious need for computers and the programs which drive them to communicate, connect or `interoperate' with each other. When making a new program to interoperate with existing programs, a software developer needs certain information, called `interface specifications', relating to these existing programs. Often the makers of widely used programs have made the interface information available in the interests of interoperability. However, sometimes they have not.Computer programs are a form of intellectual property protected by copyright. Since 1984, the Copyright Act has explicitly protected computer programs as literary works whether they be in a human-readable language, called `source code' or in machine-readable language, called `object code', which is the usual form in which they are sold or supplied to users.However unlike most, if not all other, literary works, computer programs in machine-readable form cannot be rendered in human-readable form without making a copy. The making of a copy of a copyright work without the copyright owner's permission is an infringement of copyright. If one wants to write a literary work to complement an existing work, for instance a learned commentary on a popular novel, one is free to read the novel in order to write that commentary without infringing the rights of the owner of copyright in the novel.However, one cannot learn how a computer program in machine-readable form works without access to a version in human-readable form or source code. To render the machine code into the equivalent of source code it is necessary to employ a process called `decompilation', which involves the production of a copy of the program.By refusing to make available information about a computer program's interfaces with other programs with which it interoperates, the owner of copyright in a successful program can control the market in products that are interoperable with the program. Only if the maker of a new product were permitted to find out the interface information by decompilation can that maker achieve interoperability of the new program with the existing program.The law of the leading software producing country in the world, the United States, allows makers of new programs to use decompilation to find out the interface information of existing programs for achieving interoperability. The countries of the European Union and other European countries also allow this to be done. However, Australian law does not make such provision. The present situation therefore is that Australian law is more restrictive of the activities of new software developers than the law of the leading industrialised countries where most of the world's software is being produced.Australia's software producers are recognised as innovative by world standards. Because our industry is not of a scale to compete across the board with such dominant industries as that of the United States, its comparative advantage lies in the ability to cater for niche markets. In order to do this, it must be able to ensure that its successful niche products interoperate with other existing products including those produced by the big-scale producers.Against that background I come now to the main reform in the bill. If Australian industry is to be allowed to compete on level terms with producers of similar products in the USA and Europe, Australian software copyright law must be brought more into line with the law in those countries. Accordingly, as an exception to the copyright reproduction right, where interface information about other programs is not readily available to a software producer, the producer will now be able to decompile another program to the extent necessary to get the required interface information for making an interoperable product.The government recognises that commercially successful computer programs can involve very extensive expenditure on research and development and accepts that appropriate protection via the copyright law should be afforded this investment. Accordingly, the change to allow decompilation in the circumstances I have described will ensure that only interface information may be discovered and that this information may be used only for the purpose of making an interoperable product. This limited sanctioning of decompilation will not weaken the existing proscription of software piracy.The most saleable pirate product is one that is practically indistinguishable from, and functions identically to, the genuine article. To make such a pirate product, one would not decompile the original, but would simply copy it straight onto a disc.In approving these amendments, the government had the benefit of very comprehensive consideration and research going back a number of years and extensive consultations with the software industry. The amendments are based on recommendations contained in a very thorough report by the Copyright Law Review Committee of this government.Because Australia has extensive international obligations in regard to copyright, through membership of the World Trade Organisation and other international treaties, careful consideration has also been given to ensuring that the amendments are compatible with those obligations.The bill will also make two other amendments to software copyright law that are very necessary and important for the sound and secure development of the information economy. One of these amendments will allow the use of the decompilation process for the corrections of errors in a program where an error-free copy of the program is not reasonably available at a commercial price.Where, because of the year 2000 date problem, a copy of a program will not function beyond the end of this year, although it was intended to by the producer, decompilation will be able to be undertaken to correct the problem if an error-free version is not reasonably available, as already indicated. This is another element of the government's decisive action to facilitate the combating of the Y2K problem.The other amendment will permit decompilation, where necessary, to test the security of a computer program or of a network of which it is part, against unauthorised access to the program or network and against sabotage—for example, by viruses. The disruption caused by the Melissa virus infecting email systems in Australia and other countries recently is a timely warning of this danger.With our growing dependence on computer networks, the need is correspondingly greater for effective security against unauthorised penetration and sabotage—and all the damage and invasion of privacy that they can cause. Again, the permitted decompilation could only be undertaken if the required information for security testing was not already available, and only to the extent necessary to obtain the information. In the case of both error correction and security testing, the information gained from permitted decompilation may be used only for the purposes for which the decompilation was undertaken.Any exceptions to the basic copyright right to control reproduction of a copyright work must be justifiable, must not harm the economic interests of the copyright owner and must be compatible with our international obligations. I have shown that the three very specific cases in which decompilation will be allowed are of fundamental importance to the wellbeing of the software industry and users of software.The exceptions will in no way make the practice of piracy any easier in Australia, for the simple reason that the changes will not relax in any way the civil or criminal liability of those who engage in piracy.The government believes that, by bringing Australian law essentially into line with the law in the USA and European countries, not to mention other countries in the world, the amendments comply with our international obligations in regard to copyright protection.These are the main amendments contained in the bill. The other amendments implement more technical changes to the protection of computer programs that were recommended in the report of the Copyright Law Review Committee to which I have referred. One amendment confirms that, where the conditions of purchase of a computer program do not specifically provide, the technical generation of a copy of the program in the course of running it for normal use will not infringe copyright in the program. Likewise, the generation of such a temporary copy while running the program in the course of studying its operation will not infringe copyright.The existing provisions of the act permitting the making of a reserve—or backup—copy against possible destruction of a program have been modified, to make them accord with current practice in the backing up of computers and computer systems.In further recognition of the critical importance of addressing the Y2K problem, when announcing approval of the amendments on 23 February last, the government indicated that the amendment to allow decompilation of computer programs to correct errors would, when enacted, operate as from the date of the announcement. The relevant provision of the bill provides accordingly.One other important provision in the bill will nullify any agreement that purports to exclude the right to run a program in order to study it, the right to make backup copies or the right to decompile a program for interoperability, for error correction and for security testing. However, a backup copy will not be able to be made if it would involve circumventing a `lock' on a computer program incorporated by the producer to prevent such copies being made.Computer software is the cornerstone of the new communications systems. It is also essential to just about every other element of modern infrastructure, production and services. It is important that the intellectual property in computer programs be adequately protected. With one of the lowest rates of software piracy in the world, Australia has demonstrated its commitment to doing so. However, protection must not be at the cost of reasonable access akin to what users of other copyright materials enjoy.The main amendments in this bill will allow access to source-code equivalent in circumstances in which software engineers in many other software producing countries already enjoy it. The changes will contribute to competitive development of new software and hardware products, intensifying action against the Y2K bug and increasing the security of systems against viruses and hacking—all indisputably desirable objectives. The amendments will give not one crumb of comfort to software pirates. I commend the bill to the Main Committee and present the explanatory memorandum to the bill.10:11:008482McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLANDJK6BartonALP00—The opposition supports the government's legislation in this area. Indeed, we note that the issue of copyright is becoming increasingly significant because of these rapid advances in digital technology that the Attorney-General spoke of. The approach of the opposition is to cooperate in appropriate amendments to the legal framework so that a very significant aspect of not only our industrial development but also the systems of communications these days can develop.As always in any area of democracy, inevitably if you come up with an answer that is perfect to one sector, you have probably got the wrong result. Because of its nature, democracy involves elements of compromise between a number of different interests. The government has, in respect of this bill, the Copyright Amendment (Computer Programs) Bill 1999, adopted a system of appropriate consultation and, indeed, in respect to a more significant change to the copyright area and the digital agenda bill, I understand, is considering referring that bill to the House of Representatives Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee. That is a course of action which we propose because I think it is inevitable that the outcome of that process will be that no one sector of the community will be entirely satisfied. But overall I think all sectors need to be convinced that a balanced approach has been achieved. In summary, I think that the appropriate procedures are taking place.The Attorney-General went through the background to the bill in some detail and I will not dwell on that. Essentially, the bill amends the Copyright Act 1968 to insert at the end of part 3 a new division 4A on exemptions to infringement of copyright in computer programs. The exemptions consist of several new ones and one existing one that is to be re-enacted with modifications. All the amendments except that concerning security testing of computer programs and systems result from the government's consideration of the recommendations of the report of the Copyright Law Review Committee on computer software protection that the Attorney-General has referred to.The effect of this bill is that copyright in a computer program is not infringed if a copy is made in the course of: running a program for normal use but, of course, subject to the conditions of the licence; studying the operation of and ideas behind that program while running it—that is, one form of reverse engineering and—as we all periodically should do—backing up the data on a computer system or a network for security purposes. Also, copyright is not infringed in the course of finding out how a computer program interoperates with or connects with other programs so as to make a new program to operate with any or all of those programs. And, as the Attorney-General indicated, decompilation is a commonly used expression but very important to Australia's software industry because our industry and software programs have to interoperate with the operating systems of the very large and notable software producers.Exceptions are made also in respect of correcting an error in a program—again, as the Attorney-General indicated, that may become very important with the year 2000 approaching—and for security testing and correcting any security flaw in a program or breach as a result of computer hacking or a computer virus.The exceptions allowing copying for the purposes of interoperability, error correction and security testing are subject to qualifications, including that the amount of the program copied must be limited to that which is necessary to undertake the specific function. We agree that that is appropriate. The bill provides that a person cannot be required to contract out of the exceptions for running the program to study how it works, for backing up a copy, or copying for interoperability, error correction or security testing.The bill is non-contentious and, as I indicated at the outset, has been prepared after consultation with a wide variety of industry sources. There are two issues, however, that we would like to note for the record and flag for future observation.The first, with respect to the interoperability exception, relates to the adequate supply of specifications. I am referring here to the process of decompilation. Proposed section 47D provides for the reproducing or decompilation of computer programs to make interoperable products. Subsection 47D(1)(e) provides a defence to an allegation of infringement of copyright where a person decompiles a computer program for the purposes of determining the specifications necessary to make an interoperable program. That defence arises where those specifications are `not readily available to the owner or licensee from another source when the reproduction or adaptation is made'.The potential problem is that the person wishing to decompile the computer program may not know in advance whether all the necessary specifications for interoperability have been provided to them. Indeed, many computer programmers have complained that some companies, as a means of protecting their market share, sometimes deliberately withhold the full details of these specifications. Where a person is unsure as to whether that has occurred and, to ensure that they have the full information, decompiles a computer program, but subsequently finds out that the information was initially bona fide provided to them, they may nonetheless be creating an offence if the discovery is subsequently made that they were initially provided with the correct information.As a matter of practice, we acknowledge, this is unlikely to cause many problems as normally no-one would know whether that person obtained the relevant specifications via the decompilation or obtained the information through the public provision of the necessary information by the copyright owner. However, in some circumstances it may be that the copyright owner may learn of the act of decompilation and the potential for both civil and criminal action arises.While the Labor Party is concerned that some people may be sued or prosecuted in these circumstances, we have not sought to amend this bill, on the advice of those potentially most affected—Australia's small business computer programmers and software manufacturers. This is because, as we acknowledge, they wish to see this bill passed as quickly as possible and they do not want to place at risk the benefits that they will obtain under the act. Nonetheless, this is an issue of some concern and we would ask the government to monitor the progress and the operation of the bill when enacted, to detect and ascertain whether people are sued or prosecuted because of the way the bill is designed, and determine whether there is a need for further amendment in light of the practical operation of the bill.The second and final issue I would like to place on the record is in respect of the operation of section 47E(1)(d). It relates to the ordinary commercial price concept. That provision enables a person to make a reproduction or adaption of a computer program for the purposes of correcting any error only where a copy of the properly operating version of the program is not available from the copyright holder `within a reasonable time and at an ordinary commercial price'.Some people have expressed to us the concern that an ordinary commercial price may not be the same thing as a reasonable commercial price and that people selling the corrected versions of the software could make a windfall gain or an unconscionable profit from their original mistake. The government, on the other hand, has assured us that, according to their research, the provision as drafted will provide adequate protection. While we are not entirely convinced at this stage that the government's argument is correct in this respect, we do not believe the bill should be held up because of this possible deficiency in the drafting. However, again, the Labor Party will monitor the position, and we ask the government to do so. If the bill does not operate in the manner suggested by the government, we would like to see this issue revisited.In conclusion, the Labor Party welcomes this bill. It is an important development in modernising Australia's copyright law for the computer age. There are many more amendments to come, which we acknowledge. We will endeavour to reach a bona fide agreement with the government to ensure that the legal framework properly facilitates these developments. We look forward to this bill being proclaimed and to other developments in the copyright area coming forward.10:21:008485Pyne, Chris, MPMr PYNE9V5SturtLP10—Australia continues to reflect the international trend of moving to an economy dominated by service industries. The service economy already employs approximately 40 per cent of Australia's work force. In the service economy, ideas are capital.As legislators, we have two important responsibilities in fostering further expansion of the service economy. Firstly, we must provide a best practice education system that nurtures ideas. Secondly, through a sophisticated copyright law regime that does not have the peripheral effect of suffocating the development of new ideas, we must protect the intellectual property rights of the idea creators. That is why in the past I have spoken and written at length about issues concerning education and copyright.In the service economy, investment, education and training should be compared to startup capital in manufacturing industry. A failure to adequately invest in education and research limits technological advancement and forms a barrier to economic growth. Conversely, developing the knowledge and skills base of a nation sustains innovation and product development and stimulates productivity and economic confidence. When these ideas are converted into economic productivity, there must be a sensible copyright regime in operation to protect the creators' investment and interest in those ideas.The porous nature of economic borders in the modern global economy makes it difficult to protect ownership rights in intellectual property. This is tempered by the fact that copyright laws can also be manipulated by the owners of intellectual property to create non-tariff barriers to trade. The manipulation of the Copyright Act prior to July 1998 by the multinational sound recording industry is a case in point. I am sure you will remember that, prior to the coalition government's dambusting legislation just over 12 months ago, the provisions of the Copyright Act were used by the multinational sound recording industry to monopolise the market. As a result, Australian consumers were penalised through inflated retail prices of compact discs and a lack of variety due to the absence of competition in the marketplace.For almost a decade, the former Labor government aided and abetted the multinational sound recording companies to manipulate the provisions of the Copyright Act to serve as a non-tariff barrier. This had the effect of extending monopolistic powers to exclusive distributors, despite the fact that in most circumstances the distributor had made no investment in or contribution to product development.Prohibiting parallel imports is manifestly uncompetitive in any economy. Its monopolistic characteristics affect consumption patterns through higher prices, producer behaviour and investment decisions. Despite a damning report by the Prices Surveillance Authority, led by Professor Allan Fels, almost halfway through the former Labor government's 13 years in office, Labor failed to break the multinationals' vicelike grip on their lucrative monopoly market.The coalition government resolved to address this situation and passed the Copyright Amendment Bill in July 1998. In the 12 months since the commencement of its operation, there is reason to believe that the measures have produced the desired result, which are cheaper CDs and a sound recording industry reinvigorated by competition. This is an incredible achievement, given that I recall paying up to $31 for CDs only 18 months ago, yet today you can buy them for prices in the top 20s. There is anecdotal evidence to suggest that the price will fall even further. There were reports in the newspapers last year and earlier this year that large supermarket chains like Woolworths have dropped their CD prices by $10. Deconstructing the prohibition on parallel importing is only one area of the coalition government's commitment to evolving copyright law, and this bill is an extension of that commitment.Information technology is developing at an alarmingly rapid rate. Governments are constantly under pressure to ensure legislation keeps pace with technological advancement. This legislation before the House, the Copyright Amendment (Computer Programs) Bill 1999, promotes and advances open systems or interoperability of computer software and products. Computer software is a form of intellectual property and, as such, is afforded appropriate protection by the Copyright Act 1968. At present, computer software is considered, for the purposes of this act, as literary works irrespective of the language format, source code or object code they adopt.The object code can only be interpreted by computer or machineware. The object code can only be translated into a source code by making a copy of the program, or what our more computer-literate friends would call decompilation. I am not, unfortunately, one of those.Copying the program without the copyright owner's consent constitutes an infringement of the Copyright Act as it currently operates. Consequently, the owner of the intellectual property and the computer software is able to control the market of the product beyond the parameters of the spirit of the Copyright Act. This is particularly a problem in circumstances where a software programmer of a new product requires information by decompilation to achieve interoperability between the software being developed and the existing software. This creates a barrier to product innovation and, therefore, market development. It results in similar issues to the copyright amendments that the government made 12 months ago in CDs, which is why I spent some time discussing that subject.The United States and countries of the European Union provide legislative measures to allow the programmers of new software to decompile existing software for the purposes of accessing interfaced information so new products are interoperable with existing products. Although Australian software programmers lack the market muscle of major international competitors, we have successfully carved out a lucrative and innovative niche market. It is an industry that is employing and training an increasing number of highly skilled Australians. However, it cannot remain competitive if its products cannot interoperate with mainstream software.The bill before the House levels the playing field for Australia's software development industry. This outcome will be achieved by allowing the developer of new software to decompile an existing software to the extent necessary to obtain the interface information for making an interoperable product. The bill before the House does not compromise the intellectual property rights of existing softwares. This bill only allows the discovery of the interface information for the strict purpose of developing an interoperable product. Further provisions of this bill allow the use of the decompilation process for correcting errors in a program where an error-free duplicate of the product is not reasonably available at a commercial price. Decompilation will also be permitted in circumstances where the program is not Y2K compliant but was intended to be. Decompilation will be permissible to address the problem where an error-free version is not reasonably available at a commercial price.Other measures of this bill provide that lawful decompilation will occur where it is necessary to test the security of a computer program or a computer network for unauthorised access or sabotage to the program or network. It is anticipated that this will typically take the form of computer viruses. The potency of some of these computer viruses makes it necessary that decompilation can be conducted in situations where required security testing is not readily available.The measures introduced in this bill reflect the evolving nature of information technology and copyright law. The bill keeps faith with the spirit of copyright law in protecting the rights and interests of the author or owner of intellectual property. It also recognises that, in some instances, copyright laws can produce unintended or unworkable results that become obstacles to product innovation and development. Owners of intellectual property will not be penalised by the introduction of this bill nor will their property be exposed to an increased threat of piracy. Piracy, of course, is a scourge of vibrant economies. Countries with poor, inoperable copyright regimes do not attract new ideas. This bill embodies that principle. I commend the bill to the Main Committee.10:30:008487Morris, Allan, MPMr ALLAN MORRISFI4NewcastleALP00—I am absolutely puzzled by the comments of the member for Sturt linking CDs with decompiling computer software. He really has missed the point and lost the plot. That is rather unfortunate because he is seen as one of the leading lights in the government in terms of this issue. That perhaps may well explain why legislation, which has been in place in England since 1993, is finally being addressed here and why, at one minute to midnight with the Y2K bug, we are bringing in amendments to help debug systems that may have a Y2K problem, but only after the supplier makes it available at a normal price—whatever that might be—after due process. So I reckon it will be about 2004 before this is operable in that context.I suppose it is appropriate for the government to be solving the Y2K bug in about 2004—that is about par for the course. But to be putting this forward as a Y2K issue at this time is laughable; it really does demean and diminish the importance of what is actually happening here. I wish the government would get off these trendy, fashionable issues and understand the real concerns. The issues that this bill, the Copyright Amendment (Computer Programs) Bill 1999, is dealing with are longstanding, and this is only part of it. With the shades of grey in this area of intellectual property rights, and of power and control in computer software, it will be a moving feast for decades and decades to come which will need almost annual adjustments. It is not a fixed scene; it is moving out there continually and, as it moves, we have to move with it.This move is very late in the process, which has been a major disadvantage for our companies. I suggest that the government have to recognise that and to be monitoring it, and they will find that we will be supportive of constant adaptation. I will give an example that is not picked up here but which should be—it is the logical place for it. Having got these amendments through the parliament, the fact is that the supplier of the decompiler, because the decompiler is itself a computer program, exercises property rights as well and could in fact restrict an Australian user from using a decompiler to decompile certain products. So what the government may seek to achieve here could well be thwarted by non-tariff barriers, if you like, imposed by the supplier. We are in the same situation as we always are in this country, of overseas suppliers using marketing power and their own international corporate powers as to where they license, what they license and how, in order to overcome a trade barrier or to impose a trade barrier of another kind. So, with the fact that the decompiler is self-owned by somebody, that owner, when they sell it, could restrict how it is used. That is not picked up in these amendments.It should be recognised that the legislation should allow the buyer or the purchaser of some software to have access to the full software, not just part of it. That is another issue that really is not picked up at all either: when you buy a product, what do you buy? It is a bit like when we bought the F111s—we bought the aircraft but not the software, and it took us 30 years to get the software in the F111s. It is a bit similar here. You buy the object code as an operating program and the supplier says, `By the way, fellas, we don't give you the source code. You can't have that, because that is ours, even though you've paid for the program.' From their point of view, they separate the program definition into object and source. They do not say it on their material, but what they actually sell you is the object code.As far as I am concerned, if you buy a computer program you buy the whole lot. The artificial differentiation between source and object should not be allowed. These legislation amendments will go some way towards moving that margin as to what a computer program is because if we can remove the capacity for the suppliers to differentiate, then it will be easier for them to supply the whole lot, rather than have that artificial barrier. But the fact is that, in many cases, the supplier of the program here will also be the supplier of the decompiler. What they can lose on the one hand with these amendments they may well be able to gain on the other by restricting the use of the decompiler to certain products or in certain ways. So what these amendments should also do is to nullify the power of the decompiler suppliers to restrict those decompiler uses in opposition or in contradiction to the objectives in these amendments.The trouble we have with this whole area is the fact that we are talking in jargon. We talk in mystique terms. We have this enormous confusion and difficulty in absorbing computer technology and terminology into everyday language and into the legal system of the country. It comes back to the computer literacy of lawyers and so on, but that eventually will pass.The real complication is that a country that has such innovative computer software developers, such a capacity to do important and worthwhile things in a field, is constantly being held back by our market size and the oppressiveness of the suppliers. This is not something minor. These companies play it very tough and very nasty, as any small developer in Australia can tell you.I will give you one very simple example. Windows 95 became available in August 1995 in Australia for consumers via Harvey Norman and the various other chains that were selling it. However, a software developer, using that particular software, could not buy an Australian version until November 1995, three months after consumers could buy it. The overseas developers, particularly the Americans, had access to Beta versions of it the previous year and to the final version of it in about June of that year. In other words, they had access to it six months earlier.Therefore, if you were an Australian developer trying to use that as part of your product you had a six-month handicap put on you by the supplier. That was not accidental, in my view; that was quite deliberate and quite focused. It was also a bit of a lesson. You play ball and behave yourself or else you just get excluded from the system. The power that is wielded by these people is enormous. If you are a small company trying to use their products, you do not rock the boat. That is one of the reasons why this stuff may not work; people may not be prepared to try to use it because of the fear that they will be punished in other ways. There are many other weapons available in their repertoire.My concern is that if we find one thing, years later we will focus on that and it will become big and critical. We see it as all-engulfing when in reality it is just a small part of a much bigger picture. Unless we target the much wider range and unless our language and our amendments and our second reading speeches and the rest of it spread across the whole spectrum to signal the intent and the spirit of the legislation, then in fact we will not help our people at all. They will simply move the goalposts somewhere else. We do not move them, we simply force the suppliers to move those parameters.Part of the difficulty is that we display ignorance as well, and that is even worse. I will give as an example a second reading speech on piracy. I do not expect the Attorney-General to be an expert on computers, but I expect the people who work for him to be expert. To say that piracy is not relevant to this issue is wrong. The most common form of piracy from the software development point of view is not simply copying stuff—that is easy to detect and use laws against—the more difficult form is the form of re-coding with slight variations so that you can claim it to be different.The simplest way of doing that is to decompile, modify the source code, re-compile and sell. Effectively, that has exactly the same result but you can point to a different set of source code. Therefore, it is simply a coincidence. Why the suppliers do not want this to happen is because it does in fact give a capacity for piracy but in a much more sophisticated form.For ministers to say in second reading speeches that this will not affect piracy is basically not at one with reality. The software industry will understand that and say that these people do not know what they are talking about. Therefore, they will keep pushing. It is the ignorance that we display which is much more dangerous for us than the fact that we are behind.This whole field is one that will give all of us in both Houses great difficulty because it is a moving feast. It is difficult, but in the interest of our country it is vital that we actually lift our game and get much more with it, much more in tune with it, because the implications are much more significant.The compounding effects of delays in this field are enormous. Delays by months will mean years of impact downstream because the compounding effects are just so great. It is good the government is moving on it. It is important that we support it and that we are seen to be acting in concert on this, but I would much rather that we were leading, not simply following years behind. Our software developers are innovators. They are way out in front in so many areas; we as legislators are so far behind. If we could display the same level of innovation and of currency that our software people are displaying, we would actually help them a lot more. It is important we do not hinder them but the fact is the opportunity is there for us to help them.At the moment, we are seen to be so far behind—slightly off cue and slightly not with it in so many ways. That simple little bit about reasonable price and so on smacks of the let-out clause. Do you remember the old offset conditions where an overseas supplier was required to source X per cent in Australia, subject to competitive pricing and suitable quality? Guess what! They could never find a competitive price, so billions of dollars were never spent here that were supposed to be because the suppliers had a let-out clause. The let-out clause in this legislation has been referred to earlier. It might seem like a minor point to the legislators and to the government officials, but the fact is those points can be argued over for years to establish just what they are. Eventually by the time you do that, the product has moved on, the world has shifted and it is no longer relevant.I think by not understanding that well enough in these amendments we give a very bad signal to the people we are trying to give a message to. The government is, I presume, here trying to say to the suppliers overseas, `We are part of the world scene. Don't treat us differently from America or Europe. We have the same legislation.' The fact is we do not. We have let in these little clauses that make it slightly different. That to them is an open sesame to keep on pushing and shoving and twisting and turning because our people are too small to fight them. They need us to be really in tune; not simply to have the black-letter law, but to have the understanding and the spirit of it. Unless we have those as well, then you are going to find those companies will keep on pushing the boundaries.Mr Chairman, this legislation is important, as much for the intent of it as for the application. I do not know if many people will actually be able to use it in the next year or two, to be honest, but the fact is that the potential is there and that may achieve other gains in other parts of the software industry because often we are talking here about adjacencies. We are not talking about the direct product; we are talking about the product coming in a year or two years time. If we can change the way that people deal with this country in terms of supplying source code to Australian developers, we may shift them into supplying source code first-up. We may get our companies much more up-front in getting better versions of software so they are much more in tune with international development. It may get us much more into the picture because, I suspect, that is where this legislation will be more important rather than actually helping somebody to decompile a particular bit of software. That may well still happen, but will not be as important, I suspect, as the shifting of the parameters for the supply of new material and evolving material. I think that is what our developers want. They want to be part of the main game, not having to wait years to get access to the stuff that people in America and Europe have had for a long time.With those comments I certainly indicate my support for these amendments. I want to encourage the government to be positive and much more proactive because this is just one small part of what we all know to be a very big picture.10:43:008490Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH5V5PerthALP00—I follow the member for Barton, the shadow Attorney-General, in this debate, who has led for the opposition and I make my remarks as shadow minister for communications. The government has belatedly introduced the Copyright Amendment (Computer Programs) Bill 1999 into parliament in response to the rapid growth, both nationally and internationally, of emerging software industries. The Attorney-General (Mr Williams) has the carriage of the bill as the shadow Attorney-General does on this side on the basis that this is in the main a copyright bill and therefore the Attorney-General has that responsibility.The economic and social importance of these bills and the implications that they have for new industries, however, cannot be overestimated. Increasingly, digital technology, driven by a combination of hardware and software, is infiltrating many facets of our social and economic life and our professional and private lives. The industries that are emerging in response to the demands of digital technology are growing at extraordinary rates.The challenge for public policy at this time of great change is to create both an optimal regulatory and fiscal environment for new industry to develop, and to support and encourage the development of new technology, which leads in turn to critical skill development within industry and the growth of export markets, which leads to prosperity, growth and jobs for Australians.In my view—and within the confines of civility in this Main Committee—the government has mishandled much of this role by making policy which threatens the viability of online industry and the perception of Australia's capacity in the online industry offshore. It has also delayed the introduction of important legislation dealing with the legal challenges posed by rapid technological change, such as the electronic transactions legislation, which I note is listed for consideration much later in this session. It has also rolled back critical research and development incentive schemes that could have produced innovative products, particularly for export markets.At least this bill goes some way towards ensuring that Australia has a legal framework which is responsive to aspects of digital technology and the uses to which it can be put and will provide some certainty to an industry which has repeatedly had cause to doubt the rhetoric of this government when faced with the government's claims about their record of supporting the information technology sector.The bill recognises the legitimate needs of the software industry and also the rights of users of software products. The effect of the bill is that copyright in a computer program is not infringed if copies of the software are made in order to: run the program for normal use, subject to the licence conditions accompanying the software; decompile the program—a form of reverse engineering to determine how a program works; back up the data on a computer system or network for security; determine the compatibility of the software with other software; correct an error in the program—for example, patching the millennium bug in a program; and test for and correct a security flaw in the program.The shadow Attorney-General has drawn attention to two areas of concern which he has indicated we are not proposing to pursue. The first relates to the interoperability exception—ensuring the adequate supply of specifications. The member for Barton, the shadow Attorney-General, indicated concerns with proposed clause 47D of the bill, which provides for the reproducing or decompilation of computer programs to make interoperable products.Proposed clause 47D(1)(e) provides a defence to an allocation of infringement of copyright where a person decompiles a computer program for the purposes of determining the specifications necessary to make an interoperable program. That defence arises where those specifications are `not readily available to the owner or licensee from another source when the reproduction or adaptation is made'. In practice, it may be difficult for a programmer to know whether specifications are available, given the variety of methods by which these may be available, including being published on the Internet or in technical manuals.The second area of concern which is worthy of noting and, again, to which attention was drawn by the member for Barton, is proposed clause 47E(1)(d) and the question of the phrase `ordinary commercial price'. Concerns have been expressed about proposed clause 47E(1)(d). That provision enables a person to make a reproduction or adaptation of a computer program for the purposes of correcting an error only where a copy of a properly operating version of the program is not available from the copyright holder `within a reasonable time at an ordinary commercial price'. It has been suggested that the wording `ordinary commercial price' may be more adequately expressed as `reasonable commercial price', to reflect some form of consumer protection and to prevent vendors from profiting from an originally flawed product.Having drawn attention to those two points, I welcome the bill. It is vital that the government and the parliament be responsive to the rapid pace of technological change. This bill is one small step in that process. I note that the Attorney-General is present in the chamber and is about to sum up the debate. I would be interested either to hear or subsequently read his response regarding those two sections of the bill about which some concerns have been raised.10:49:008492Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—in reply—The changes made to the Copyright Act 1968 by the Copyright Amendment (Computer Programs) Bill 1999 are of great importance to the development of the information economy in Australia. I think that is recognised by the opposition and I thank them for supporting the bill. The bill will promote the growth and competitiveness of the computer software industry, which is so vital to the growth of the information economy. It will do this by allowing reverse engineering, usually decompilation of computer programs for the making of new software and hardware products that interoperate with existing programs; correcting errors, including the year 2000 date problem—that is, the Y2K bug—in programs, of which error-free copies are not available; and testing the security of and correcting security flaws in programs and systems.These changes will promote open systems or interoperability of computer programs and products, and facilitate error correction and more effective security of computer systems. In approving these amendments, the government had the benefit of very comprehensive consideration and research going back a number of years and extensive consultations with the software industry. The amendments are based on recommendations contained in a very thorough report by the Copyright Law Review Committee of this government. Because Australia has extensive international obligations in regard to copyright through membership of the World Trade Organisation and other international treaties, careful consideration has also been given to ensuring that the amendments are compatible with those obligations. Any exceptions to the basic copyright right to control reproduction of a copyright work must be justifiable. It must not harm the economic interests of the copyright owner and it must be compatible with our international obligations.The three very specific cases in which decompilation will be allowed are of fundamental importance to the wellbeing of the software industry and to the users of software. The exceptions will in no way make the practice of piracy any easier in Australia for the simple reason that the changes will not relax in any way the civil or criminal liability of those who engage in piracy. The government believes that, by bringing Australian law essentially into line with law in the USA, European countries and other countries in the world, the amendments comply with our international obligations in regard to copyright protection. In further recognition of the critical importance of addressing the Y2K problem, when announcing approval of the amendments on 23 February last, the government indicated that the amendment would allow decompilation of computer programs to correct errors and would be enacted and operate as from the date of the announcement.Members who contributed to the debate—the members for Barton, Sturt, Newcastle and Perth—have raised some issues. In particular, the members for Barton and Perth raised clause 47D(1)(e) and clause 47E(1)(d) of the bill. The issue relating to clause 47D1(e) is really quite a narrow one. When a person wants to decompile, the suggestion is that they will not know whether complete specifications have been provided and in those circumstances may decompile but unwittingly commit an offence because the material is in fact available.The member for Barton acknowledged that it was an unlikely scenario but asked the government to monitor it. Of course, that is a matter that would be monitored. I think the answer to the member for Barton is the same as the answer to the point raised by the member for Perth, who raised the question of the modes in which it will be available—whether it will be hard copy, software, some Internet access or otherwise. The simple fact, and the practical answer to the issues raised, is that decompilation is an expensive, time consuming process and not one that a developer would choose as a first course of action—that is, it would make more sense, economically, to attempt to use the information already available rather than to resort immediately to the decompilation. On that basis, one can anticipate that, rather than incur the expense of decompilation, a person wanting to decompile a program, or to have access to the material in which it is already done—a program—would take quite extensive steps before incurring the expense and would certainly take such steps as would provide a defence to any prosecution. On that basis it is not accepted that there is a real practical problem in relation to clause 47D(1)(e).Clause 47E(1)(d) is the second clause referred to, and this is also a fairly narrow point. It was referred to by the members for Barton, Newcastle and Perth. It simply raises the distinction between the language in the bill, which refers to an ordinary commercial price on the one hand, and a reasonable commercial price on the other hand.The simple answer to this is that, in practical terms again, there is unlikely to be a significant difference. In any event, the expression `ordinary commercial price' is one that arises out of international treaty obligations that Australia has entered into and which are not exceeded in the terms of the bill. An example of a similar use of the same expression is in the existing section 49(5). I am not sure I fully understand the member for Newcastle when he suggests that this would provide a let-out clause. It does not seem to me to provide a let-out clause. It is not designed in any way to do that, and I do not think it would, in practical terms, operate that way.The member for Sturt raised a very interesting debate regarding parallel importation of CDs. While I have a genuine interest in that subject, and there are legislative proposals either before, or about to be before, the House in relation to that matter, it is not directly relevant to the bill, and I do not propose to respond to what he had to say.The member for Newcastle raised a rather different point. He suggested that if the producer of a copyright program also produces a decompilation program that program itself would be copyright. He suggested that the owner might be able to thwart others from creating interoperable programs by declining to provide the decompilation program. I think there is a misapprehension in that argument, and that is—again a practical point—that a person wanting to have access to a decompilation program, if it is not going to be made available to them, would be free to engage in their own decompilation exercise and would not be in breach of the legislation in doing that. You would not need to use a program, particularly if it has not been made available to you, to decompile a program. It would normally be more economic to buy the decompilation program but, if it is not available, one would be free to exercise different alternatives. In any event, it seems odd that a person would create a program that would be restricted from public use. The object would be to generate use of the original program by making a decompilation program available to those wanting to engage in or create interoperable programs with the original program.The member for Newcastle raised an issue regarding Windows and the withholding of software. I will not comment on that as it is not directly relevant to what is at issue in the legislation. He also suggested that the bill would promote piracy in programs. I have been at some pains in my second reading speech and in my reply to negate that suggestion, but I will add some further comment. The decompilation exceptions will not encourage piracy. There has been no evidence of increased piracy due to a decompilation exception in other countries. There is no evidence that the European Community's directive on the legal protection of computer software which allows decompilation, which was adopted in 1991, has led to an increase in piracy.The bill has been carefully drafted to allow the obtaining of only such information as is necessary to enable the owner or licensee of the program to make an independently created program or an article. Clones of the original program are not allowed to be made and, if they are, they will infringe copyright. The bill expressly excludes from the exception decompilation of an infringing or pirate copy of software. Clause 47G of the bill prevents information derived from the decompilation process from being used, sold or otherwise supplied to a person for any purpose other than for achieving interoperability, error correction or security testing. Unauthorised use or disclosure for other purposes will make the original act of decompilation an infringement. The penalties for piracy will continue to apply to the same extent as now.Both the members for Newcastle and Perth seem to suggest that the government has been tardy in its action in this area. The member for Perth suggested—and I would agree with this—that the economic and social importance of measures such as this cannot be underestimated. But I totally reject any suggestion that the government has been tardy or, as the member for Newcastle suggested, that it is years behind. He suggested that the government should be more proactive. It would be very difficult to envisage that the government could be more proactive in this area. Criticism such as that totally ignores the massive reforms that have been undertaken in the national information economy area by the Howard government since 1996 and, in particular, in the copyright area.RH4KERRMr Kerr—The previous government set the ground, though. I think you might concede that.7V5Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS—The former Minister for Justice would like to take some credit for the government's initiatives. I accept that there was work done prior to this government's coming into office.Examples of activity of current note are the Electronic Transactions Bill, which was mentioned by the member for Perth, and the Copyright Digital Agenda Bill which was put out as an exposure draft early this year and in which there has been great industry interest. We hope that will be introduced into the House very soon.I think I have responded to all of the issues raised by members in the debate. I commend the bill to the Main Committee and I look forward to its implementation.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mrs Gash)—If no member wishes to consider the bill in detail, I will put the report question forthwith. The question is that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills8494s202Consideration resumed from 30 June.849411:03:008495Stone, Sharman, MPMrs STONEEM6MurrayLP10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.The purpose of the Criminal Code Amendment (Slavery and Sexual Servitude) Bill 1999 is to amend the Criminal Code Act 1995 to insert offences relating to slavery, sexual servitude and deceptive recruiting for sexual services. The importance of this bill is perhaps best demonstrated by the fact that its provisions will be inserted in Chapter 8 of the code, which is the chapter that deals with crimes against humanity.I would like to congratulate my colleague Senator Vanstone for pursuing this important initiative so vigorously with her state and territory counterparts on the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General.At present, the law in Australia on slavery and the slave trade is governed by four 19th century imperial acts which employ archaic language and relate to outdated circumstances and institutions that have either changed or long since fallen into disuse. In 1990 the Australian Law Reform Commission released report No. 48 on Criminal admiralty jurisdiction and prize in which it recommended that the 19th century imperial acts be replaced with modern and concise Australian statutory offences.Modern Australian slavery offences will ensure that Australia's international obligations are fulfilled and that the elements of the offence and the penalties that apply are clear. This initiative has the support of all Australian jurisdictions through the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General, which has endorsed Senator Vanstone's proposal to enact modern slavery offences.The slavery offences in the bill prohibit the possessing of a slave or the exercising of a power of ownership over a slave. They also prohibit engaging in slave trading and entering into a commercial transaction involving a slave. Finally, they prohibit controlling, directing or providing finance for a commercial transaction involving a slave or an act of slave trading. It is important to make the point that, although this bill contains separate offences to address the conduct I will refer to shortly as sexual servitude, the slavery offences may also apply if the control over the sex worker is so far-reaching that it effectively amounts to a right of ownership over her or him. The maximum terms of imprisonment for the slavery offences range from 17 to 25 years. In view of the heinousness of the crimes involved, these penalties are more than justified.Since the new slavery offences will be replacing the old imperial acts, the bill contains provisions for their repeal. However, as a precautionary measure the bill also includes a provision which declares that slavery will remain unlawful and that its abolition is maintained after the imperial acts have been repealed.In addition to the modern slavery offences, the bill includes a range of model offences to deter the impact on Australia of a growing and highly lucrative international trade in people for the purpose of sexual exploitation. Essentially, the trade involves recruiting persons from one country and relocating them to another to work as prostitutes in servile or slave-like conditions for little if any reward. Young women are the primary target of this insidious trade but, tragically, children are also falling victims in increasing numbers.Over recent years the world has seen a disturbing increase in this appalling activity. There are few countries today that are not in some way affected by the trade and, sadly, the indications are that Australia is becoming an important destination for its victims. Australia has obligations under a wide range of international instruments to prohibit servitude and the trafficking in persons for the purposes of sexual exploitation. These include the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women 1979, the Convention on the Rights of the Child 1989 and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948.Intelligence from Australian and overseas sources confirms that the problem is a significant one for Australia. In August 1997, the Australian Federal Police reported that in the previous 18 months it had received information of 14 possible cases in this country. The National Crime Authority has also reported that it is aware of eight possible cases over the period from December 1992 to November 1996. Those cases involved 25 women, one of whom was allegedly a 13-year-old girl brought to this country from Thailand to work as a prostitute to repay her father's debt.We must not wait for what is already a significant problem to become so firmly entrenched that it proves to be impossible to rectify in the future. The stakes are obviously very high. Australians are rightly proud of their record on human rights, and what are involved here are serious violations of fundamental human rights. Our intelligence is that the recruits come mainly from South-East Asia. The poorer regions of the world are fertile ground for potential victims desperate to escape poverty and unemployment. In many cases recruits are aware that they will be employed as sex workers, but they are usually unaware of the conditions under which they will be required to work. In other cases, recruits are deceived into believing that they will be engaged in other work, only to be forced into prostitution when they arrive in Australia.What do they find when they arrive in this country? The reports paint a very ugly picture. For example, once in Australia, recruits are often placed under heavy security and their movements are strictly controlled. Those that are fortunate enough to live away from the brothel premises frequently find that they are driven by guards to and from work and are not free to go elsewhere. Others live and work almost entirely at the brothel.The recruits are rarely allowed time off and have little or no control over how many clients they service a day. Many are not free to reject a client or to determine the conditions on which they service them. Unsafe sexual practices are regularly imposed on them and as a consequence they live under the constant fear of contracting HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases. Their passports and other travel documents are frequently taken from them, and transgressions are often met with intimidation, violence and threats to harm them or their families, or to report them to immigration authorities.There are various pay arrangements between the sex workers and organisers, but in most cases the recruits are placed under a debt to the sponsors, allegedly for the costs of air fares, arranging false travel documents and for ongoing expenses such as accommodation and board. The sex workers are frequently required to fully repay the debt before they can retain their earnings. In many cases, the recruits are not informed of this until they arrive in Australia. As a precautionary measure, the sex worker's earnings are usually paid directly to the sponsor or parlour owner.The debt is usually far in excess of the sponsor's actual expenses and is often unilaterally increased in response to some transgression on the part of the sex worker. In some cases, sex workers have complained that their debt is in the region of $40,000 to $50,000 and in others that they would have to service up to 500 clients before they could discharge their debt. In many cases, recruits are detected by the authorities and deported back home before they receive any payment for their services.The Australian Federal Police has reported that there are a number of syndicates and individuals in Australia engaging in sex trafficking and that many have been operating in this country for many years. The organisers use sophisticated methods and appear to have links with international crime syndicates and major drug traffickers. Large, untaxed profits are made by the organisers and large sums of money are transferred by them overseas. Investigations show that the gross cash flow to organisers of the trade could be in the region of $1 million per week, much of which is transferred overseas.Although in this country the problem mainly involves persons being trafficked to Australia, it saddens us to have to say that our own citizens are not immune from this insidious trade. Last year, the Australian Federal Police reported that it was aware of a number of cases where women had been recruited in Australia to work overseas as prostitutes under servile conditions. Further, the evidence is that many of these were deceived into believing that they would be employed as `hostesses', only to be forced into prostitution when they arrived at their destination. It would be intolerable if this legislation protected persons brought to this country but did not afford the same protection to our own citizens. Accordingly, the bill includes a provision that expressly applies the sexual servitude and deceptive recruiting offences to cases where persons are recruited from Australia to work as sex workers overseas.Advice to the Minister for Justice and Customs, Senator Vanstone, is that current Commonwealth, state and territory laws have not proved effective to discourage the growth of this activity in Australia. There are a number of reasons for this. First, sex trafficking to and from Australia is part of a large and increasing international trade so that, although existing laws may address some aspects of the domestic activity, they do not address the core of the problem; that is, the international conduct.Secondly, the primary focus of relevant prostitution and migration offences is on the persons subjected to trafficking, such as the illegal immigrants or the sex workers, and not on the traffickers. Thirdly, although existing state and territory laws, such as those relating to assault and false imprisonment, may apply to the offenders directly involved, the organisers and recruiters are less vulnerable to prosecution, because their involvement is remote from the exploitative prostitution.If we are to discourage this activity in Australia, we need offences that are specific to the problem and address both the international and domestic aspects of the trade. Most importantly, we need offences that target the traffickers who recruit, organise and profit from those engaged in sex work in slave-like conditions.This bill will create offences of causing a person to enter into or remain in sexual servitude, of conducting a business that involves the sexual servitude of another person and of inducing a person to become a sex worker by deceiving her or him about the fact that the work will involve providing sexual services. However, the bill restricts the application of these offences to cases where an international element is involved; for example, where a person recruits someone outside Australia for sexual servitude inside Australia, or, conversely, where the person recruits someone inside Australia for sexual servitude outside Australia. The offences are confined in this way because corresponding state and territory offences will operate where the conduct and sexual services take place wholly within Australia.The slavery, sexual servitude and deceptive recruiting offences can be committed by non-nationals as well as Australian citizens and residents. In the case of the slavery offences they can be committed by both nationals and non-nationals, whether they act wholly inside or outside Australia or partly inside and partly outside Australia. For sexual servitude and deceptive recruiting the offences may be committed by both nationals and non-nationals who engage in conduct outside Australia if sexual services are provided, or are to be provided, outside Australia. Those offences may be committed by non-nationals who act outside Australia if the sexual services are provided, or are to be provided, inside Australia and acts inside Australia if the sexual services are provided, or are to be provided, outside the country.The international nature of the trade in persons and the inherently evil nature of that trade satisfy me that the offences should have this application. However, to ensure that Australia's international relations are not adversely affected in cases where extraterritorial jurisdiction is invoked, the bill contains a standard provision that the Attorney-General's written consent must be obtained before a non-national can be prosecuted for a slavery, sexual servitude or deceptive recruiting offence, if the relevant criminal conduct occurs wholly or partly outside Australia.The bill also includes a double jeopardy provision which provides that a person cannot be prosecuted for a slavery, sexual servitude or deceptive recruiting offence in respect of conduct for which he or she has already been convicted or acquitted in another country for offences against the law of that country.As I have said, this bill is part of a package of Commonwealth, state and territory legislation directed at both the international and domestic impacts and aspects of the trade, with the main focus on those who recruit, organise and profit from this insidious trade. By enacting this legislation, we will be sending a firm message to the organisers and recruiters that Australia will not be a destination for their trade. We will also encourage the rest of the world to do the same. Australia can be justly proud if it shows leadership to other countries affected by this inhumane trade. I commend the bill to the Main Committee and I present the explanatory memorandum to the bill.11:17:008498Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KERRRH4DenisonALP00—I firstly say that this bill, the Criminal Code Amendment (Slavery and Sexual Servitude) Bill 1999, is a bill which the opposition is happy to support. I do not think that there is anybody in this parliament who would wish to give any comfort to those who abuse the vulnerable and exploit them in relation to the provision of sexual services.The previous Keating government became acutely aware of some of the abuses that were occurring overseas by Australian nationals in relation to the sexual abuse of children and it brought in child sex legislation which the then opposition supported, albeit after a number of criticisms in relation to the detail, which were subsequently addressed. On this occasion, there has been a similarly fruitful bipartisan process. This bill has been significantly strengthened since the first draft was introduced by the Minister for Justice and Customs about a year ago. The changes that were introduced and moved as an agreed set of resolutions proposed by the government, the Australian Labor Party and the Democrats—and I think also the Greens—strengthened the bill from its original introduction by adding recklessness as a fault element in the sexual servitude offences and by increasing penalties. The definitions of slavery offences and sexual servitude offences were altered. A jurisdictional requirement was modified and the provision for aggravated offences in respect of persons under age was added.On balance, I think the government itself acknowledges that these changes significantly improve the text of the legislation and they now more closely reflect the recommendations of the Model Criminal Code Officers Committee. This, in a sense, therefore brings to a close a period of fruitful legislative activity by the Australian parliament designed to focus upon the fact that, regrettably, some Australian citizens and residents have engaged in these extremely unsavoury practices, and it has addressed it in a straightforward and an honourable way. So I am quite pleased to indicate, firstly, the opposition's support for this legislation and that, in the course of this legislation, we engaged with the government in a process which we hope is seen as having improved it; and, secondly, that we commit ourselves on an ongoing basis to continue to work in this field.It is fair to say that much of the impetus for the move towards national criminal law has slowed over the last two or three years. I do not particularly ascribe the blame for that to the current government; there may be a number of factors that go to that. There was some enthusiasm in the work of the Model Criminal Code Officers Committee that has brought forward drafts that have been adopted by the Commonwealth in relation to a number of areas but, thus far, we have not seen the adoption of those codes in jurisdictions across this country. I would like to commend to the government the importance of really giving some leadership towards the application of more consistent national criminal laws. It is quite absurd that simply by travelling between New South Wales and Queensland, crossing the border, you subject yourself to very different criminal law regimes, different systems of accountability and different principles of criminal liability. There really ought be some real national benefit in us finding a way to go forward with the states and the territories towards more uniform national criminal laws. Of course, in areas such as this and, indeed, with the child sex legislation, there is also probably some benefit in having a belt and braces approach, making sure that the states mirror the Commonwealth legislation.Whilst I think there is probably some sound constitutional basis for the legislation as proposed by the government—and I would certainly argue the same passionately—we know from bitter experience that sometimes the High Court makes decisions which members of this parliament regard as perverse and puzzling—instance, most recently, the case about the cross-vesting legislation where, with the honourable exception of Mr Justice Kirby, the court seems to have endorsed an interpretation of the Constitution not necessarily mandated by its terms and which seems to give very grave practical difficulties to developing a national response towards an effective system of judicial administration. So you can be subject to those vagaries.I think it is useful to encourage the government not to simply pass this legislation and leave it there but to go back to the fountain of all this legislative activity, which was the inspiration of the work of the previous government, which was to try and develop a national consensus that we should have common criminal principles of liability across the whole country and, as far as could be obtained by agreement with the territories and the states, common expressions of the terms in which offences would be expressed and, of course, the other side of the equation—common laws in relation to procedure, particularly evidential laws. There, there has been some success, with the Commonwealth legislation, passed during the term of the previous government, establishing the Evidence Act, now mirrored in New South Wales and the ACT, but as yet not picked up and applied in any other state or territory.Again, it speaks for itself: the convenience that could occur if we could develop a national system where those procedural elements were dealt with on a more uniform and consistent basis. However, if anything, since the election of the Howard government those procedural advances have probably been moved to the backburner rather than advanced. That is not something that I take any pleasure in watching, given that I had been so greatly involved in trying to advance those objectives.Nonetheless, it is important on an occasion like this to recognise that, for all our political differences and our enthusiasms for great advances, directions of national government and the like, when it comes to legislation of this specific nature nothing separates any of the political forces that occupy office in this parliament, or certainly that was the case when it was debated in the Senate. I am not certain of the views that may be held by One Nation in the Senate now, but in the debate in the Senate as it was then constituted I think there was unanimity in relation to this legislation. That is something that we should welcome—and something our citizens too rarely see—that this parliament can work well, often behind the scenes, in trying to get as effective as possible a legislative arrangement in relation to matters of this importance.I will conclude by simply saying that the debate in the Senate was truncated because of the guillotine process that was imposed. That was a little unfortunate as it prevented substantial public exposure of the importance of this legislation. Those speaking for the government today have set out its terms, which are not as widely known in the community as they should be, particularly because the offences have been pretty widely expressed and now extend not only to the knowing participation in this conduct but also to recklessness.It is pretty important for the government to make sure that there is some kind of public awareness campaign to follow up this legislation. I certainly have no truck with or brief for those who engage in the provision of sexual services and brothel activities but, on the other hand, it is very important that people are aware of the penalties that apply of 17 or 19 years of imprisonment.It is a fact that in the past young women and young men have been brought to this country under the conditions that have been suggested—perhaps they were under some family obligation in relation to payment of a debt that they were working off—and who may fall within the provisions of this bill. Therefore, it is going to be very important that the government makes certain that the industry is well advised about these changes. Evil as the practices may be, I would not want people to be able to say, legitimately, that they were not aware of these changes in the law and to continue to conduct themselves in the way that they have in the past without knowing that they face these very serious penalties that are now going to be in place.I commend the government for its cooperation. I thank Minister Vanstone for the way in which she cooperated with my office, and with the Democrats and the Greens, in improving this legislation. I commend to the government the suggestion that there does need to be an ongoing information campaign—a narrowcast one; my only criticism of Amanda Vanstone is that she is not too averse to publicity. With instances of police arrests and the like that used to pass unnoticed when I was Minister for Justice, other than my commending them for a job well done, we now see Minister Vanstone arriving almost with a foot on the bag of drugs or whatever.83MPLIBERSEKMs Plibersek—He's jealous.RH4Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KERR—Yes, I perhaps should have taken a more forthright and front-footed publicity role. I am not suggesting that Senator Vanstone goes forward with a national campaign directed towards lauding the government in relation to this but I propose a narrowcast campaign aimed at the industry to make sure the industry knows of these changes and to prevent the kinds of circumstances arising whereby somebody could allege that they were without knowledge of the significance of these changes. I thank the Main Committee.11:30:008501Baird, Bruce, MPMr BAIRDMP6CookLP10—I rise to support the Criminal Code Amendment (Slavery and Sexual Servitude) Bill 1999 and congratulate the Minister for Justice and Customs in bringing this piece of legislation to the Main Committee. I think it is important, though the instance of it within Australia is somewhat limited. Nevertheless, it does send out to those who may be contemplating commercial activities in this area clear messages of what the dangers would be. The penalties of a possible maximum sentence of 25 years in gaol would certainly tend to concentrate the mind on the implications of pursuing this line of activity. I personally support the Criminal Code Amendment (Slavery and Sexual Servitude) Bill 1999.In modern times Australia has acknowleded some disgraceful chapters in our history involving slavery. Last century Kanaks were transported to Queensland's sugarcane fields in forced labour arrangements. Until the publication of the report on the stolen children, Australians were unaware that some young Aboriginal children were organised to work as maids and other household servants to white individuals and families. That was a black period in our own history in terms of that experience and this, whilst certainly not being on that scale, is a further indictment. I am very pleased to see that the minister has addressed the issue.The majority of Australians, I am sure, would be under the illusion that slavery is an historical feature of Western nations that no longer exists on any scale and one that has never been a problem in this country. The fact is that there are some 30 million `undocumented' migrants moving around the world at any time and feeding people-smuggling rackets. Between 1996 and January this year the Australian Federal Police have reported 14 incidences of foreign women under contract of debt bondage being trafficked to Australia as sex slaves. These are the ones that are actually being reported; I am sure it is only an indicator of the large number of women who are being brought into Australia under this type of arrangement. Women are enticed to Australia with the promise of legitimate jobs and then are kept in debt for the cost of their air fares, false travel documents and accommodation. Australia's 37,000 kilometres of largely unpopulated coastline does make us a target for people smugglers generally but this one is fairly targeted in terms of the approach.The bill implements Australia's international obligations under a wide range of international instruments to prohibit servitude and the trafficking of persons for the purposes of sexual exploitation. These include the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women 1979, the Convention on the Rights of the Child 1989 and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948. Currently Commonwealth and state laws have not succeeded in limiting this practice into Australia. Internationally, sex trafficking is on the increase. Prostitution and migration legislation currently in place is focused on the victim rather than on those who organise the women in this situation. The organisers of sex slavery, who are relatively senior in the networks and not the direct perpetrators of false imprisonment or assault crimes, are the ones that obviously this legislation is aimed at. Often those who are victimised in this are those that have not been aware of the type of arrangement they have entered into, and certainly our sympathies lie with them.In 1998, the government introduced the Criminal Code Amendment (Slavery and Sexual Servitude) Bill 1998 based on a discussion paper that was produced in April 1998. That bill lapsed when the election was called in 1998 and it has now been introduced in a very similar form. This bill effectively prohibits, firstly, causing a person to enter into or remain in sexual servitude in Australia; secondly, procuring a person to enter into an engagement of sexual servitude in Australia by deceiving the person about the nature or other aspects of their engagement; thirdly, engaging in any trading in persons for sexual servitude in Australia; and, fourthly, exercising control or direction over or providing finance for conduct covered by those offences.The bill distinguishes between `slavery' and `sexual servitude'. A person is deemed to be a `slave' where another person exercises a power of ownership over the victim. Sexual servitude falls somewhat short of this and relates to a situation where the person's freedom is significantly denied or impeded. For the sexual servitude offences in this bill, criminal liability will only arise if the victim's freedom is denied in respect of one of the three matters listed in the definition. Sexual servitude can only apply where the services are provided in a commercial context and it applies to all persons involved, whether they be Australian or not.New Commonwealth legislation has had success in combating sex tourism offences by Australians overseas. However, because of the problems of bringing back foreign nationals into Australia to stand trial, obviously there has been a difficulty in actually enacting it.The new offences under this particular bill will provide for maximum penalties of 25 years imprisonment where the conduct code amounts to slavery, or 15 years imprisonment where the activity falls short of slavery but involves victims working in conditions that amount to sexual servitude. The penalty will be 19 years if the victim is under 18 years of age.In conclusion, the package of Commonwealth, state and territory legislation directed at both the international and domestic aspects of the trade—of which this bill forms the federal component—should send a clear message to those who recruit for, organise and profit from this most disturbing international racket.I commend the Attorney-General and the Minister for Justice and Customs for this bill which has finally brought into being penalties which reflect the seriousness of what is involved and the profits which organisers have come to expect from their involvement. I commend the bill to the Main Committee.11:37:008502Plibersek, Tanya, MPMs PLIBERSEK83MSydneyALP00—I am very happy to rise today in support of this legislation, the Criminal Code Amendment (Slavery and Sexual Servitude) Bill 1999, which amends the Criminal Code Act 1995 and is an improvement on the legislation that was before the House at the time of the last election. The purpose of the legislation is to create offences relating to slavery, sexual servitude and deceptive recruiting for sexual services. Australia has never before had its own legislation on slavery matters but had relied on a number of imperial acts which punished those involved in the slave trade and declared slaves to be free.Australia is party to a number of international conventions outlawing the slave trade and practices of the slave trade. These include the International Convention to Suppress the Slave Trade and Slavery, its 1953 Protocol and the 1956 Supplementary Convention on the Abolition of Slavery, the Slave Trade and Institutions and Practices Similar to Slavery.More general obligations are found under the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, the International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women and the International Convention on the Rights of the Child.I am very pleased that we are fulfilling our international obligations in this area by replacing that hotchpotch of imperial acts with our own legislation relating to this very serious matter.The bill is part of a uniform package of legislation at Commonwealth, state and territory level. It creates the offences of slavery, firstly, when a person intentionally possesses, or exercises powers of ownership over, a slave or engages in slave trading. It covers a situation in which ownership rights are exercised according to a debt or contract, even when that is agreed to by the enslaved person. The maximum penalty for this offence is 25 years imprisonment.Secondly, the bill creates the offence of sexual servitude when a person provides sexual services and because of force or threats is not free to cease providing those services. These threats include the threat of deportation, which, of course, is the threat most commonly used to ensure that women who are caught in this situation are unable to leave. The maximum penalty for an aggravated offence is 19 years imprisonment. A person who conducts a business that involves sexual servitude is covered, and that includes a person who manages, runs or finances such a business.The third offence is that of deceptive recruiting for sexual services, with a maximum penalty for an aggravated offence of nine years. Of course, a number of women who are brought to Australia for these purposes are told that they are coming to work as waitresses or in some other job, only to find when they arrive here that they are in fact going to be working in a brothel. The bill provides for the punishment of the organisers, managers and financiers of the slave trade. Until now, prostitution and migration offences have targeted the persons subjected to the trafficking and not the traffickers themselves. That was particularly the case when prostitutes were prosecuted and their clients and the managers of brothels seemed to escape scot-free.The bill provides for the punishment of fraudulent behaviour when an organiser tricks another to come to the country. As I said before, this is particularly important because many of the victims of this serious crime are young women who are very vulnerable in their countries of origin, both financially and because of their youth, and who are told that they are coming to a permanent job and permanent residency in Australia, often with the possibility of supporting their families. The attraction of a more secure future is obviously a great lure to people who are living in difficult circumstances in their countries of origin.Another important feature of this bill, and something which I am very pleased to see, is the provision relating to aggravated offences for crimes against minors. Of course, another very sad part of this problem is that a lot of the women who are brought here are very young. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage mentioned earlier a girl who was only 13 years old when she was brought to Australia in order to repay debts that her father had incurred.The member for Cook alluded to Australia's history of forced labour. Indeed, it is a history that bears some examination and reflection. I think we often like to believe that Australia has been immune from some of the worst aspects of human behaviour, but any examination of the sugar industry in Queensland, for example, will remind us that many of the people who initially worked in the sugar plantations were forced labourers brought from the Pacific islands. From our own Aboriginal population, people were often indentured to work with stock on large properties in the outback. Young women were brought up to work as domestic help in conditions that were not so different from the slavery that we abhor in other countries. In recent years that condition has changed and sexual servitude has become the predominant area where people are forced to work in this way. I am very pleased to see that the legislation reflects some of the change in the type of forced labour that is occurring. It is no longer that domestic and industrial type of forced labour but what is perhaps even worse—this sexual servitude.There has been an alarming increase in the number of reports in recent years of women and children being lured to Australia, with the promise of employment and permanent residency, to work as prostitutes. In other parts of the world this trade is also increasing. There have been a number of reports from western Europe, particularly from Holland, of women from former eastern European countries, particularly the former USSR, being lured to western Europe in similar circumstances—with the promise of decent work and better living conditions—and finding themselves in a situation where they are working in very restrictive conditions, unable to leave and return to their country of origin, and certainly not earning the sort of wage that a sex worker would expect to earn for the type of work that they do.The Australian Federal Police have reported receiving information of 14 possible cases in the 18 months preceding August 1997, and the National Crime Authority reported eight possible cases over the period from December 1992 to November 1996 involving 25 women and girls. I mentioned earlier the case that I found particularly concerning of a 13-year-old girl being brought so far away from her home and family to work here to pay her father's debts.The heavy security of the brothel premises, the fact that many women are not allowed to leave the premises—they eat, work and sleep on the same premises—and that, indeed, if they do leave the premises they are taken to their place of residence and returned to the brothel, often with security guards to ensure that they are not able to escape, leave little doubt about the forced nature of the work that they are undertaking.Many of these women have no control at all over the number of clients they receive on any given day and, of particular concern also, they often have no control over whether safe sex practices are adhered to in brothels. The health effects for these women are very concerning as well, particularly when you consider that if these women are discovered by Australian authorities the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs has a responsibility to return them to their country of origin. So often they may have worked here for X number of years and they return home, with no money and no prospects, to the situation that they were so desperate to escape from, and perhaps the only thing that may have changed in their situation is that they are now living with a sexually transmitted disease, possibly HIV.The fact that passports and travel documents are taken away is also of great concern because, as well as the threat of deportation that is often held over the heads of these women, even if they found their situation so intolerable that they were prepared to return to a life of poverty in their country of origin, without a passport and valid travel documents this is impossible.Workers are placed under a debt to their sponsor and the supposed arrangement is that they are working off the debt to their so-called sponsor. Often these debts are as high as $40,000 to $50,000, which of course is much higher than it can possibly cost to bring a person from overseas to work in Australia. The debt is so high because the organised crime figures who are running this trade continue to see it as a very lucrative trade and they never want to pay these women any money at all. They say that a woman owes them $50,000, which of course means that she will work for any number of years before eventually being caught and returned to her country of origin, never having received a cent in pay for any of the work that she has done.The huge profits that this industry generates are obviously the reason that it continues, not just in Australia but also in overseas countries. It is very important to understand that this is an aspect of organised crime worldwide. It is not a few individuals; it is people making immense profits on the misery of women and children.It is important now to turn briefly to some of the issues that I believe this bill leaves unresolved. While I am very pleased to see the bill and to support it, I think that there are some issues which are still unresolved and which I would like to see improved. The bill does not provide any protection for women who are forced to provide those unsafe sexual practices that I spoke about earlier. It covers the cessation of sex work, not the conditions under which sex workers work. There is no ability to regulate to protect sex workers. Perhaps there should be a part of the bill that says that a person has a freedom to decline sexual services which are sought in an unreasonable manner.There might also be some provision not just for the punishment of the perpetrator of the acts but in relation to the effects on the workers themselves. This bill, unfortunately, does not do that. It is important because mostly the victims of this trade are people who are brought from overseas as unlawful non-citizens. They are detected, detained and removed from Australia by the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. The potential health and psychological effects of having worked in these conditions for any number of years are not addressed at all. There is no ability to provide any ongoing counselling or any support once a woman is returned to her country of origin. Thus we are not responding to our obligation to provide just and effective remedy for the harm that is caused by this sort of work or ongoing support to these women.There could perhaps be consideration of further amending the Migration Act to allow some special status for people who are caught in such a situation, as there has been with domestic violence. Women who come to Australia and live in a relationship that is a genuine relationship but who are then subject to domestic violence are able to leave the relationship earlier than after the normal two-year period and remain in Australia as permanent residents, so that people who are experiencing violence and abuse are not forced to stay in that situation just to retain the hope of permanent residency in Australia.Another option that we might consider is to provide other countries, or perhaps non-government organisations such as the International Women's Development Agency, with funding and support to provide education campaigns in the countries that are the source of many of the women and children that are being caught up in this trade. Organisations like the International Women's Development Agency and others do a lot of valuable work in this area already and would be ideal conduits through which to explain to women in these countries that there is a real danger in getting involved with people who are promising work and permanent residency in Australia.We should also support organisations such as ECPAT, End Child Prostitution and Trafficking. ECPAT has done excellent work over the years in relation to child prostitution and trafficking. Unfortunately, they had their funding cut. They were receiving about $70,000 of government funding for the various programs that they were running, including producing educational material, assisting police operations and increasing public awareness of these issues. They have repeatedly asked this government for a restoration of that funding to continue the valuable work that they are doing. Unfortunately, that funding has not been restored. This excellent legislative change needs financial support if it is going to have any real effect on the number of people who are being caught up in this unfortunate trade.Finally, I will speak briefly about domestic servitude, which this legislation will, hopefully, also be able to address. There have been several cases in my electorate recently where there have been allegations of people being brought to Australia by the lure of permanent residency and decent work but instead being held in situations where they are forced to undertake domestic duties, often for no pay, or, as in one case, $25 a week.The first case I will mention is one which was before the District Court yesterday and is continuing today. A man from Shanghai, Wei Ling Kang, is suing a woman for loss of wages and false imprisonment. His legal representatives say that he has no passport, no money and speaks no English. They allege that he is being physically restrained and that his employer or sponsor is threatening to tell Australian authorities that he is an illegal immigrant and to have him deported. He is in Villawood Detention Centre at the moment, and it will be very interesting to see the result of his case.Not so long ago in another case, Mr Satyendra Nath Midya claimed that he also was being held in domestic servitude. The outcome of his case was that the judge found that he had received some payment for the work he had done—$25 a week—and that he had overstated the amount of work that he had done, but that his employers had dramatically understated the work that he had done. An order was made to pay him for lost wages of $21,840. These sorts of cases illustrate the possible areas where this legislation might also have some effect.In conclusion, I would like to say that I am very pleased that this bill will modernise the laws governing slavery in Australia and will punish those people involved in this most despicable trade in human misery. I congratulate Minister Vanstone on this legislation. I hope that the issues in those areas in which I believe further attention might be paid will be taken up in future debate in this area.11:57:008506Gallus, Christine, MPMrs GALLUSCU4HindmarshLP10—The purpose of the Criminal Code Amendment (Slavery and Sexual Servitude) Bill 1999 before this chamber today is to introduce modern relevant laws in regard to sexual servitude. The imperial laws on slavery that currently constitute Australia's legal system fail to address the issues of trafficking and debt bondage as they now exist in South-East Asia and now, unfortunately, also in Australia.To us, Australia may seem well removed from the practices of sexual slavery and servitude, because we tend to associate those with less developed countries. However, sources within Australia have obtained intelligence that Australia is much more affected by the problem than we have thought. In August 1997, the Australian Federal Police reported that in the last 18 months they had received information about a possible 14 cases in Australia, and the National Crime Authority said that they were aware of eight cases between 1992 and 1996.The 19th century experience of slavery as expressed in our imperial laws was characterised by a trade in slaves where one person was sold to another as part of a monetary transaction. The newer system of debt bondage involves one person being bound to a slave-trader because they have been unable to repay a debt or because the enslaved person has been sold by a third party and they are required to pay off the cost of purchase. In theory, as the member for Sydney has pointed out, the enslaved person should be free to leave once they have paid off that debt, but in practice this is usually impossible to do.Anecdotes from human rights organisations indicate an alarming growth in the practice of selling boys and girls into prostitution, not only in Australia but across many international borders. Children sold into slavery carry the burden of that debt bondage, of their purchase price, and their earnings then go to offset the debt. However, as I have indicated, and as the member for Sydney has indicated, it is usually impossible for them to work off the debt, especially as their rate of pay is extremely low. The cost of their keep is added to their debt, and in cases where they have performed an action which has cost their so-called employer money, then that is added to their debt. So they accumulate more debt and they never get out of their enslaved position.There is also the situation of women and, to a lesser extent, men who believe they are moving to a different region or to a different country to do legitimate work, but when they arrive they are forced into labouring work or, in many cases, especially for women, into prostitution. They are burdened by the debt of the cost of their transportation. As the member for Sydney has indicated, their movements are restricted, their conditions are appalling and, because in many cases they are illegal immigrants, there is no recourse for them to complain to authorities.The federal government has estimated that there are up to 300 sexual slaves here in Australia who come from the South-East Asian region, including Thailand, Cambodia and of course the Philippines. The Minister for Justice and Customs, Senator Vanstone, has identified this as a growing international problem and one that is affecting Australia. Australia is, I think, very much in the loop because of its proximity to South-East Asia. As I have indicated before, transportation to Australia incurs a debt, and I understand this debt can be as much as $50,000 per person, which is an unbelievably heavy debt for somebody arriving here who has to pay it off through sexual servitude. Unfortunately, there are also other reports of young boys being brought into Australia for the service of paedophiles, and they find themselves in exactly the same situation.An article by Skolnik and Bootinand in Forum for Applied Research and Public Policy entitled `Traffic in Women in Asia-Pacific' explores the issue of labour immigration and the growing practice of debt bondage. Mass temporary migration has taken off in Asia and the Middle East following the Second World War and the boom in industrial development. Millions of Asians follow work around the region, and they temporarily migrate to other places in search of work to obtain money before they go home in the hope of financing their own families and their own livelihood back in their own country.The Skolnik and Bootinand article reported that, while such immigration happens in many countries legally, conditions in those countries are extremely poor—but openly so. In Japan, where the situation with regard to immigration is very similar to that in Australia and immigrants have to enter illegally because Japan does not have the capacity to bring in unskilled labour, the practice continues but it has gone underground. This means that not only are women being exploited because they are there illegally but they have no recourse to go to the officials. In many cases, these women go to Japan on the promise of domestic work or of waitressing—anything like that—but, when they get there, they find they are put into brothels because there is no opportunity in Japan for them to work in those positions, and once there they are captive.I suspect that many people would think this does not happen in Australia, but just a quick look at our press clippings indicates that not only does it happen, it is a growing phenomenon. I did a search for articles through the library, and I had dozens and dozens of articles on the subject on my desk. I have picked up a selection to give this chamber some indication of what is happening in Australia.The Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, as reported in the Age of Monday, 30 March, has received complaints from women about long shifts, limited food and medical care, a lack of choice in customers and being compelled to have unprotected sex. Some say that their organisers imposed debts of $40,000 to $50,000. In one case recently before the immigration tribunal, a Thai woman said that she had to service 500 customers before she had paid off her debt. Another woman said that she was treated as a sex slave, that her passport was taken from her and that threats would be made against her 10-year old son if she made any approach to the authorities.In the six months to January 1998, 67 foreign prostitutes were deported from Australia. In the same period immigration officers found 25 illegal sex workers in Victoria. Women can be illegal for two reasons: they can be brought into Australia illegally or they can come here legitimately and overstay their visas, in which case they become illegal immigrants. In both cases, that puts them very much in the power of the people who are employing them. These women cannot apply to the authorities for protection and many do not have the assertiveness to approach the authorities because that is alien not only to their culture but also to the type of upbringing they had in the poorer areas of South-East Asia.I will not go through all these articles because I am aware that my colleague wishes to contribute to this debate. As reported in the Canberra Times, there are illegal migrant workers in the Canberra sex trade. We might associate this with Sydney, but it is also happening in Canberra. The article in the Canberra Times of Wednesday, 6 January, states:Many workers were forced to work to pay off debts of $10,000 or more after being lured to Australia under false promises . . .An article in the Canberra Times of 24 March states:Australian brothels make $1 million a week from Asian sex slaves brought into the country illegally . . . An article in the Sun-Herald of 30 May states:Thai women are being tricked into the international sex trade, much of which is run by Chinese Triad gangs.There are also reports of the Russian Mafia running similar services. Last year in Australia the Royal Thai Consulate-General helped a woman return to Thailand after soliciting illegally in New South Wales and reported that only the women get caught. Because of the lack of legislation, the women are caught, but nothing happens to the traffickers. It has been reported—this is much the same as the member for Sydney has said and I have referred to it previously—that women are being tricked into sexual slavery and then finding that they cannot get away from it.The legislation before us today does not address the specific issue of deceptive recruitment. However, it does prescribe penalties for what is effectively the outcome, which is debt bondage. Under the new legislation, a maximum of 25 years imprisonment applies and this is for intentionally owning a slave or exercising power over somebody that is equivalent to slavery. Obviously, this does include debt bondage and associated practices.The old definition of slavery, which included kidnapping, is now outdated and has been reformed in this legislation. This legislation includes the situation where a person has been enslaved because of debt bondage. I think we have to note that, with the gap growing between the rich and the poor in South-East Asia, the promise of work, even as illegal immigrants, is an easy trap for impoverished women—and young boys to a certain extent—to fall into.An important element in the definition of sexual servitude is that the threat of deportation is considered a form of coercion. As an example, if the brothel worker uses this threat to make a woman or a man work for them, then that is considered coercion, which is then defined as slavery, and these people come under this act. So no longer can the slave trader escape the law because of outdated definitions and outdated legislation. The legislation before the Main Committee today gives us recourse against the people who engage in this unscrupulous trade and, in the long run, will prevent such people from continuing to prey on the desperately poor. I commend this legislation to the chamber.12:10:008509Washer, Mal, MPDr WASHER84FMooreLP10—I am very pleased to speak in support of the Criminal Code Amendment (Slavery and Sexual Servitude) Bill 1999 today. I believe the mark of the character of a nation is the way it endeavours to protect the weak and those unable to protect themselves. This bill is a long overdue advance of our present archaic laws on slavery which we inherited from the British parliament in the 19th century. By modernising our criminal code in relation to slavery and sexual servitude we will become better equipped to deal with an increasing trend in Australia of `people trafficking' and attempt to eliminate these practices in this country.This issue of human trafficking was raised with me, during a recent parliamentary delegation to the Philippines, by government officials. They asked what the Australian government was doing to curb this practice as obviously many people, mostly women, who are victims in Australia come from poorer Asian countries such as the Philippines. They were very concerned about the fate of their people in Australia, although, of course, it is only the negative cases that gain notoriety—and this was pointed out to our Filipino colleagues.I know there are many women who come to Australia and are happily married to Australian men, and that many of these marriages are genuine and lasting. Nevertheless, there are circumstances in Australia where perpetrators have powerful control, by way of force and threats, over their victims who are ordered to work, often in prostitution, against their will. They are able to maintain these victims in this state by using threats of deportation or to pay off a debt, as we have heard. This is often the case with victims who have paid large sums of money to enter Australia illegally—for example, the recently publicised case of Chinese people who were willing to pay around $A40,000 to be smuggled into Australia illegally in an aircraft. Many of these people borrow the funds from their smugglers as they simply do not have this kind of money at their disposal and are ordered to work this off once in Australia. As they cannot have legitimate jobs because they are illegal immigrants, they have little choice but to rely on the perpetrators.This bill provides for substantially harsher penalties for the perpetrators compared with the current penalties under individual state laws that deal with people living off the earnings of prostitution. The new offences will provide for a maximum penalty of 25 years imprisonment where the conduct amounts to slavery, or 15 years imprisonment where the activity falls short of slavery but involves the victims working in conditions amounting to sexual servitude. The penalty is four years longer if the victim is under 18 years of age.Forcing someone into sexual servitude is a fundamental breach of basic human rights. As a former GP, I know that this does not just occur with illegal immigration on the margins of society, but with men purporting to love their wives but forcing them to have sex against their will with strangers or mates in return for money to pay for drugs or gambling debts. This is not as uncommon as many people might think. As with many issues relating to domestic abuse, this is often a hard crime to police as the victims are reluctant, too scared or too ashamed to report these incidents. This is perhaps one of the biggest challenges that we face when trying to eliminate the crimes outlined in this bill. Where does a victim go when they are themselves committing a crime by being an illegal immigrant? By reporting their situation they are risking being deported anyway.From a health perspective, sexual servitude puts both the victims and the general public at risk through unsafe sex, which is usually a common occurrence in these circumstances. The victims would live in constant fear of contracting diseases such as hepatitis, AIDS, chlamydia and unwanted pregnancies. Sexually transmitted diseases do not discriminate between illegal immigrants and Australian citizens. The more widespread this problem becomes, the more the chance of innocent people—such as the partner of the client who visits the prostitute—catching a nasty or even deadly disease. We simply cannot afford to brush these issues under the mat as being marginalised and unseen and therefore not affecting ordinary Australians.I also commend the jurisdiction outlined in this bill where a slavery offence committed by an Australian can occur regardless of whether or not the offence was committed within Australia. The recent case in my state of Western Australia, where a Port Hedland man was successfully convicted of child sex offences that occurred in Thailand, proves that this kind of legislation is workable.I understand that this was the first case of its kind in Australia, and I hope the publicity that it gained served as a warning to other Australians thinking of travelling to another country with the sole intention of taking advantage of an under-age, usually poor, innocent child. I believe I speak for most Australians when I say that the child's nationality and location do not entitle us to wash our hands of the responsibility for our fellow citizens who commit these horrendous crimes.Finally, the third part of this bill deals with deceptive recruiting. This is a practice where the perpetrator recruits someone to provide sexual services, but deceives the victim into thinking that they would be working in areas other than prostitution. The proposed maximum penalty for this is seven years, with an additional two years if the victim is under 18.This criminal code amendment ensures that Australia fulfils its international obligations as we are signatory to a number of treaties that outlaw slavery and the trading of slaves, including the International Convention to Suppress the Slave Trade and Slavery. It represents strong evidence that the government is strongly committed to modernising laws on slavery and sexual servitude. I hope that this bill receives support from all sides of the Main Committee.12:17:008510Gambaro, Teresa, MPMs GAMBARO9K6PetrieLP10—I would like to add to the contributions made previously by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage and by the members for Denison, Sydney, Cook, Hindmarsh and Moore. They were unanimous in their feelings about the bill before us today, the Criminal Code Amendment (Slavery and Sexual Servitude) Bill 1999 .The bill deals with an aspect of human behaviour that to my mind begs the question of just how far we as human beings have come as we approach the new millennium. The bill deals with a type of behaviour, the prevalence of which in modern society has left me questioning the much vaunted triumph of the age of freedom.Until I was made aware of this bill some time ago I was relatively unaware of the continuing scourge of slavery and sexual servitude in the 20th century. I, like many other people, am fortunate enough to live in an industrialised nation. I was fortunate enough to grow up in a world where our school history books taught us that slavery was a thing of the past—something that ended with the American Civil War.I had heard of sexual slavery being used as a weapon of war, but until I began researching this particular speech I was unaware of its extent. I found the 1998 Report of the Special Rapporteur on systemic rape, and I would like to quote a particular paragraph. It says:The second purpose of this report is to emphasise the true nature and extent of the harms suffered by women who are raped, sexually abused and enslaved by parties to an armed conflict. There are legions of documented reports of sexual violence committed against women in armed conflict. Such documentation reveals examples of women being gang-raped in their homes and in front of their family members; women being held in detention centres or military stations and raped numerous times every day for weeks or even months; women being repeatedly raped by soldiers under the guise of "marriage"; women being held captive in situations involving both forced labour (as cooks, porters, minefield sweepers) and forced sex; and reports of women being mutilated, humiliated and tortured sexually before being killed or left to die from their injuries. The veil of silence that surrounds this violence must be lifted through prosecutions and other forms of redress, including compensation, to ensure that justice is done, dignity is repaired and future violations are prevented.I was quite alarmed to read that. To my horror after researching further I discovered that the Australian Federal Police reported in August 1997 that they had 14 cases of women being brought into this country for purposes of sexual exploitation. The Australian Federal Police were further supported by a National Crime Authority report that stated that they had intelligence on eight possible cases involving 25 women over a period from December 1992 to November 1996. As a mother of a young 12-year-old daughter, I was horrified to learn that in one case a 13-year-old girl had been brought into this country—many of the previous speakers have mentioned that she was brought in from Thailand—and used as a prostitute to repay her debt. It struck horror in the hearts of all our previous speakers. Women are not the only ones being abused. The member for Sydney also highlighted a case of a young man who was allegedly brought into the country for work reasons but he was forced to perform not only work duties but also sexual acts for the person who employed him.On a recent trip to Thailand in 1997, as a member of the all parliamentary group on population and development—the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, who is sitting beside me, also attended—I learnt how brutal and inhumane practices such as these work. No doubt many members will be aware of the fact that every year thousands of Burmese women and girls are trafficked into sexual servitude. They often wind up in Thai brothels—places where they face illegal confinement, sexual and physical abuse and exposure to sexually transmitted diseases such as HIV. In one of the briefing sessions that we had, we were told that the sex workers were often forced into performing unsafe sex acts and that they had no redress. The great exposure to a number of sexually transmitted diseases cannot be ignored.At the time of our visit to Thailand in 1997, members of the group became aware of the appalling conditions under which these women live. This was made particularly evident in Thai television and newspaper reports with footage showing recent raids by the Thai police on these brothels. It was a horrific sight. What was even more horrific was the revelation by the Human Rights Watch Organisation that many of these young girls would be arrested as illegal immigrants. They would then be deported back to the Thai-Burma border only to return to Thailand after threats and intimidation from brothel owners over possible treatment they may receive from Burmese authorities.While the Australian Federal Police and the National Crime Authority have documented instances where women have been trafficked into Australia to work as sex slaves, there are also equally appalling instances of Australian citizens being lured overseas to engage in these practices. South-East Asian countries feature here. As the parliamentary secretary pointed out in her second reading speech, the Australian Federal Police have uncovered evidence of a number of cases where Australian women have been recruited to work overseas as prostitutes. Many of these women initially thought that they were going to work as hostesses. The parliamentary secretary also spoke about what happened to them on their arrival.As I said, I was initially amazed and horrified by the fact that slavery and sexual servitude are still practised these days. It is for that reason that I support the bill. It is interesting to note that one of the aims of the bill is to modernise the laws dealing with these practices. Until the introduction of this bill, Australian law on slavery was based on the four 19th century imperial acts. Naturally, given their age, these acts are couched in much outdated language. They deal with situations, circumstances and institutions that have either changed or no longer exist.It is unfortunate that the offences dealt with by these laws are not themselves a thing of the past. In modernising Australian laws on slavery and sexual servitude, the bill bases its definition of the practices on the corresponding terms of the 1926 International Convention to Suppress the Slave Trade and Slavery—and its 1953 protocol—and the 1956 Supplementary Convention on the Abolition of Slavery, the Slave Trade and Institutions and Practices Similar to Slavery. These are the two key international agreements on slavery.The 1926 International Convention to Suppress the Slave Trade and Slavery defines slavery. Again, the United Nations report of the Special Rapporteur on systematic rape, sexual slavery and slavery-like practices during armed conflict states:The status or condition of a person over whom any or all of the powers attaching to the right of ownership are exercised, including sexual access through rape or other forms of sexual violence.This bill, however, widens this definition in two crucial ways. In the first instance, the bill expands the definition of slavery so that it clearly states that slavery can also arise from debt or contract. This means that it is not enough for the debt to be simply exploited—a person can just hold another to engage in such practices because of the debt. Instead, there must be a relationship where there is a right of ownership.In the second instance, the definition in the bill differs from the previous conceptions in that it establishes a wider definition to ensure that people who drive the trade—the people who finance, manage and run the trade—are caught. The bill also deals with inadequacies in the current Commonwealth, state and territory laws dealing with sex trafficking from Australia. It does this by ensuring that the traffickers—the financiers, managers and the organisers of this insidious trade—cannot slip through the net.The bill sets out a very strong penalty for these traffickers. If a person is found guilty of slavery, they will face up to 25 years gaol. If they are found guilty of engaging in activities that fall short of slavery but still involve sexual servitude, they will get 15 years. If the victim involved in the latter instance is under the age of 18 years, the offender will get 19 years.The primary difference between the two—slavery and sexual servitude—is that slavery involves the situation where a person is in a condition where another person exercises at least some powers of ownership whereas in the case of sexual servitude a person is forced to engage in sexual practices because of force of threats. Both are equally appalling and differ only in a small degree. In the case of a person engaged in deceptive recruiting of people for the provision of sexual services, offenders will face a seven-year gaol term. Two years will be added to the sentence if the victim is under the age of 18 years.As I said in my opening remarks, I am saddened by the fact that, in the last year of the 20th century, we are having to modernise laws that deal with practices that have no place in a modern civil society. I would like to extend my gratitude to the members of the Model Criminal Code Officers Committee of the Standing Committee of the Attorneys-General—and I congratulate the Minister for Justice—for their efforts in developing this framework. This is an ugly and insidious aspect of human behaviour that must be dealt with. I applaud their efforts and I commend the bill to the Main Committee.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Before I call the parliamentary secretary, let me formally congratulate you on your achievement of your Doctorate of Philosophy. We are all very pleased.12:28:008513Stone, Sharman, MPMrs STONEEM6MurrayLP10—Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. In summing up this debate on the Criminal Code Amendment (Slavery and Sexual Servitude) Bill 1999 , I would like to thank all members for their consideration of this bill and their very valuable contribution to the debate. It is important to note that there has been cooperative development of this bill and the opposition has strongly endorsed the amendments.The member for Denison led with his remarks. In commending the new bill, he did go on to say, however, that he was concerned that this government is now moving quite slowly in national criminal law development, particularly since 1996. I want to correct that statement. The Model Criminal Code Officers Committee has continued to be most active, publishing discussion papers and reports on a number of issues, including, of course, sexual offences generally.Most recently the parliament has passed legislation dealing with foreign bribery, principles of criminal responsibility, and now slavery and sexual servitude, all of which have been based on the MCCOC reports. This government has moved very quickly to implement legislation based on the recommendations of the MCCOC in order to set examples to other jurisdictions and we, of course, expect them to follow.The member for Denison also raised a very important issue of public awareness and how we were to make sure that the sex industry, in particular, was aware of the changes and the additional penalties now associated with this bill. I would like to remind the member for Denison that, during the development of these amendments, the MCCOC consulted widely in relation to the slavery issues. A discussion paper was issued, submissions were received, and a number of groups participated in that formal consultation, including sex worker organisations, child welfare agencies, Aboriginal groups and religious and women's groups.Consideration will be given to a public awareness campaign, targeted appropriately, of the kind that the member for Denison mentioned, and we would expect the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade and the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs to also be concerned about the bill being very widely understood by those who might be in some relationship to the sex industry.The member for Sydney was concerned that there was no support for the actual sex workers caught up in this very distressing trade; that there was no help for them in this bill. Let me remind the member for Sydney that extensive support programs already exist—as you would expect in a country like Australia. There can probably never be sufficient support for someone who has been caught up in this trade, but we in Australia do offer a number of programs, especially if these workers caught up in sexual servitude are able to be rescued from the industry before it is too late for them as individuals.In particular, there are programs to support victims of crime in all states and territories. There is VOCAL, the Victims of Crime Assistance League, which operates in a number of states and territories. The Victims Referral and Assistance Service is run by the Victorian Department of Justice. The Victims of Crime Coordinator operates in the ACT. As well, in relation to these women and men, a number of community based support groups, such as various rape crisis centres, are set up specifically to help victims of sexual offences. The detention centres of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs also provide medical and psychiatric counselling and other health care services to all detainees as required. The Australian Federal Police has sexual assault and child abuse teams that investigate serious sexual assaults and child abuse. The member for Sydney is right to be concerned that there be support for the sex workers caught up in this sexual servitude or deceptive recruiting offences, but let me assure the member for Sydney that there are a number of agencies there to help these victims.This is a bill of very significant importance to Australia. It will modernise Australia's laws on slavery and slave trading to make them more relevant to prevailing circumstances. The sexual servitude and deceptive recruiting offences will address the growing international trade in people for the purposes of sexual exploitation. In recent years the world has seen a very disturbing increase in this appalling activity and there are few countries today that are not in some way affected by it.Earlier, I referred to the Australian Federal Police and the NCA reports which indicated that Australia is becoming, unfortunately, a destination for this trade and these traders. In 1998 the United Nations Office for Drug Control and Crime Prevention reported that the international sex trade is, in fact, one of the fastest growing trafficking businesses, and it is alarming that the growth in this international trade is such that there is no way that Australia is going to be able to avoid the problem. In fact, we expect that the problem will get worse in Australia, therefore now is the time for us to act.The International Organisation for Migration estimates that, each year, traffickers move as many as four million illegal migrants, grossing $5 billion to $7 billion. According to the Australian Institute of Criminology, many of the victims end up in slave-like conditions. The problem is of particular concern to migrant recipient countries such as Australia, America, Canada and Europe. If we wait for this problem to become firmly entrenched in this country, then it may be too late to save the life and the life experiences of a lot of innocent people, not only Australians but people from other countries. The bill is a proactive response to this burgeoning trade.The bill pays special attention, as it should, to affording additional protection for children. Children, along with the impoverished, are the most vulnerable and most easily fall victim to those who prey upon them. The maximum penalty for offences to do with children will increase significantly if the victims involved are under the age of 18.The deceptive recruiting offence is especially important for protecting the young people because they are, as I say, the most vulnerable to the deceit and are possibly least likely to be able to escape by their own means once they are entrapped in a country with no friends and perhaps no language, totally vulnerable and exploited.By passing this bill today, we will be sending an important message to the perpetrators of these evil crimes that Australia will not be a destination for their trade. Importantly, it will also encourage the rest of the world to do the same. I commend the bill to the Main Committee.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—If no member wishes to consider the bill in detail, I will put the report question forthwith. The question is that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.Question resolved in the affirmative.Committees851585158515Consideration resumed from 9 August, on motion by Mr Charles:That the House take note of the report.12:37:008515Sidebottom, Peter, MPMr SIDEBOTTOM849BraddonALP00—Monday night's vote in the House of Representatives in relation to a republic was a historic occasion for this nation, for the parliament and for me personally. It was historic for a number of reasons—not all of which fill me with pride, however. What strikes me most about the issue is the fact that there is so much angst about recognising change in our community.We pride ourselves as a nation on our resourcefulness, our initiative, our innovation and our independence of spirit and behaviour. These qualities have been eulogised time and again in art, literature and history. They are immortalised in what we call the Australian legend—the Anzac tradition, the folklore of the outback, the metropolitan larrikin, the union movement and our sporting teams and prowess. Less recognised but probably containing more historical validity is the immediate pre-Federation period in Australian history. This was a time of nation building and values consolidation reflected in the federal system of government that came into being on 1 January 1901 and was formalised in the Australian Constitution.The values of egalitarianism and the rudiments of the welfare state became encapsulated in the early legislation of the fledging parliament. In fact, the early Commonwealth has an international reputation for its legislative modernity, a reputation forged on a confident identity of being white, Anglo-Celtic, Christian, potentially prosperous and a member of the crimson empire—the greatest imperial power in world history, the British Empire. Australians were, in essence, monocultural, secure in their white supremacy, confident of their future under the protection of the empire.The Australian Federation and Constitution consolidated and formalised the most important cultural and historical values and loyalties existing at the turn of the century—namely, a federation of colonies under the Crown with a central government to look after the state tasks shared by the former colonies, with strong state governments. The Senate was a states house favouring no state above others and the House of Representatives was based on roughly equal electorates. The federal structure reflected the independence and power of the states, with residue powers located in the centre.The confident assertion of the early Commonwealth was reflected in its pioneering social legislation, emerging independent legal system and indecent haste to prove itself on the battlefields of Europe. Young Australians fought and died for King, country, Mother England and empire. All were indivisible. All were key values and loyalties reflected in the fledgling Federation and Constitution.Although this is a rather monolithic view of our early federation years—some would say almost stereotypical—and tends to ignore the various schools of historical thought that emphasise multiple identities in the creation of what we mean by `Australia', it does demonstrate a relationship between what emerged in a constitutional sense and its nexus with a particular historical and cultural identity at the turn of the 20th century. There was an appropriateness between culture and constitution. And that leads me to today.Notwithstanding the rather generalised historical view offered above, I set out to appreciate what type of Australia exists today. What I can say with certainty and in the light of diverse historical interpretation is that Australia today is very different from the Australia of the turn of the century. At least in some ways it is, because judging by the hoo-ha surrounding the republic issue to date, in the last few weeks in particular, one is left wondering whether or not this nation is prepared to actualise and formalise its independence, to assert in a constitutional and symbolic way that it is indeed Australian rather than Anglo-Celtic.The times have changed along with our cultural values and institutions. One only has to look at the impact of the breakdown of the White Australia policy, as well as at the impact of the great post-World War II European immigration programs and at the more recent Asian immigration contribution to our culture and communities, to see that. The recognition and impact of the indigenous cultures of Australia also demonstrate how much things have changed.The 20th century has seen an Australian identity defined by multiple contributing cultures and identities. Just over 40 per cent of our population are either first- or second-generation migrants. Indeed, 5.7 million immigrants have landed and settled on our shores since 1945. Flexible and changing work practices, complex and heterogeneous social organisations, expanding educational, economic and social opportunities, technological, scientific and medical advances, et cetera, typify the reality and nature of Australian society today.In Australia, merit is most often the defining criterion in the achievement of one's goals. More often than not, potential can be realised on this basis. Class is not necessarily a doorway to advancement or identity. An Australian citizen can aspire to almost any public office in Australia except one: that of our constitutional head of state.In this multicultural and highly diversified nation, made up of citizens from a host of ethnic and national backgrounds, our head of state is the monarch of a foreign country. Our head of state does not live in Australia and does not know what it is like to be an Australian. Our head of state is the Queen of England and Ireland, represented in our system of government by a Governor-General whom she appoints on the advice of our Prime Minister.This is a strange set of circumstances. It is not so much strange that it exists today but more that there are those who would not have it changed tomorrow. Some argue that the current monarchical constitutional system has served us well and, therefore, should not change. `If it ain't broke, don't change it,' goes the argument. That is similar to the argument that the member for Riverina offered to support her no case during the adjournment debate last night. She asked whether the proposed republican model would be a better system of government for Australia. `No,' she said, `and, therefore, don't change it.'Reluctantly, I could perhaps concede some difficulty with objectifying how the new system might be better, whatever is meant by that term; I am at a loss to understand how it could be worse. How could it be worse to have as our head of state an Australian citizen who lives in Australia and knows what it means to be Australian? Is it too horrifying to contemplate as our head of state an Australian whose first allegiance is to our country and not to another? No amount of word play will convince Australians that the Governor-General is our head of state. Public oaths of allegiance are to the Queen, the sovereign head of our system of government. I cannot help thinking that this is like a number of schools in different places in Australia having the same principal.In most democratic countries, the highest honour is to serve your country as head of state. Every Australian should be able to aspire to that office. My children and their children should be able to achieve this goal. They should be able to gain this position by merit and not by birth. If our own citizenry cannot attain the highest office in the land because this is reserved for a hereditary monarch from a foreign country, it raises the question of what type of national psyche actually exists in Australia.This reluctance to let go of what has been is not just conservatism in action; it is a reluctance to change, for fear of the consequences, despite the fact that the changes have already occurred. All sorts of arguments are thrown up to fossilise the current system, although this system has changed over time. These arguments range from the view that our Constitution and system of government is so immutable, hallowed and sanctified that to countenance changing it borders on heresy to the view that holds that a republic would see the breakdown of morality and law and order.Even more bizarre is the view that those advocating a republic, and I quote from one of the publications, `hold some sort of resentment against the British for one reason or another'. Nobody would deny that our system of government over the past 100 years has provided great stability for us and that the Queen has done a good job. But symbols are very important because they mediate fundamental values and truths that underline a community. They are signs of belief. National symbols are particularly important, because they reflect core values and beliefs, as well as act as unifying forces for communities. National symbols should touch the heart of citizens.A British monarch as our symbolic head of state no longer touches the heart of most Australians. Even monarchists who argue that the Governor-General is our head of state are admitting that the symbol of monarchy no longer means anything to most Australians. Australia's de jure head of state is the British monarch. The rules governing succession to the throne are in a British act of parliament. The symbols are British and the reality is that Australians have no say. The 6 November referendum on whether Australia should become a republic will give Australians a say. We will vote yes for a change to an Australian head of state or no to retain the monarchy. It is as simple as this but, like most things, words can get in the way. It is important, therefore, that voters are clearly informed about the choice and are not distracted by squabbling within the republican camp or scared off by diversionary wording in the referendum question.The Joint Committee on the Republic Referendum set out to clarify the issue in its recommendation that the long title of the Constitution Alteration (Establishment of Republic) Bill 1999 should have been changed to read:A Bill for an Act to alter the Constitution to establish the Commonwealth of Australia as a republic, with the Queen and Governor-General being replaced by an Australian President.The government's original referendum proposal of 8 March 1999 unfairly emphasised, I believe, the process of changing to a republic with the words:. . . with a president chosen by a two-thirds majority of the members of the Commonwealth parliament.The all-party parliamentary committee's recommendation sought to recentre the question to the outcome rather than the process. Its reasoning was sound because it argued that the reference in the draft long title to the two-thirds majority of the members of parliament gave an incomplete picture of the essential feature of the nomination process, which involves public consultation and a process for bipartisan nomination by both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition.The government's final proposal, which passed the House of Representatives on Monday, 9 August 1999, is an uneasy compromise for republicans, as reflected in its wording:Do you approve of a republic with the Queen and Governor-General being replaced by a president appointed by two-thirds majority of the members of the Commonwealth parliament?Only time and the Senate deliberations will tell whether this is the final question to go before the Australian people. I suspect it will be. What is important, however, is that the Australian people should now have ownership of the debate and not politicians. Australians will now have their say with the prospect of having more of a say than ever before if they support the change to a republic.What type of republic might eventuate will also be decided by the Australian people in time. The important thing for most republicans is that an Australian will become our head of state, replacing the Queen and Governor-General. There will be an Australian President in every sense of the word. Our most significant national symbol, the Australian Constitution, will then reflect the reality of our independence. It is a minimal change, but a highly symbolic one. If the method of election of the President is to change in the future then I believe it should evolve from the minimalist position proposed by the current bill. We should not get lost in the detail or the process.I mentioned earlier some of the national traits of the Australian character. One of these is an anti-authoritarian and a critical, almost cynical, view of its political representatives. Rightly or wrongly, politicians must not nurture this trait in this debate, for a slanging match either within or between political schools of thought will merely result in the public at large refusing to engage in the debate.In my office there is a picture above my computer. It is of the corner of a drawing room with a walnut bookcase, very much like in my home in Forth. In the bookcase is a book by Eric Fromm. It does not clearly indicate the title, but it looks like his important work, Fear of Freedom. I thought this was quite symbolic for I sometimes wonder if this is not also one of our national characteristics—a fear of being genuinely free, of throwing off the past. This does not mean that we do not value our past; it is a recognition of growing beyond it. That is why I will be voting yes on 6 November.I seek leave to table a document from one of my constituents in relation to a preamble, and I would like it recorded in Hansard, if that is okay.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—You are asking for two things. We will deal with the first one—seeking leave for the document to be tabled.Leave granted.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—For the information of members who are here, if you wish to have something incorporated in Hansard , you need to show it to the appropriate person in the government, but also you need to show it to whoever is in the Speaker's chair. The guidelines are that if it is capable of being read, it cannot be incorporated. While I have not had the privilege of seeing the document, it looks to me, at a distance, as though it could be read; therefore it cannot be incorporated in Hansard . You do have 52 seconds remaining.849Sidebottom, Peter, MPMr SIDEBOTTOM—I have before me a proposal called `Constitution Alteration (Preamble) 1999' by Mr Martin Kjar. His preamble says:WE, the citizens of Australia living in freedom and respecting individual faiths and persuasions,Declare allegiance to the elected Government, evolving from a British Crown colony in 1788 and the continuing migration of new settlers from every region of the world, in growing reconciliation with the indigenous people holding ancestral relationship to land and sea;All enriching the Australian tradition from their cultures and pursuing aspirations in harmony one with another;Enshrining their rule of law in the Commonwealth Federation of states and territories; andWhile proclaiming the right of devotion to a spiritual God,We, with one voice, hold indissolubly to the Constitution of Australia as an independent democracy for protecting, defending and enhancing the great nation within our charge.Should this be or not be a preamble to our Constitution, those sentiments are greatly accepted. (Time expired)12:52:008519Hall, Jill, MPMs HALL83NShortlandALP00—I must congratulate the member for Braddon on his reading feat! Mr Deputy Speaker, as you are probably aware, I was a member of the Joint Select Committee on the Republic Referendum. I found it a rather educating experience as well as extremely interesting. It was one of those situations where you go out and talk to people from all around Australia and you listen to a lot of varying opinions. People were quite passionate about this issue. The one thing you can say about the issue of whether or not Australia will become a republic is that those people who favour our becoming a republic feel passionately about it, and those people who favour our remaining a constitutional monarchy also feel passionate about it.The reports and submissions we received were of the highest quality and they gave the committee a lot of issues to consider and to think about. When the report of the committee finally came down it was a very broad report—it took into account all those submissions that we received. I think we worked together very effectively as a committee. It has been my first experience of being part of a bipartisan committee that worked together so effectively, and where everybody was trying to come up with some sort of report that could satisfy the varying opinions that all the members of the committee had whilst, at the same time, taking into account the evidence submitted to the committee.I thought it might be appropriate to mention some of the people who gave evidence to the committee and to share with the parliament the issues that they raised and highlight the diversity of people who appeared before the committee. There were a number of written submissions, 122 in all, submitted to the committee, and we had a number of witnesses appear.Hearings were held in Canberra where we were addressed by a number of eminent experts in this area. They included people like Professor Zines, Mr George Williams and Mr Dennis Rose QC. The people from the Referendum Taskforce came along also and gave us their reasons for putting together the legislation in the way that they had. They also gave us an opportunity to let them know the things that we thought were important for them to consider in any amendments. That occurred when we met with them towards the end of July.In Sydney we spoke with members of the Australian Republican Movement, including Mr Malcolm Turnbull, as well as with Mrs Kerry Jones. We spoke with people who have been very prominent in the debate on both sides. It gives you an idea of the types of people who came and spoke to us in the committee.Melbourne was where we were addressed by Sir Zelman Cowan and Malcolm Fraser. It was most interesting. I have said on a number of occasions that I did not think that I would ever sit in a room with Malcolm Fraser and agree with most of what he had to say, but this was one occasion when that happened. I found that he put forward a very reasoned, well thought through argument and he gave his reasons why he adopted his position.One question I continually asked witnesses who appeared before the committee went to the dismissal and the appointment process. I asked Malcolm Fraser whether he thought that the new dismissal process would vary significantly from the dismissal process that is in place at the moment. Mr Fraser said to us that he believed that the moment when a Prime Minister served a letter, or actually told the Governor-General that his services were no longer required, was when his commission was effectively withdrawn, whereas with the proposed changes to the Constitution the President will once again be able to be removed by the Prime Minister.There is only a little bit of difference in the process. The difference in the process is that under the proposed amendments to the Constitution the Prime Minister will be required to bring it back to the parliament, whilst under the current situation a letter is sent to the Queen. However, there has never been an occasion when the Queen has not followed the recommendation of the Prime Minister, either in the appointment or in the removal of a Governor-General.One of the other witnesses that I would like to refer to who addressed the committee was a young man who came to Australia from the UK in 1981. He said one of the things that made him decide to live in Australia was that he felt that it was a very fair society and a very equal society. It was not based on who your mother and father were or what position you occupied in society. It was not based in any way on hereditary claims or who you are or what your parents did. It was based on what you did or who you were in that society. This was one of the main reasons why he decided that he would become an Australian.He went on to say how he found it ridiculous that when he became an Australian citizen he had to again swear allegiance to the Queen. He expressed what a lot of Australian people feel—that it is peculiar that in a country like Australia we have as our head of state a queen who is actually a citizen of the United Kingdom. I seek leave to continue my remarks at a later date.Leave granted; debate adjourned.Main Committee adjourned at 1.00 p.m.Answers to Questions in Writing8521The following answers to questions were circulated:8521(Question No. 376)3768521McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 8 February 1999:(1) Will the Government split the family relationships services program so that family and child mediation and child contact services remain within the Attorney-General's portfolio and family and child counselling, marriage and relationships education, family skills training and adolescent mediation and family therapy would move to the Family and Community Services portfolio; if so, why.(2) Did the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs recommend that the Australian Institute of Family Studies be relocated to the Attorney-General's Department; if so, will the Government implement the recommendation.8521Williams, Daryl, MPMr Williams7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The Administrative Arrangements are a matter on which the Prime Minister advises the Governor-General. Responsibility for the provision of family relationships services was transferred to the newly established Family and Community Services portfolio following the 1998 Federal election in line with the Government's aim of restructuring the major social policy portfolios to provide a clearer focus for their activities and a more integrated approach to family programs. The establishment of the Family and Community Services portfolio brings together a range of related family services in the one portfolio, creating the opportunity for more integrated and cohesive social policy outcomes for Australian families, communities and individuals. I have retained responsibility for family law and for funding and policy aspects of family law dispute resolution services.Funding for family law dispute resolution services (family and child mediation and counselling, child contact services and contact order pilot services) is appropriated to the Attorney-General's portfolio. Under an agreement between my department and the Department of Family and Community Services, delivery of family law dispute resolution services such as counselling, mediation and contact services will be provided through the Family Relationships Services Program in the Department of Family and Community Services. Both my Department and the Department of Family and Community Services will work together as partners in supporting the shared objectives of supporting children, young people and adults in developing and sustaining safe, supportive and nurturing family relationships, and in minimising the emotional, social and economic costs associated with disruption to family relationships, through providing access to assistance for the prevention and resolution of disputes via a range of mechanisms.(2) In relation to the second part of the honourable member's question, I am advised that Recommendation 54 of "To Have and To Hold", the report of the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, recommended that the Australian Institute of Family Studies should be relocated within the Attorney-General's Department to enable it to focus more closely on the terms of its original charter as set out in Part XIVA of the Family Law Act 1975.The Australian Institute of Family Studies now reports to the Minister for Family and Community Services, and can provide valuable information on family functioning, research and data analysis as part of the broader family services context. With the creation of the new Family and Community Services portfolio, the Institute is now co-located with the Commonwealth's key programs for families.The Institute has a history of links with family relationship services and has indicated that it welcomes the Committee's recommendation that it forge even closer links with family relationship organisations and government agencies.8521(Question No. 627)6278521Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr Kelvin ThomsonUK6WillsALP00 asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 31 May 1999:(1) What is the estimated total sum of taxation concessions provided annually to excluded superannuation funds.(2) What is the estimated total sum of taxation concessions which will be provided annually to excluded superannuation funds which opt to invest 100 per cent of their funds in their principal business premises. 8522Costello, Peter, MPMr CostelloCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) No estimates have been made of taxation concessions disaggregated by superannuation fund sector.(2) Under the new investment rules, funds with fewer than 5 members will be able to invest up to 100 per cent of their assets in business real property. Investments made under this provision will receive the same taxation treatment as other superannuation fund investments that are consistent with the provisions of the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993.8522(Question No. 655)6558522Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 1 June 1999:(1) Has the Minister or a department or agency administered by the Minister provided grants to the National Farmers' Federation (NFF) or bodies related to the NFF since 2 March 1996; if so, (a) in each case, (i) what was the nature of the grant and (ii) for what purpose was it provided and (b) what total sum was provided.(2) To what boards, committees or other bodies for which the Minister has portfolio responsibility have (a) Mr Donald McGauchie (b) Dr Wendy Craik or (c) other officers or staff of the NFF been appointed since 2 March 1996.(3) What sums has the Commonwealth paid in (a) sitting fees, (b) board fees, (c) travel costs and (d) related expenses with respect to each appointment referred to in part (2).8522Moore, John, MPMr MooreEI4RyanLPDefence10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) No.(2) Nil.(3) Not applicable.8522(Question No. 693)6938522Bevis, Arch, MPMr BevisET4BrisbaneALP00 asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 7 June 1999:Has a Department or agency for which the Minister has portfolio responsibility entered a contract with or made a grant or payment to an organisation registered under subparagraph (a) 188(1)(a) or (b) 188(1)(b) of the Workplace Relations Act 1996; if so, in each case, (i) which organisation, (ii) what sum was received and (iii) in what State or Territory is the organisation located.8522Costello, Peter, MPMr CostelloCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:Yes. The following table provides details of arrangements entered into by Departments and Agencies in the Treasury portfolio over the period 31 December 1996 to 7 June 1999. The relevant organisations are taken to be those registered as at 7 June 1999.The response has been compiled on the basis that the term:. `payment' is not taken to include arrangements for payment of union dues; and. `contract' does not include agreements made under the Workplace Relations Act 1996 or section 16 of the Occupational Health and Safety (Commonwealth Employment) Act 1991.In addition, Departments and Agencies in the Treasury portfolio have also made payments to employer and employee organisations registered under the Workplace Relations Act 1996 for items including training courses, conferences, publication subscriptions and reimbursement for travel.Payments to Organisations Registered Under Workplace Relations Act 1996DateOrganisationAmount ($)State/TerritoryAustralian Taxation Office29/04/97Transport Workers Union1,260.00Victoria30/04/97Transport Workers Union1,000.00Victoria 23/01/97Victorian Employers' Chamber of Commerce and Industry925.11Victoria24/03/97Victorian Employers' Chamber of Commerce and Industry50.00Victoria8/04/97Victorian Farmers' Federation882.00Victoria23/12/97The Australian Retailers' Association901.20Victoria23/04/98Entertainment Industry Employers' Association50.00Victoria25/05/98Master Builders' Association of Victoria200.00Victoria18/08/97Victorian Farmers' Federation530.55Victoria13/01/99Australian Industry Group150.00Victoria27/09/98Master Builders' Association SA Inc3,000.00South Australia17/11/98Master Builders' Association of Victoria1,400.00Victoria18/02/99Master Builders' Association of Victoria400.00Victoria13/05/99Master Builders' Association of Victoria400.00Victoria24/05/99Master Builders' Association of Victoria400.00Victoria6/05/99Master Builders' Association of Victoria444.00VictoriaRoyal Australian Mint15/06/98Australian Industry Group700.00NSW and ACT15/07/98Australian Industry Group2,025.00NSW and ACT6/08/98Australian Industry Group110.00NSW and ACT8523(Question No. 710)7108523Bevis, Arch, MPMr BevisET4BrisbaneALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs, upon notice, on 7 June 1999:Has a Department or agency for which the Minister has portfolio responsibility entered a contract with or made a grant or payment to an organisation registered under subparagraph (a) 188(1)(a) or (b) 188(1)(b) of the Workplace Relations Act 1996; if so, in each case, (i) which organisation, (ii) what sum was received and (iii) in what State or Territory is the organisation located.8523Ruddock, Philip, MPMr Ruddock0J4BerowraLPImmigration and Multicultural Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation10—The Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC) has advised me that for the relevant period, a full search of ATSIC financial systems for payments to the organisations registered under subparagraph (a) 188(1)(a) or (b) 188(1)(b) of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 has disclosed that ATSIC has made no payment to any organisation in question.8524(Question No. 731)7318524Danby, Michael, MPMr DanbyWF6Melbourne PortsALP00 asked the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, upon notice, on 10 June 1999:Has his attention been drawn to recent allegations in Senate Estimates hearings concerning the deportation of Ms Zhu Quingping to China; if so, is he able to say (a) what aircraft was used to transport Ms Quingping to China (b) if the aircraft was civilian, which airline operated it and (c) was there a medical team on board the aircraft.8524Ruddock, Philip, MPMr Ruddock0J4BerowraLPImmigration and Multicultural Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:It would not be appropriate for me to respond to these matters. The terms of reference for the independent inquiry being undertaken by Mr Tony Ayers AC, include the requirement that Mr Ayers " . . . examine, assess, and make findings and recommendations as appropriate, on all processes and procedures of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (DIMA) relating to (the woman's) case;". In addition, in May the Senate passed a motion requiring the Legal and Constitutional References Committee to inquire and report into Australia's refugee and humanitarian program by 18 October 1999. The terms of reference for that inquiry also include an examination of the woman's circumstances. I do not wish to pre-empt the findings of either inquiry.However, I should like now to respond further to the honourable member's question on notice No. 718 of 8 June 1999 (Hansard, 30 June 1999, page 6219) that, among other things, queried whether the woman had been sedated at or about the time she was removed from Australia. On 24 June 1999 I released Mr Ayers's preliminary report on the sedation issue, from which I will now quote: "I have come to the conclusion that there is no substance to the allegation that a woman in an advanced state of pregnancy was sedated before she embarked on the aircraft at Port Hedland to return to China. If any further information should come to light on this aspect of my inquiry, I will include it in my final report." 8524(Question No. 733)7338524Latham, Mark, MPMr LathamK26WerriwaALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 21 June 1999:Further to the answer to question No. 21 (Hansard , 8 February 1999, page 2125) in which he referred to positive discrimination measures within the internal management practices of his Department, for those measures which are available to and impact on the general public; (a) what measures has the Department implemented which could be categorised as positive discrimination, that is, providing preference to certain citizens on the basis of their gender, sexuality, age, race, place of birth or some other personal characteristic, and (b) what are the details and funding commitments in each case.8524Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(a) Schedule 1 of the Deed of Agreement between the Commonwealth of Australia and the Northern Territory for the Indigenous Health Infrastructure Program sets out the Program Responsibilities for the Northern Territory.Schedule 1 (f) states: "Where ever possible, that contracts for health-related infrastructure projects including road upgrading projects will be undertaken by Aboriginal community organisations".This clause may be construed as positive discrimination and is consistent with the objectives of the Program which are as follows:. To achieve enhanced access for Aboriginal people through the provision of health-related infrastructure including the upgrading of strategic roads on Aboriginal land to an agreed standard;. To develop modes of service delivery which provide for appropriate involvement and participation of Aboriginal people and coordination with other funding programs for strategic roads and health infrastructure on Aboriginal land; and. To enhance living standards and good health outcomes for indigenous Australians.(b) The funding commitment was for $10 million for the 1998/99 financial year.8524(Question No. 747)7478524Crosio, Janice, MPMrs Crosio7T4ProspectALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, upon notice, on 21 June 1999:Does the Minister's Department operate a library or libraries; if so, (a) what sum was spent on purchasing new books for departmental libraries in (i) 1996-97, (ii) 1997-98 and (iii) 1998-99 and (b) will the Minister provide a list of the title and author of each book purchased by departmental libraries in 1998-99.8525McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGauranXH4GippslandNPArts and the Centenary of Federation10—The Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:(a) (i) NIL.(ii) NIL.(iii) $8405.47.(b)Aisbett, Kate—Talking Digital: the Impact of Digital TechnologyAlbrecht, Karl—Service Within: Solving the Middle Management Leadership CrisisAlbitz, Paul and Liu, Cricket—DNS and BINDArgy, Fred—Australia at the Crossroads: Radical Free MarketArmstrong, Mark—Broadcasting Law and Policy in AustraliaAshenden, Dean—Australian Universities GuideAustralia. Dept of the Parliamentary Library—Politicising the Australian Public Service?Australia. Dept of the Parliamentary Library—Electronic Commerce: Security IssuesAustralian Film Commission—Get the Picture: Essential Data on Australian Film, Television, Video and New Media(a) Australian Heritage Commission—Places in the Heart (a) Australian Dictionary of Philanthropy Australian Music Industry DirectoryAustralian Resumes GuideBamber and Lansbury—International and Comparative Employment RelationsBanham, Martin (ed)—Cambridge Guide to the TheatreMacquarie ThesaurusBennis, Warren—On Becoming a LeaderBrain, Peter J—Beyond Meltdown: the Global Battle for Sustained GrowthBrasch, Nicolas (ed)—Contemporary Australian WomenBrosnan, Mark J—Technophobia: the Psychological Impact of Information Technology Bryan, Dick—Global Economy in Australia: Global Integration and National Economic PolicyBudde, Paul:Wireless Market ReportInternet and Online Services Market ReportElectronic Trading Market ReportTelecommunications Networks Market ReportBuck, Claire (ed)—Women's Literature A-ZCarlzon, Jan—Moments of TruthCarman, Michael (ed)—Out of the Rut: Making Labor a Genuine AlternativeCarty, William—Flickers of History: a Newsreel Cameraman's StoryCascio, Wayne F—Managing Human Resources: Productivity, Quality of Worklife, ProfitsClark, Colin and Corbett, David (eds)—Reforming the Public Sector: Problems and SolutionsCoates, John—Bravery Above BlunderCapling, Considine and Crozier—Australian Politics in the Global EraCollins, Richard—New Media, New Policies: Media and Communications Strategy For the FutureConcise Oxford Australian DictionaryCorbett, David—Australian Public Sector ManagementCovey, Stephen R—Principle Centered LeadershipCovey, Stephen R—Seven Habits of Highly Effective People: Restoring the Character EthicDe Kare-Silver, Michael—Electronic Shock: How Retailers and Manufacturers Can Shape the Coming Shopping RevolutionDomberger, Simon—Contracting Organizations: A Strategic Guide to OutsourcingDore, John—Sustainable Regional Development ReportDore, John—Sustainable Regional Development Executive SummaryDunphy, Dexter C—Under New Management: Australian Organizations in TransitionFoley, Vandam, Feiner, Hughes—Computer GraphicsFoley, James—Computer Graphics Principles and PracticeGates, Bill—The Speed of ThoughtGiven, Jock—Death of Broadcasting: Media's Digital FutureGoncalves, Marcus—Linux at Work: Building Strategic Applications for BusinessGuiness Book of RecordsHalliwell, Leslie—Halliwell's Film and Video Guide Handy, Charles R—Empty Raincoat: Making Sense of the FutureHandy, Charles R—Understanding OrganisationsHarris, Ellen—Digital Property: Currency of the 21st CenturyHaviland, Keith—Unix System ProgrammingHoskins, Colin—Global Television and Film: an Introduction to the Economics of the BusinessHuber—Law and Disorder: Abolish the FCC and Let Common Law RuleKahin and Nesson—Borders in CyberspaceKahin—Coordinating the InternetKahin—National Information Infrastructure Initiatives Vision and PoliciesKatz, Michael and Rosen, Harvey—MicroeconomicsKaufield, John—Access 97 for Windows for DummiesKelly, Susanne—Complexity Advantage: How the Science of Complexity Can HelpIbel, Olive—Remote Access Networks and Services: Paperbacks and CD-RomLewis, Jordan D—The Connected Corporation: How Leading Companies Win Through Customer-Supplied AlliancesLimerick, David C—Managing the New Organisation: Collaboration and Sustainability in the Postcorporate WorldMcDonnell, Ian—Festival and Special Event ManagementMcDonnell, Steve—Software Project: Survival GuideMcDonnell, JS—Public Attitudes Towards the ArtsMcFarlane, Ian—Encyclopedia of Australian Rock and PopMcLeod, Raymond—Management Information SystemsMacquarie Concise DictionaryMacquarie ThesaurusMahwah, NJ—V-Chip Debate: Content Filtering from Television to the InternetMaxwell, John C—The 21 Irrefutable Laws of Leadership : Follow Them and People Will Follow YouMicrosoft Press—Visual C Plus 6Morphy—Aboriginal Art Museums Australia—Taking the Time: Museums and GalleriesNankervis, Alan R—Strategic Human Resource ManagementNathan—Mobile Telecommunications Factbook O'Connell, Fergus—How to Run Successful Projects II: the Silver BulletO'Faircheallaigh, Circan—Program Evaluation and Performance Monitoring: an Australian PerspectiveOrganisation for Economic Cooperation and Development:The Economic and Social Impact of Electronic Commerce: Preliminary Findings and Research AgendaOECD Conference Proceedings: Gateways to the Global Market: Consumers and Electronic CommerceElectronic Commerce: Opportunities and Challenges for Government LanguageOsborne and Gaebler—Reinventing Government: How the Entrepreneurial Spirit is Transforming the Public SectorParish, Steve—Australian Discovery AtlasParliamentary HandbookPetzold, Charles—Programming Windows 98Pfeffer, Jeffrey—Competitive Advantage Through People: Unleashing the Power of the WorkforcePierce, Peter—Oxford Literary Guide to AustraliaPorter , Michael—The Competitive Advantage of NationsPublic Records Office Victoria—Victorian Electronic Records Strategy: Final ReportPuttnam, David—The Undeclared War: the Struggle for Control of the World's Film IndustryRaymond, Robert—Out of the Box: An Inside View of the Coming of Current Affairs and Documentaries to Australian TelevisionReid, Robert—Architects of the Web: 1000 Days That Built the Future of BusinessReichard, Kevin—Unix in Plain EnglishRifkin, Jeremy—The End of Work: the Decline of the Global Labor Force and the Dawn of the Post-Market EraRoss, Peter—Let's Face It: the History of the Archibald PrizeSt Laurent, Simon—Sharing BandwithSenge, Peter M- Fifth Discipline Fieldbook: Strategies and Tools for Building a Learning OrganizationShingler, Margin—On Air: Methods and Meanings of RadioShleifier, Andre—The Grabbing Hand : Government Pathologies and their CuresShy, Oz—Industrial Organization: Theory and ApplicationSinclair, John (ed)—New Patterns in Global Television: A Peripheral Vision Stewart, Stern—EVA: Economic Value Added—Real Key to Creating WealthTanner, Lindsay Open AustraliaThussu, Daya Kishan (ed)—Electronic Empires: Global Media and Local ResistanceTsagarouisanou, Roza (ed)—Cyberdemocracy: Technology, Cities and Civic NetworksUBD New South Wales Cities and TownsUBD Victoria Towns and CitiesUBD Western Australia State Street Directory: Cities and TownsUBD Melbourne UBD Tasmania City and CountryUBD Brisbane, Gold Coast and Sunshine CoastUnited States. Council of Competitiveness—The New Challenge to America's Prosperity: Findings from the Innovation IndexUnited States. Council of Competitiveness—Going Global: the New Shape of American InnovationViljoen, John—Strategic Management: Planning and Implementing Successful Corporate StrategiesWark, McKenzie—Celebrities Culture and Cyberspace: Light on the Hill in a Postmodern WorldWeik, Martin H (ed)—Communication Standards DictionaryWingham, Rowan—Net Benefit: Guaranteed Electronic Markets: the Ultimate Potential of Online TradeWriters and Artists YearbookYergin, Daniel—Commanding Heights: the Battle Between Government and the Marketplace8527(Question No. 753)7538527Crosio, Janice, MPMrs Crosio7T4ProspectALP00 asked the Minister for Finance and Administration, upon notice, on 21 June 1999:Does the Minister's Department operate a library or libraries: if so, (a) what sum was spent on purchasing new books for departmental libraries in (i) 1996-97, (ii) 1997-98 and (iii) 1998-99 and (b) will the Minister provide a list of the title and author of each book purchased by departmental libraries in 1998-99.8527Fahey, John, MPMr FaheyHQ5MacarthurLPFinance and Administration10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:Yes:(a)— (i) $29,466 (ii) $25,586 (iii) $13,640(b)—Book Purchases, 1998-99ABS Catalogue Of Publications And Products 1999/ Australian Bureau of StatisticsNew South Wales Year Book 1999/ Australian Bureau of StatisticsQueensland Year Book 1999/ Australian Bureau of StatisticsTasmanian Year Book 2000 (1999??) / Australian Bureau of StatisticsVictorian Year Book 1999/ Australian Bureau of StatisticsYear Book Australia 1999/ Australian Bureau of Statistics1996 census of population and housing : selected social and housing characteristics, Australia./Australian Bureau of Statistics4334.0 : National health survey : Private health insurance, / Australian Bureau of Statistics4402.0 : Child care, Australia// Australian Bureau of Statistics4442.0 : Family characteristics, Australia/ Australian Bureau of Statistics8649.0 : Libraries and museums, Australia / Australian Bureau of StatisticsAdelaide 98 : pathways to knowledge (ALIA 5th biennial conference & exhibition, 25-28 October 1998)Among the barbarians : Australia on the brink of greatness or decline/Sheehan, PaulAnnotated Trade Practices Act. 19th edition,/ Miller, Russell V.Asian financial crisis/David Richardson/ Dept of the Parliamentary LibraryAS3500.4.1-1997 National plumbing and drainage and AS3500.4.2-1997 National plumbing and drainage/ Standards AustraliaAustralia and the knowledge economy : an assessment of enhanced economic growth through science and technology/P.J. Sheehan, Nick Pappas, Galina Tikhomirova and Paul SinclairAustralia at the crossroads : radical free market or a progressive liberalism/Argy, FredAustralia's foreign debt outlook/David Richardson/ Dept of the Parliamentary LibraryAustralia's international investment position/Greg Baker/Dept of the Parliamentary LibraryAustralian master tax guide 1999/Australian Society of Chartered Practising Accountants Australian policy handbook : practical guide to making policy choices/Peter Bridgman & Glyn DavisAustralian universities : courses & campuses in 1999/ Ashenden DeanAustralian women's year book 1997/W. McLennan and Pru GowardBalanced sourcing : cooperation and competition in supplier relationships/Timothy M. LaseterBenchmarking tool kit/Canadian Health Libraries AssociationCannibals with forks/Elkington, JohnChange power : capabilities that drive corporate renewal/Dennis Turner and Michael CrawfordChanging maps : governing in a world of rapid change/Edited by Steven A. Rosell et al.Civilising global capital : new thinking for Australian Labor/Latham, MarkConcise financial reports (AASB 1039)/Australian Accounting Standards BoardContact : a community information handbook, Canberra 1998/Community Information and Referral Service of the ACT Inc.Courts and the public/Parker, Stephen (Griffith University)Death of competition : leadership and strategy in the age of New Yorkbusiness ecosystems/Moore, JamesDemos publications 1999Directory of Australian Associations 1999/ Information AustraliaE-policy : how to develop computer, e-policy, and Internet guidelines to protect your company and its assets/Michael R. OverlyEgo and soul : the modern west in search of meaning/John CarrollEmployment relations : industrial relations and human resource management in Australia/Margaret Gardner and Gill PalmerEstimated unemployment rates by electorate, December Quarter /Dept of the Parliamentary Library 1997/Andrew Kopras and Tony KrygerFluctuations in the value of the Australian Dollar/David Richardson/ Dept of the Parliamentary LibraryFrom anticipation to action : a handbook of strategic prospective/Godet, Michel.Handy GST guide/Australian Society of Chartered Practising AccountantsHow to own your own home sooner: without making extra payments / Gill, Harj.HTML goodies/Joe Burns Human development report 1998/United NationsIdentifiable Commonwealth expenditure on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs/John Gardiner-Garden /Dept of the Parliamentary LibraryInformation ecology : mastering the information and knowledge environment/Thomas H. Davenport with Laurence PrusakInfrastructure regulation and market reform : principles and ACCC practice/Edited by Margaret Arblaster and Mark JamisonInterests in joint ventures (AASB 1006)/Australian Accounting Standards BoardInternational and comparative employment relations : a study of industrialised market economies/Greg Bamber and Russell LansburyInternet commerce : digital models for business/Elaine Lawrence et al.Intranet document management : a guide for webmasters and content providers/Joan BannanIs youth worse off than two decades ago?/Tony Kryger/Dept of the Parliamentary LibraryKnowledge in organizations/Edited by Laurence Prusak/Knowledge management : a new competitive asset/Special Libraries Association.Knowledge management and organizational design/Edited by Paul S. Myers/Knowledge management tools/Edited by Rudy L. RugglesLand acquisition : an examination of the principles of law governing the compulsory acquisition or resumption of land in Australia and New Zealand. . . /Douglas BrownLand law/Peter J. ButtLeading change/Kotter, John P.Measuring program outcomes : a practical approach/United Way of America, Resource Network on Outcome MeasurementMeasuring progress : is life getting better?/Edited by Richard EckersleyMeasuring the performance of human service programs/Lawrence L. Martin, Peter M. KettnerNew ideas, better government/Edited by Patrick Weller and Glyn DavisOccupational health and safety law in Australia/Brooks,AdrianOfficial Australian postcode map {map}/Australian Surveying and Land Information GroupOmbudsman Act 1976 plus amendments/Commonwealth legislationPassenger vehicle yearbook 1998 /Glass's Guide Pty Ltd Pocket positives/Compiled by Maggie Pinkney and Barbara WhiterPosition descriptions in special libraries./Sweeney, Del and Cilla, Karin (Editors)Postcodes in electoral divisions/Andrew Kopras/ Dept of the Parliamentary LibraryPublic management and administration : an introduction/Owen HughesPublic sector management : theory, critique and practice/Edited by David McKevitt and Alan LawtonRefounding democratic public administration : modern paradoxes, postmodern challenges/Gary L. Wamsley and James F. WolfRemuneration of members of the Parliament of Australia/Margaret Healy and Geoff Winter /Dept of the Parliamentary LibraryResearch & experimental development : all sector summary, Australia 1996-97 (8112.0)/Australian Bureau of StatisticsRethinking the future : rethinking business, principles, competition, control & complexity, leadership, markets and./Handy et. al. (Includes a Foreward by Alvin & Heidi Toffler)Shades of green? : proposals to change Commonwealth environmental laws/James Prest and Susan Downing /Dept of the Parliamentary LibraryState under stress : can the hollow state be good government/Foster, Christopher D. & Plowden, Francis J.The Australian directory of academics (2 vol. set)/ Glyn Edwards, Terese Sullivan.The beginner's guide : everything you need to learn and use Microsoft Office 97 /Access PublicationsThe clash of civilizations and the remaking of world order/Samuel P. HuntingtonThe crisis of global capitalism [open society endangered]/George SorosThe genuine progress indicator for Australia : a new index of changes in well-being in Australia/Clive Hamilton and Hugh SaddlerThe Individualized corporation : a fundamentally new approach to management/Sumantra Ghoshal & Christopher A.BartlettThe knowledge economy/Edited by Dale NeefThe Kyoto Protocol : implications for Australia and the world/Clive HamiltonThe rich agenda of public sector change/Richard Norman and Doug Stace, Centre for Corporate Change, AGSM, UNSWThe senior civil service : a comparison of personnel development for top managers in fourteen OECD member countries /European Institute of Public Administration The strategic management of intellectual capitalThe tax reform debate : the economics of the options/Edited by Peter AbelsonThe third way : the renewal of social democracy /Anthony Giddens.Thinking about the unthinkable : Australian vulnerabilities to high-tech risks/Adam CobbSouth Australia & Northern Territory cities and towns/ state street directory/ UBD.United Nations handbook 1997/New Zealand. Ministry of Foreign Affairs.Unleashing the killer app : digital strategies for market dominance/Downes, LarryWealth and freedom : an introduction to political economy/Levine, David P.What should governments do? Auditing the Audit Commission/The Australia InstituteWho's who in business in Australia, a biographical dictionary and register of prominent people within business and industry in Australia. 1999 (2 vols)/ Information AustraliaWhy leaders can't lead : the unconscious conspiracy continues/Bennis, Warren G.Will privatisation and contracting out deliver community services?/Jacqueline Ohlin /Dept of the Parliamentary LibraryWorking for the future : technology and employment in the global knowledge economy/Peter Sheehan and Greg Tegart (editors)Working knowledge : how organizations manage what they know/Thomas H. Davenport and Laurence PrusakA global state? : implications of globalisation and challenges for the public sector in Australia/Edited by R. SmallA not so perfect match : the growing male/female divide 1986-1996/Bob Birrell and Virginia RapsonA Platform for consultation : discussion paper 2 : Ralph report (2 vols)AACR2 : Anglo-American cataloging rules 1998 revision / edited by Michael Gorman and Paul Winkler.Action learning : how the world's top companies are re-creating their leaders and themselves/Dotlich, David and Noel, JamesAlliance advantage : the art of creating value through partnering/Yves L. Doz and Gary HamelAnnotated Insurance Contracts Act/Mann, Peter and Lewis, CandaceAnnual report of registered health benefit organisations 1997-98/Private Health Insurance Administrative Council ASIA yearbook, 1999 : a review of the events of 1998/ Far Eastern Economic ReviewAustralia at work : just managing?/Australian Centre for Industrial Relations Research and TrainingAustralia's security in the 21st century/Edited by J.M.MalikAustralian Legal Words And Phrases, 1900-1998, F-O + supp. A-E,P-Z (2 vols.)/ ButterworthsAustralian Master Tax Guide, 1999/CCH AustraliaAustralian National University undergraduate handbook 1999Best practice in fraud prevention/Australian Institute of CriminologyBetter quality services : a handbook on creating public/private partnerships through market testing and contracting out /The Stationary OfficeBetter quality services : guidance for senior managers/The Stationary OfficeBeyond the new public management : changing ideas and practices in governance/edited by Martin Minogue, Charles Polidano, David Hulme.Budget Papers, Northern Territory 1999/2000Budget Papers, Tasmania (No.1, No.2 (2 vols.) + additional papers)Budget Papers, Tasmania 1999-00 (vols 1-2, Overview, Speech + other documents)Bureaucracy : what government agencies do and why they do it/Wilson, James Q.Civic entrepreneurship/Charles Leadbeater and Sue GossCivic spirit : the big idea for a new political era/Leadbeater, CharlesCommonwealth administrative law/Pearce, D. C.Competency-based recruitment and selection/Wood, Robert and Tim PayneCompetitive advantage through people : unleashing the power of the work force/Jeffrey PfefferCorporate communication : principles, techniques and strategies/Sandra OliverCorruption and the global economy/Edited by Kimberly Ann ElliottCreating a clearway on the new silk road : international business and policy trends in Internet commerce/Statistical Services Section, Trade Development Branch, Dept of Foreign Affairs and TradeCreating a performance culture? : performance-based pay in the Australian Public Service/O'Donnell, MichaelCreating a stress-free office/Welch, Jim and Priest, Simon Creating high-performance government organizations : a practical guide for public managers/Edited by Mark G.PopovichCryptography policy : the guidelines and the issues/OECDDecision making in federal real estate : how the government decides on whether and with whom to lease, build or buy/Eisen, DennisDisciplining governments? : what the multilateral agreement on investment would mean for Australia/P. RanaldDisease costing methodology used in the disease costs and impact study 1993-94/Australian Institute of Health and WelfareDriving fear out of the workplace : creating the high-trust, high-performance organization/Ryan, Kathleen D. and Oestreich, Daniel K.Driving forces on the new silk road : the use of electronic commerce by Australian business/Statistical Services Section, Trade Development Branch, Dept of Foreign Affairs and TradeEast Asia in crisis : from being a miracle to needing one?/Edited by Ross H. McCleod and Ross GarnautEconomic models : what can they really tell us?/I. ManningEnvironmental taxes and green tax reform / OECDEvaluating library staff : a performance appraisal system/Belcastro, PatriciaFinancial management for the public services/Edited by John WilsonFiscal policy in a global economy/M. CarmanFiscal stance and public savings : Australia and the OECD compared/M. CarmanFrom anticipation to action : a handbook of strategic prospective/Godet, MichaelFuture libraries : dreams, madness, & reality/Crawford, W. and Gorman, M.Global public policy : governing without government?/Reinicke, Wolfgang/Global warning! : debating international developments in new Norway :public financial management/Edited by Olov Olson, James Guthrie and Christopher HumphreyGovernment in the digital age/Gosling, PaulGovernment outsourcing : what has been learnt?/CTC Consultants Pty LtdGraduate starting salaries 1997/Bruce GuthrieGreening the millennium? : the new politics of the environment/Edited by Michael JacobsHandbook Of It Auditing/Murphy, Michael & Xenia Ley Parker Harvard Business Review on knowledge management : Articles reprinted from Harvard business reviewHarvard Business Review on measuring corporate performance Articles reprinted from Harvard business reviewHealth system costs of diseases and injury in Australia1993-94/Australian Institute of Health and WelfareHolistic government/Perri 6, Director of Policy and Research / Paper (Demos Organization)How organisations measure success : the use of performance indicators in government/Neil Carter, Rudolf Klein and Patricia DayHuman equation : building profits by putting people first/Jeffrey PfefferIdon scenario thinking : how to navigate the uncertainties of unknown futures/ Miriam Galt [et al]In search of results : performance management practices/Geert BouckaertIndigenising Australia : the 1996 census and indigenous population growth/Greg Gardiner & Helen Curzon-SiggersInformation rules : a strategic guide to the network economy/Carl Shapiro and Hal R. VarianInformation sheets on key constitutional issues (Various Key issue sheets)/The Constitutional Centenary Foundation/Is national competition policy on the right track? : a case study of access to rail infrastructure/R. SmallKnowledge and special libraries/Edited by James M. Matarazzo and Suzanne D. ConnollyKnowledge assets : securing competitive advantage in the information economy/Boisot, MaxKnowledge management : a new competitive asset/1997 State-of-the-Art Institute/ Special Libraries AssociationLearning to manage/Tamkin, P. and Barber, L.Library and information work and salary survey 1997 salaries and responsibilities of librarians and informationMaintaining the strategic edge: the defence of Australia in 2015 (set of conference papers)/ Strategic and Defence Studies Centre, Australian National University,Making common sense common practice : achieving high performance by using what you already know/V. R. Buzotta et al.Making of economic policy : a transaction-cost politics perspective/Dixit, Avinash K.Managing sensitive projects : a lateral approach/Olivier D'Herbemont and Bruno Cesar Managing with power : politics and influence in organizations/Jeffrey PfefferMeasuring outcome in the public sector/Edited by Peter SmithNew directions for organization theory : problems and prospects/Jeffrey PfefferOpen Australia/Lindsay TannerPerformance measurement and evaluation/Edited by Jacky Holloway, Jenny Lewis & Geoff MalloryPrivatization at the end of the century/H. Giersch (editor)Profiting from diversity/Bentley, Trevor and Clayton, SusanPublic expenditure management handbook/World Bank/Public sector management in Australia : new challenges, new directions/Ciaran O'Faircheallaigh, John Wanna and Patrick WellerPutting emotional intelligence to work : successful leadership is more than IQ/Ryback, David (3 copies)Reforming the public sector : problems and solutions/Edited by Colin Clarke and David CorbettResults-based leadership : how leaders build the business and improve the bottom line/Dave Ulrich, Jack Zenger and Norm SmallwoodRise of the knowledge worker/Edited by James W. CortadaShrinking the state : globalization and public administration "reform"/John Shields and B.Mitchell EvansSmart choices : a practical guide to making better decisions/John S. Hammond, Ralph L. Keeney and Howard RaiffaStatesman's Yearbook, 1998-99Strategic development : methods and models/Edited by Robert G. Dyson and Frances A. O'BrienSuccess in sight : visioning/Andrew Kakabadse, Frederic Nortier and Nello-Bernard AbramoviciSuppliers to Australian libraries (STAL)/Edited by Judith Bundy/Taking stock : assessing public sector reforms/Edited by B.Guy Peters and Donald J. SavoieTax expenditures statement, 1996-97: Treasury, 1997Tax reform : not a new tax a new tax system : the Howard Government's plan for a new tax system (main document+overview) /Australian Liberal Party (2 copies)Teams at the top : unleashing the potential of both teams and individual leaders/Jon R. KatzenbachThe Asia-Australia survey 1997-98 The Asian financial crisis : causes, cures, and systemic implications/Morris GoldsteinThe civil service in an era of change/Edited by Peter BarberisThe competitive advantage of nations : with a new introduction/Michael E. PorterThe contracting organization : a strategic guide to outsourcing/Domberger, SimonThe distance education directory 1999/ compiled by the Teaching and Learning Centre, University of New England.The economic impact of knowledge/Edited by Dale Neef, G. Anthony Siesfeld and Jacquelyn Cefola (2 copies)The European municipal directory (EMD) 1998/ European Directories, LtdThe future for public services 2008/ Public Management Foundation.The government financial reporting entity/Public Sector Committee. International Federation of AccountantsThe guru guide : the best ideas of the top management thinkers/Joseph H. Boyett and Jimmie T. BoyettThe politics of international environmental management/Edited by Arild UnderdalThe Politics of management knowledge/Edited by Stewart Clegg and Gill PalmerThe Power of two : how companies of all sizes can build alliance networks that generate business opportunities/John K. Conlon and Melissa GiovagnoliThe real deal : what young people really think about government, politics and social exclusion / written by Tom Bentley and Kate Oakley with Sian Gibson and Kylie Kilgour.The state of the states 1998 (State of Australia series)/C. SheilThe three Rs of performance : core concepts for planning, measurement, and management/Steve MontagueThe virtual workplace/Edited by Magid Igbaria and Margaret TanTrust and contracts : relationships in local government, health and public services/Edited by Andrew Coulson (School of Public Policy, University of Birmingham)Ultimate rewards : what really motivates people to achieve/Edited by Steven KerrUSMARC format for bibliographic data : including Guidelines for content designation (1997 cumulation)Welfare services expenditure bulletin no.4, October 1998 Australian Institute of Health and Welfare Wellsprings of knowledge : building and sustaining the sources of information/Dorothy LeonardWhere credit is due : a guide to proper citing of sources, print and nonprint/Nancy E. Shields and Mary E. UhleWhitaker's almanack, 1998/ The Stationary OfficeWho's who in Australia 1999/ Information AustraliaWick's subject index to Commonwealth legislation 1998-99/ Wicks, B.M.Working with emotional intelligence/Daniel GolemanWorkplaces of the future/Edited by Paul Thompson and Chris WarhurstXYZ model financial accounts 1998/ prepared by Moore Stephens Hughes Fincher, Chartered Accountants.Yearbook of international co-operation on environment and development 1998/99/Edited by Helge Ole Bergesen, Georg Parmann and Oystein B. Thommessen8532(Question No. 758)7588532Crosio, Janice, MPMrs Crosio7T4ProspectALP00 asked the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, upon notice, on 21 June 1999:Does the Minister's Department operate a library or libraries; if so, (a) what sum was spent on purchasing new books for departmental libraries in (i) 1996-97, (ii) 1997-98 and (iii) 1998-99 and (b) will the Minister provide a list of the title and author of each book purchased by departmental libraries in 1998-99.8532Ruddock, Philip, MPMr Ruddock0J4BerowraLPImmigration and Multicultural Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:Yes.(a) (i) $15,069.03(a) (ii) $9,907.58(a) (iii) $30,011.33(b) Lists of the title and author of each book purchased by my Department's libraries in 1998-99 are at Attachments 1 and 2 below.ATTACHMENT 1New books purchased by the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs Departmental library for 1998-99In title/author order."An opportunity to change the culture" : multiculturalism, immigration and Australian history in the argument aboutpolitical correctness.Author(s):1. Kalantzis, Mary, 1949-2. Cope, Bill, 1957-"How to guide for managers"Author(s):1. Payne, John.10 minute guide to Lotus Notes 4.6.Author(s):1. Burke, Dorothy.2. Calabria, Jane.5-phase project management : a practical planning & implementation guide.Author(s):1. Weiss, Joseph W.2. Wysocki, Robert K.79 80 things you must do to be a great boss : how to focus on the fundamentals of managing people properly.Author(s):1. Freemantle, David.The A—Z of interview questions : what to ask, why and what to look for in candidate responses.Author(s):1. Centre for Professional Development (Aust.)Aboriginal self-determination in Australia.Author(s):1. Fletcher, Christine, 1944-The Africans in Australia : expectations and shattered dreams.Author(s):1. Udo-Ekpo, Lawrence T.Against the odds : young people and work.Author(s):1. Bessant, Judith.2. Cook, Sandy.The age of mass migration : causes and economic impact.Author(s):1. Hatton, T. J.2. Williamson, Jeffrey G., 1935-America and Americans in Australia.Author(s):1. Mosler, David, 1941-2. Catley, RobertANU handbook : 1999. Author(s):1. Australian National UniversityApplying for jobs and winning at interviews : everything you need to know about the written and the oral stages of job finding.Author(s):1. Stern, George, 1930-The Arab migrants in Australia.Author(s):1. Morsy, Nagat Fakhry.2. Morsy, Mohamed Anice.3. Morsy, Nagat Fakhry. al-Muh*ajirun al-*Arab f*i Ustur*al iy*a.The Asianisation of Australia? : some facts about the myths.Author(s):1. Jayasuriya, D. L. (Dharmasoka Laksiri), 1931-2. Pookong, Kee.Asleep at the wheel : Australia on the superhighway.Author(s):1. Nieuwenhuizen, John.Asylum seekers in Australia.Author(s):1. Lester, Eve.Australia at work : just managing?.Author(s):1. Australian Centre for Industrial Relations Research and Training.Australia in Profile. Australia's contracting public services : critical views ofcontracting-out by the public sector.Author(s):1. Paddon, Michael,2. Thanki, R¢isn.Australia's health 1998 : the sixth biennial health report of theAustralian Institute of Health and Welfare.Author(s):1. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare.Australia's response to refugees : addresses . . . [and] notes fromworkshop discussion groups.Author(s):1. Refugee Council of Western Australia. Public Forum (1997 : Perth, W.A.)Australian Aboriginal words and place names and their meanings.Author(s): 1. Endacott, Sydney J. (Sydney John) comp.The Australian Internet book.Author(s):1. Ebbs, Geoff.2. Rodgers, Matt.3. Horey, Jeremy, 1955-Australian politics in the global era.Author(s):1. Capling, M. Ann (Margaret Ann), 1959-2. Crozier, Michael, 1956-3. Considine, Mark, 1953-Beazley : a biography.Author(s):1. FitzSimons, Peter.Before and after retirement.Author(s):1. Cerexhe, Peter.Better business writing : techniques for improving correspondenceAuthor(s):Brock, Susan L.Beyond customer service, revised.Author(s):1. Gerson, Richard F. Blackstone's international human rights documents.Author(s):1. Ghandhi, P. R.Bonegilla reception and training centre : 1947-1971Author(s):1. Sluga, Glenda, 1962-Bridging the gap : a teacher's guide to the countries and customs ofnon-English speaking students.Author(s):1. Duke, Sheila, 1942-Build a great team!Author(s):1. Jay, Ros.Budget Papers 1998-99 (set)Author(s):1. Australia.The Cambridge dictionary of Australian places.Author(s):1. Appleton, Richard, 1932-2. Appleton, Barbara, 1941-Canada's refugee status determination system.Author(s): 1. Young, Margaret.Caring for mental health in a multicultural society : a strategy forthe mental health care of people from culturally andlinguistically diverse backgrounds.Author(s):1. NSW Health.The challenge of diversity : integration and pluralism in societiesof immigration.Author(s):1. Baubock, Rainer.2. Heller, Agnes3. Zolberg, Aristide R.Changing Australia : social, cultural and economic trends shapingthe nation.Author(s):1. Andrews, Kevin James.2. Curtis, Michelle.The Charter of public service for culturally diverse society.Author(s):1. Cope, Bill, 1957-2. Kalantzis, Mary, 1949-3. National Languages and Literacy Institute of Australia. Centre for Workplace Communication and cultureCitizens, strangers, and in-betweens : essays on immigration andCitizenship.Author(s):1. Schuck, Peter H.Citizenship and indigenous Australians : changing conceptions andpossibilities.Author(s):1. Peterson, Nicolas, 1941-2. Sanders, Will.Citizenship, nationality, and ethnicity : reconciling competingidentities.Author(s):1. Oommen, T. K., 1937-Citypack Beijing.Author(s):1. Sheehan, Sean, 1951-Citypack Shanghai. Author(s):1. Knowles, Christopher.Combatting discrimination against migrant workers : internationalstandards, national legislation and voluntary measures—the needfor a multi-pronged strategy.Author(s):1. De Beijl, Roger Zegers.Coming together or pulling apart? : the European Union's strugglewith immigration and asylum.Author(s):1. Papademetriou, Demetrios G. Common law and colonised peoples : studies in Trinidad and WesternAustralia.Author(s):1. Purdy, Jeannine M.Common mistakes in english with exercises.Author(s):1. Fitikides, T. J.Communicate clearly.Author(s):1. Heller, Robert, 1932-Contemporary Australian women 1996/97.Author(s):1. Brasch, Nicolas, 1961-Contemporary Australians 1995-96.Convict fleet to dragon boat.Author(s):1. National Archives of Australia.Cosmopolitan Sydney : explore the world in one city.Author(s):1. Collins, Jock, 1949-2. Castillo, Antonio, 1961-Cross cultural communication problems in Aboriginal Australia.Author(s):1. Walsh, Michael, 1948-2. Australian National University. North australia Research Unit.Crossing cultural frontiers : the communication industries in theAsia Pacific Region : joint conference, University of Canberraand Thammasat University Thailand, Hyatt Hotel, Canberra, Australia, 28-29 April 1997.Author(s):1. James, Helen.2. Mah_awitthay_alai Thammas_at.Cultural tourism in Australia : characteristics and motivations.Author(s):1. Foo, Lee Mei.2. Rossetto, Allison. Cultural understandings as the eighth key competency.Author(s):1. Cope, Bill, 1957-Culture and imperialism.Author(s):1. Said, Edward W. (Edward William)The dark daughter : a Mackay story.Author(s):1. Smith, Jan (Jan William George Warren), 1935-Database design for mere mortals : a hand-on guide to relationalDatabase design.Author(s)Hernandez, Michael J. (Michael James), 1955-Deception in selection.Author(s):1. Walley, Liz.2. Smith, Mike (J. Mike)Demographic techniques.Author(s):1. Pollard, A. H. (Alfred Hurlstone), 1916-2. Yusuf, Farhat.3. Pollard, G. N.The Demography of forced migration : summary of a workshop.Author(s):1. Keely, Charles B.2. Haaga, John, 1953-3. Reed, Holly.Destiny will out.Author(s):1. Arasa.Dictionary of world biography.Author(s):1. Jones, Barry, 1932-Dreams in the shadows : Vietnamese-Australian lives in transition.Author(s): 1. Thomas, Mandy.East and west : the last governor of Hong Kong on power, freedom andthe future.Author(s):1. Patten, Chris, 1944-Easy web pages : see it done, do it yourself.Author(s):1. Snell, Ned.Effective meeting skills.Author(s):1. Haynes, Marion E.Emigration and the labouring poor : Australian recruitment inBritain and Ireland, 1831-60.Author(s):1. Haines, Robin.The employment relationship in Australia.Author(s):1. Keenoy, Tom.2. Kelly, Diana.The europeans in Australia : a history.Author(s)1. Atkinson, AlanEvaluation for the 21st century : a handbook.Author(s):1. Chelimsky, Eleanor.2. Shadish, William R.Factors influencing youth unemployment in australia 1980-1994.Author(s):1. Marks, Gary N.2. Fleming, Nicole.3. Australian Council for Educational Ressearch.Fairbridge : Empire and child migration.Author(s):1. Sherington, Geoffrey.2. Jeffrey, Chris.Fairness.Author(s):1. Kenyon, Peter.2. Walsh, John. Father time.Author(s):1. Petre, Daniel.The fifth discipline : the art and practice of the learningorganization. Author(s):1. Senge, Peter M.Firing up commitment during organizational change : a handbook formanagers.Author(s):1. Pritchett, Price.The first five minutes : how to make a great first impression in anybusiness situation.Author(s):1. Mitchell, Mary, 1949-2. Corr, John, 1934-Flanders in Australia : a personal history of wool and war.Author(s):1. Dwyer, Jacqueline.Fodor's 99 Canada.Author(s):1. Cabasin, Linda.Fodor's 99 London: the complete guide with great walking tours, thebest dining, shopping and country trips.Author(s):1. Sekules, Kate.2. Fisher, Robert I. C.Fodor's 99 Los Angeles.Author(s):1. McConnell, Amy.Fodor's China.Author(s):1. Itallie, Nancy van.Fodor's exploring EgyptAuthor(s):1. Sattin, Anthony.2. Franquet, Sylvie. Fodor's India.Author(s):1. Mills, Anastasia Redmond.Fodor's Japan.Author(s):1. Wolf, Stephen.Fodor's South Africa.Fodor's Turkey.Fodor's Vietnam: the complete guide with the cities, villages,mountains and coast from North to South.Author(s): 1. Lesser, Natasha.Foreign dialogues : memories, translations, conversations.Author(s):1. Zournazi, Mary.Fortune cookies.Author(s):1. Harris, Christine, 1955-Free and low-cost Sydney.Author(s):1. Crocker, Jenny, 1962-2. Collingwood, Jules.From generation to generation : the health and well-being ofchildren in immigrant families.Author(s):1. Hernandez, Donald J.,2. Charney, Evan.From many places : the history and cultural traditions of South Australia.Author(s):1. Migration Museum (S.A).Future tense : Australia beyond election 1998.Author(s):1. Kelly, Paul, 1947-2. Waldren, Murray.Genetics resource book : 1998/99 directory of genetic support groupsservices and information for Australia and New Zealand. The Geography of memory : stories and poetry by new Australianwriters.Author(s):1. Gamba, Barry.2. McGill, Edna.3. Hales, Tracey.Gifts differing : understanding personality type.Author(s):1. Myers, Isabel Briggs.2. Myers, Peter B.Global meltdown : immigration, multiculturalism, and nationalbreakdown in the New World disorder.Author(s):1. Smith, Joseph Wayne.2. Lyons, Graham, 1936-3. Moore, Evonne. Globalisation and regional communities : geoeconomic, socioculturaland security implications for Australia.Author(s):1. McMillen, Donald H. (Donald Hugh), 1944-Globalization and human resource management : nonimmigrant visastrategies and behavior of U.S. firms.Author(s):1. Keely, Charles B.Government policies and ethnic relations in Asia and the Pacific.Author(s):1. Brown, Michael E. (Michael Edward), 1954-2. Ganguly, Sumit.The Great shame : a story of the Irish in the Old World and the New.Author(s):1. Keneally, Thomas, 1935-The Great white flood : racism in Australia : critically appraisedfrom an Aboriginal historico-theological viewpoint.Author(s):1. Pattel-Gray, Anne.Gregory's Brisbane street directory.Author(s):1. Gregory's Publishing Co. Gregory's Canberra street directory.Author(s):1. Gregory's Publishing Co.Gregory's street directory of Sydney and suburbs, and metropolitanroad guide.Author(s):1. Gregory's Guides and Maps, Pty. Ltd.2. Barrass, Clive.Hear our voices : trauma, birthing and mental health among Cambodianwomen.Author(s):1. Fitzgerald, Maureen H. (Maureen Helen)2. Transcultural Mental Health Centre.A Heart in two places : un cuore diviso : Italian settlement inProserpine 1908-1988.Author(s):1. Proserpine Italian Research Committee (Qld) The Holy land called : the story of the Temple Society.Author(s):1. Sauer, Paul, Dr.2. Temple Society Australia.Hot topics: burning legal issues in plain language : discrimination.Author(s):1. Legal Information Access Centre.Hot topics: burning legal issues in plain language : human rights.Author(s):1. Legal Information Access Centre.Hot topics : burning legal issues in plain language : immigration law.Author(s):1. Legal Information Access Centre.House of Representatives practice.Author(s):1. Pettifer, J.A. (John athol), 1919-2. Australia. Parliament. House of Representatives.Housing needs of recent humanitarian settlers in Victoria.Author(s):1. Campbell, Susan. How to buy a computer.Author(s):1. Pospisil, John.How to communicate effectively and build relationships.Author(s)1. Lexander, Ren.How to connect to the Internet.Author(s):1. Bowditch, Peter.How to delegate.Author(s):1. Heller, Robert, 1932-How to get more from your computer.Author(s):1. Pospisil, John.How to give a damn good speech.Author(s):1. Theibert, Philip R.Human Rights & Equal Opportunity Commission Annual Report 97/98.Huddled masses and uncertain shores : insights into irregularmigration. Author(s):1. Ghosh, Bimal.Human resource development.Author(s):1. De Simone, Randay.Human rights : Australia in an international context.Author(s):1. Bailey, P. H. (Peter Hamilton), 1927-Human rights in Australian law : principles, practice and potential.Author(s):1. Kinley, David, 1961-I still call Australia home : an exploration of issues relating tosettlement and racism.Author(s):1. Babacan, Hurriyet. ILO thesaurus : labour, employment and training terminology =Thesaurus BIT : terminologie du travil, de l_emploi et de laformation = Tesauro OIT = terminologa del trabajo, el empleo yla formaci¢n = IAA thesaurus : terminologie der arbeit,beschftigung und ausbildung.Author(s):1. International Labour Office.2. International Labour Office. Central Library and Documentation Branch.Immigrants & refugees : create your new life in America.Author(s):1. Mikatavage, Raimonda, 1962-Immigrants, integration and cities : exploring the links.Author(s):1. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.Immigration.Author(s):1. Jupp, James, 1932-Immigration & Australian cities.Author(s):1. Burnley, I. H. (Ian Harry), 1939-2. Murphy, Peter, 1949-3. Fagan, Robert H. (Robert Harold), 1947-Immigration : debating the issues.Author(s): 1. Capaldi, Nicholas.Immigration and Australia : myths and realities.Author(s):1. Castles, Stephen, 1944-Immigration and refugee law in Australia.Author(s):1. Crock, Mary E.The immigration debate : studies on the economic, demographic, and fiscal effects of immigration.Author(s):1. Smith, James P. (James Patrick), 1943-2. Edmonston, Barry. Immigration reform in Australia : Coalition Government proposals andoutcomes since March 1996.Author(s):1. Birrell, Robert.In their own image : Greek Australians.Author(s):1. Alexakis, Effy.Indigenous peoples' rights in Australia, Canada and New Zealand.Author(s):1. Cuneen, Chris.Industrial relations : a contemporary analysis.Author(s):1. Deery, S. (Stephen)2. Plowman, D. H. (David H.)3. Walsh, Janet.Intercultural communication : a reader.Author(s):1. Samovar, Larry A.2. Porter, Richard E.International backpackers and Australian tourism regions.Author(s):1. Buchanan, Ian.International migration statistics : guidelines for improving datacollection systems.Author(s):1. Bilsborrow, Richard E.2. International Labour Office.International migration statistics : on diskette.International students : reasons for choice of an overseas studydestination.Author(s): 1. Lawley, Meredith A.2. Blight, Denis.International trade and migration in the APEC region.Author(s):1. Lloyd, P. J. (Peter John)2. Williams, Lynne S. Internet world guide to maintaining and updating dynamic web sites.Author(s):1. Novak, Jeannie, 1966-2. Markiewicz, Peter George, 1956-Interpersonal communication : relating to others.Author(s):1. Beebe, Steven A., 1950-2. Beebe, Susan J.3. Redmond, Mark V., 1949-Introduction to type : a description of the theory and application.Author(s):1. Myers, Isabel. Briggs.Introduction to type : a guide to understanding your results on theMyers-Briggs Type Indicator.Author(s):1. Myers, Isabel Briggs.2. Kirby, Linda K.3. Myers, Katharine D.The Irish imprint in Australia.Author(s):1. Ronayne, Jarlath, 1938-2. Pascoe, Robert.3. Reynolds, Albert.Issues in immigrant settlement in Australia.Author(s):1. Burnett, Linda.2. National Centre for English Language Teaching and Research (Australia).Job applications : the winning edge.Author(s):1. Shmerling, Leah.Kosovo : a short history.Author(s):1. Malcolm, Noel.Latin America 1998.Author(s):1. Buckman, Robert T. Legislating liberty : a bill of rights for Australia? : a provocative and timely proposal to balance the public good withindividual freedom.Author(s):1. Brennan, Frank, 1954-The Macquarie concise dictionary.Author(s):1. Delbridge, Arthur, 1921-2. Bernard, John, 1926-Making humor work : take your job seriously and yourself lightly.Author(s):1. Paulson, Terry L.Making multicultural Australia : a multimedia documentary.Author(s):1. Office of the Board of Studies NSWMaking presentations.Author(s):1. Hindle, Tim.Making the invisible visible : a multicultural planning history.Author(s):1. Sandercock, Leonie, 1949-Maltese in Australia : wanderings through the Maltese-Australian story from convict times to the present.Author(s):1. York, Barry, 1951-Maltese migration : an annotated guide to research sources.Author(s):1. York, Barry, 1951-2. Victoria University of Technology.Manage your time.Author(s):1. Hindle, Tim.Management—how to do it.Author(s):1. Payne, John, 1942-2. Payne, Shirley. Managing change.Author(s):1. Heller, Robert, 1932-Managing cultural differences.Author(s):1. Harris, Philip R. (Philip Robert), 1926-2. Moran, Robert T., 1938- Managing information services : an integrated approach.Author(s):1. Bryson, Jo, 1950-Managing meetings.Author(s):1. Hindle, Tim.Managing on the internet.Author(s):1. Baskin, Colin.2. Adam, Stewart.Managing quality customer service.Author(s):1. Martin, William B.Meeting the communication demands of the restructured workplace : applying the national framework of english language, literacy and numeracy competence.Author(s):1. Cope, Bill, 1957-Microsoft Excel 97 step by step, advanced topics.Author(s):1. Jacobson, Reed.Microsoft Word 97 advanced topics step by step.Author(s):1. Borland, Russell, 1946-Migrant : the blessing ..and misfortune ..of loving two countries! :the modern-day odyssey of the diaspora Greeks.Author(s):1. Kouris, Alfred.2. Petre, Ben, 1967- Migrants : partners in development co-operation.Author(s):1. Libercier, Marie-H, lne.2. Schneider, Hartmut.Migration : the biology of life on the move.Author(s):1. Dingle, Hugh, 1946-Migration act 1958 + amendments.Author(s):1. Australia.Migration to Australia with particular reference to Asian migration.Author(s):1. Tisdell, C. A. (Clement Allan), 1939-Migration, population ageing and social expenditure in Australia. Author(s):1. Alvarado, Jose.2. Creedy, John, 1949-3. Gundert, Angela.Mind your manners : culture clash in the European single market.Author(s):1. Mole, John, 1945-Mind your manners : managing business cultures in Europe.Author(s):1. Mole, John, 1945-More people imperative : immigration to Australia, 1901-39.Author(s):1. Langfield, Michele, 1946-Mosaic : a chronicle of five generations.Author(s):1. Armstrong, Diane, 1939-Motivating at work : empowering employees to give their best.Author(s):1. Dell, Twyla.2. Dell, Twyla. Honest day's work.Multicultural & anti-racism education : elements of an inclusive approach.1. Kalantzis, Mary, 1949-2. Cope, Bill, 1957-3. Howard, Jenny.Multicultural aged care services directory.1. Milicevic, Anita.2. Ethnic Communities' Council of Victoria Victoria. Dept. of Human Services.Multicultural queer : Australian narratives.Author(s):1. Sullivan, Gerard.2. Jackson, Peter A.Multicultural states : rethinking difference and identity.Author(s):1. Bennett, David, 1949-Multiculturalism in transit : a German-American exchange.Author(s):1. Milich, Klaus J.2. Peck, Jeffrey M., 1950-Multiculturalism, social justice and active citizenship. Author(s):1. Theophanous, Andrew C.Multimedia.Author(s):1. Fawcett, Neil.My land my people : reminiscences of an Australian Indian about hisfamily history.Author(s):1. Krishnamurthy, Boyapati.A nation of immigrants : women, workers, and communities in Canadianhistory, 1840s-1960s.Author(s):1. Iacovetta, Franca, 1957-2. Draper, Paula.3. Ventresca, Robert.New diasporas : the mass exodus, dispersal and regrouping of migrantcommunities.Author(s):1. Van Hear, Nicholas. New life new language : the history of the Adult Migrant English Program.Author(s):1. Martin, Shirley.New opportunities in business migration : papers delivered at theBLEC seminar in May 1998.Author(s):1. Business Law Education Centre (Australia).The new politics of the Right : neo-Populist parties and movements in established democracies.Author(s):1. Betz, Hans-Georg, 1956-2. Immerfall, Stefan.A not so perfect match : the growing male/female divide 1986-1996.Author(s):1. Birrell, Bob.2. Rapson, Virginia.The Olympic effect : a report on the potential tourism impacts of the Sydney 2000 Games.Author(s):1. Tourism Forecasting Council.2. KPMG Management Consulting.3. Griffith University. Centre for Tourism and Hotel Management Research. One destiny! : the federation story, how Australia became a nation.Author(s):1. Russell, Roslyn.2. Chubb, Philip.Orientalism.Author(s):1. Said, Edward W. (Edward William).The passeggiata of exile : the Italian story in Australia.Author(s):1. Pascoe, Robert.2. Ronayne, Jarlath, 1938-The people of New South Wales : statistics from the 1996 census.Author(s):1. Ethnic Affairs Commission of New South Wales.2. Census Applications (Firm). The Penguin dictionary of surnames.Author(s):1. Cottle, Basil.Performance appraisal : making it work.Author(s):1. Cousens, Liz, 1946-1. Cousens, Ted, 1958-Piedmont down under : story of Piedmontese migration to Australia.Author(s):1. Jannon, Giorgio, 1957-2. Associazione Piemomtesi VictoriaThe phases of the political participation of ethnic minorities inAustralian politics.Author(s):1. Zappala, Gianni.Please explain!Author(s):1. Goot, Murray.Plus-sum gain : business investment in the socio-economic inclusionof Europe's immigrant and ethnic minority communities.Author(s):1. Lindburg, Lori.2. Niessen, Jan.Policing Australia's offshore zones : problems and prospects.Author(s): 1. Sherwood, R. J. (Richard John), 1952-2. Mackinnon, Doug.The politics of migration.Author(s):1. Layton-Henry, Zig.2. Cohen, Robin, 1944-Proceedings of the public forum : "asylum seekers : welcome ofnot?".Author(s):1. Refugee Council of Western Australia. Public Forum (1998 : Perth, W. A.)The prosecution of Peter Pumpkin-Eater.Author(s):1. Hunt, Peter (Peter John).Public sector management in Australia : new challenges, newdirections.Author(s):1. O'Faircheallaigh, Ciaran.2. Wanna, John.3. Weller, Patrick, 1944-Put it in writing " 77 letters that get results.Author(s):1. White, Margaret.Race & racism in Australia.Author(s):1. Hollinsworth, D. (David)Race daze : Australia in identity crisis.Author(s):1. Stratton, Jon.Race for business guidelines : preventing racial discrimination in the workplace : advice for employers.Author(s):1. Australia. Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission.2. Australia. Race Discrimination Commissioner.3. Morgan & Banks Ltd.The racism debate.Author(s):1. Healey, Kaye.Rebuilding shattered lives.Author(s):1. Kaplan, Ida.2. Victorian Foundation for Survivors of Torture.Reconceiving international refugee law. Author(s):1. Hathaway, James C.Reference sources on the Internet : off the shelf and onto the Web.Author(s):1. Daz, Karen R.Refugee health & general practice.Author(s):1. Victorian Foundation for Survivors of Torture.2. Western Melbourne Division of General Practice. Religion in Australian culture : an anthropological view.Author(s):1. Goosen, Gideon C.Report on family reunification : overview of policies and practices in IGCParticipating states.Author(s):1. Secretariat of the Inter-governmental Consultations on Asylum, Refugee and Migration Policies in Europe, North America and Australia.Report on temporary protection in States in Europe, North Americaand Australia.Author(s):1. Secretariat of the Inter-governmental Consultations on Asylum, Refugee and Migration Policies in Europe, North America and Australia.Rethinking human rights.Author(s):1. Galligan, Brian, 1945-2. Sampford, C. J. G. (Charles J. G.)Riding the waves of culture : understanding cultural diversity inglobal business.Author(s):1. Trompenaars, Alfons.2. Hampden-Turner, Charles.A Risk index approach to unemployment : an application using thesurvey fo employment and unemployment patterns.1. Le, Anh T.2. Miller, Paul W.Russia : a country study.Author(s):1. Curtis, Glenn E. (Glenn Eldon), 1946-2. Library of Congress. Federal Research Division.Sams teach yourself Internet Explorer 4.0 in 10 minutes. Author(s):1. Lowery, Joseph.Sams teach yourself Office 97 in 10 minutes.Author(s):1. Perry, Greg M.2. Warner, Nancy Price. Sanctuary : an option for East Timorese?Author(s):1. Hamilton, Andrew, S.J.2. Australian Catholic Social Justice Council.School achievement and initial education and labour market outcomes.Author(s):1. Lamb, Stephen.School students and part-time work.Author(s):1. Robinson, Lyn.The Silent debate : Asian immigration and racism in Canada.Author(s):1. McGee, T. G. (Terence Gary)2. Laquian, Aprodicio A., 1935-3. Laquian, Eleanor R., 1939-Snowy : the making of modern Australia.Author(s):1. Collis, Brad, 1955-Sociology Australia.Author(s):1. Bessant, Judith.2. Watts, Rob.South Africa : a country study.Author(s):1. Byrnes, Rita M., 1943-Spoken Vietnamese for beginners.Author(s):1. Nguy_n Long.2. Clark, Marybeth.3. Bch Thu_n.State of the world 1998 : a Worldwatch Institute report on progresstowards a sustainable society.Author(s):1. Brown, Lester R. (Lester Russell), 1934-Stolen lives : trading women into sex and slavery.Author(s):1. Altink, Sietske. Stop female genital mutilation : women speak : facts and actions. Author(s):1. Hosken, Fran P., 1919-Successful e-commerce : 10 case studies to show small business howto profit form [sic] online commerce.Author(s):1. Phillips, Marc.Suppliers to Australian libraries (STAL).Author(s):1. Bundy, Judith.The Sustainable corporation : organisational renewal in Australia.Author(s):1. Dunphy, Dexter C. (Dexter Colboyd), 1934-2. Griffiths, Andrew, 1969-Teach yourself Lotus Notes 4.6 in 24 hours.Author(s):1. Richards, Cate.Thesaurus construction and use : a practical manual.Author(s):1. Aitchison, Jean, 1938-2. Gilchrist, Alan.3. Bawden, David.Territorial Limits : Norfolk Island's Immigration Act & Human Rights.This tired brown land.Author(s):1. O'Connor, Mark.Those who've come across the seas : detention of unauthorisedarrivals.Author(s):1. Australia. Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission.Tourism : a ticket to the 21st century : national action plan for acompetitive Australia.Author(s):1. Australia. Office of National Tourism.Transplanting the agora : Hellenic settlement in Australia.Author(s):1. Dimitreas, Yiannis E. A Twist of fate, an experience of war, pain, torture and survival :refugees in Australia.Author(s):1. Migration Museum. Two nations : the causes and effects of the rise of the One NationParty in Australia.Author(s):1. Abbott, Tony, 1958-2. Manne, Robert.Understanding cultures through their key words : English, Russian,Polish, German, and Japanese.Author(s):1. Wierzbicka, Anna.United we stand, divided we fall.Author(s):1. Samways, Louise, 1951-University of Canberra : handbook—1999.Author(s):1. University of Canberra.The unmaking of Americans : how multiculturalism has undermined theassimilation ethic.Author(s):1. Miller, John J., 1970-Unwelcome strangers : American identity and the turn againstImmigration.Author(s):1. Reimers, David M.Warmth of the welcome : the social causes of economic success forimmigrants in different nations and cities.Author(s):1. Reitz, Jeffrey G.The warrior's honor : ethnic war and the modern conscience.Author(s):1. Ignatieff, Michael, 1947-The Way ahead : prominent Australians talk about the future.Author(s):1. Byrski, Liz.The way we live now : the controversies of the nineties.Author(s):1. Manne, Robert.Well-being among young Australians : effects of work and home lifefor four youth in transition cohorts.Author(s): 1. Fleming, Nicole.2. Marks, Gary N.What happened to Australian multiculturalism in 1996, and what weshould do next : the politics of diversity and racism before andafter the 1996 federal election.Author(s):1. Cope, Bill, 1957-2. Kalantzis, Mary, 1949-When cultures collide : managing successfully across cultures.Author(s):1. Lewis, Richard D.When only the best will do : a study of lesbian and gay immigration.Author(s):1. De Waal, Peter, 1938-2. GLITF (NSW)Where women stand : an international report on the status of womenin over 140 countries, 1997-1998.Author(s):1. Neft, Naomi.2. Levine, Ann D.White nation : fantasies of white supremacy in a multiculturalsociety.Author(s):1. Hage, Ghassan.Who are the Macedonians?Author(s):1. Poulton, Hugh.Women's ways of knowing : the development of self, voice, and mind.Author(s):1. Belenky, Mary Field. Working together : a personality-centered approach to management.Author(s):1. Isachsen, Olaf.2. Berens, Linda V.WOW : women on the web : a guide to gender-related resoures on theinternet.Author(s):1. Fallon, Helen.Youth earnings in Australia 1980-1994 : a comparison of three youth Cohorts.Author(s):1. Marks, Gary N.2. Fleming, Nicole.[Working with adolescents to prevent domestic violence rural townmodel : summary volume].Author(s):1. National Campaign Against Violence and Crime (Australia).2. National Anti-Crime Strategy (Australia).ATTACHMENT 2New books purchased by the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs Country Information Service (CIS) library for 1998-99In title/author order.The world's most dangerous places.Robert Young Pelton, Coskun Aral and Wink Dulles.Ethnologue: Languages of the world (13th edition).Barbara F Grimes (Ed.).Fast and Easy Research.Angela Booth.Citizenship, East and West.Andre Liebich, Daniel Warner with Jasna Dragovic.The Refugee in International Law.Guy S Goodwin-Gill.Violence in Nigeria.Toyin Falola.World Refugee Survey.Published by Immigration and Refugee Services of America.Where women stand: an international report on the status of women in 140 countries 1997/98.Naomi Neft and Ann D. Levine.African Guerrillas.Christopher Clapham (ed).Eastern Europe: Politics, culture and society since 1939.Sabrina P Ramet (ed).Post-War protection of human rights in Bosnia and Herzegovina.Michael O'Flaherty, Gregory Gisvold (eds).Political Handbook of the world.Arthur S Banks (ed.).Human Rights Watch World Report, 1999.Published by Human Rights Watch.World Conflicts. Patrick Brogan.Freedom of Religion and Belief.K Boyle and J Sheen.Resettlement of "Refugees" and "Forced Migrants" in the Russian Federation. Galina Vitkovskaya.Directory of Africanists in Australasia.Liz Dimock (comp).Report on Asylum Procedures.Published by Inter-Governmental Consultations on Asylum, Refugee and Migration Policies in Europe, North America and Australia.World Directory of Minorities.Published by Minority Rights Group International (eds).Islamic Marriage & Divorce Laws of the Arab World.Dawoud El Alami and Doreen Hinchcliffe.Annual Survey of Violations of Trade Union Rights.Published by International Confederation of Free Trade Unions.Economic Crisis and Political Change in North Africa.Azzedine Layachi (ed).The legal framework and social consequences of free movement of persons in the European Union.Elspeth Guild (ed).Islamic Fundamentalism.L Davidson.SBS World Guide.Susan Powell (ed).China's Catholics.Richard Masden.Territories of the Russian Federation.Europa Publications.South America, Central America and the Caribbean 1999.Europa Publications.Eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States 1999.Europa Publications.Africa south of the Sahara.Europa Publications.Middle East and North Africa 1999.Europa Publications.Far East and Australasia 1999.Europa Publications.Using Access 97: Special Edition.Egypts Endangered Christians. Paul Marshall.For the Record: The UN Human Rights System 1997.Published by Human Rights Internet.For the Record: The UN Human Rights System 1998.Published by Human Rights Internet.Spartacus International Gay Guide.Published by Gmunder Verlag.Times Comprehensive Atlas of the World.Published by Times Newspapers Ltd.8546(Question No. 759)7598546Crosio, Janice, MPMrs Crosio7T4ProspectALP00 asked the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, upon notice, on 21 June 1999:Does the Minister's Department operate a library or libraries; if so, (a) what sum was spent on purchasing new books for departmental libraries in (i) 1996-97, (ii) 1997-98 and (iii) 1998-99 and (b) will the Minister provide a list of the title and author of each book purchased by departmental libraries in 1998-99.8546Scott, Bruce, MPMr Bruce ScottYT4MaranoaNPVeterans' Affairs; Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(a) (i) 1996-97 $24 043.84(ii) 1997-98 $22 516.07(iii) 1998-99 $21 067.36(b) Books purchased by my Department's libraries in 1998-99 are listed below:1001 ways to reward employees/Nelson, Bob2000 percent solution/Mitchell, Coles, Metz200 shots: Damien Parer, George Silk and the Australians at war in New Guinea/Neil McDonald, Peter Brune9th Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment: Vietnam tour of duty1968-1969 on active service/9 RAR AssociationThe 21st century health care leader/Gilkey, Roderick W50 essential management techniques/Ward, Michael86 Squadron 1943-45: men, Kittyhawks and Mustangs/Howard, PFAboriginal primary health care: an evidence-based approach/Couzos, SophiaAccess 97 Answers! Certified technical support/Jones, EdwardAchieving a harassment-free workplace/Australia—Canberra: Public Service & Merit Protection Commission Achieving cost effective personnel services, attachment C survey report/Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu/AustraliaAction learning : how the world's top companies are re-creating their leaders and themselves/Dotlich, David L/Noel, James LAddressing absenteeism: strategies for encouraging attendance at work in the Australian Public Service/a joint management /union statement, developed by the Joint Taskforce on Absenteeism in consultation with APS agenciesAdversity, stress and psychopathology/Dohrenwend, BruceAgainst the sun: the AIF in Malaya, 1941-42/Uhr, Janet MAged care: old policies, new problems/Gibson, DianneAgeing, Social Security and affordability/Mosmor, Theordore RAging and mental health/Smyer, Michael AAir Force Australia/Odgers, GeorgeAlmanac of World War I/Burg, PurcellAnglo-American Cataloguing Rules/Joint Steering Committee for revision of AACRAnnotations to the Social Security Act 1991/Federation PressANU Undergraduate Handbook/Australian National UniversityANZACS, the media and the Great War/Williams, John FAPF: Australian Pharmaceutical Formulary/Australian Pharmaceutical PublicationsApplying for jobs and winning at interviews/Stern, GeorgeAPS 2000: the Australian Public Service workforce of the future: a discussion paper/produced by an Interdepartmental Working Party, convened by the Public Service Commission/Australia. Interdepartmental Working Party Australia Public Service CommissionAustralia at work/Australian Centre for Industrial Relations Research and TrainingAustralia at Work just managing?/Australian Centre for Industrial Relations Research and TrainingAustralian business law/Latimer, PaulAustralian casemix report on hospital activity, 1994-95/Australian Department of Health and Family ServicesAustralian Casemix Report on Hospital Activity: 1995-96 /Commonwealth Department of Health and Family ServicesAustralian hospital ship Centaur: the myth of immunity/Christopher Milligan; Foley JCH Australian human resource management: current trends in management practice: vol. 2/Kramer, RobinAustralian medicines handbook/Miran, GaryAustralian politics in the global era/Caping, ConsidineAustralian prescription products guide—1999/Australian Pharmaceutical PublicationsAustralian Prisoners of War/Tracey, MichaelAustralian Road Atlas/Penguin CartographicAustralia's health 1998: the sixth biennial health report of the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare/Australian Institute of Health and WelfareA-Z of handy hints/Bibby, DeborahA-Z of interview questions/Centre for Professional DevelopmentThe anatomy of a raid: Australia at Celtic Wood 9th October 1917/ Spagnoly T, Smith TThe army and the defence of Darwin fortress: exploding the myths of the critical phase `til September 1942/Rayner, Robert JThe artist's way at work: twelve weeks to creative freedom/Bryan, Mark AThe Australian drug guide: every person's guide to prescription and over-the-counter medicines, street drugs, vaccines, vitamins and minerals/Upfal, JonathanThe Australian grants register/Summers, JulieThe Australian guide to chairing meetings/Puregger, MBack to reality: critique of postmodern theory in psychotherapy/Held, Barbara SBalanced scorecard/Kaplan, Robert SBasic Personal Counselling: a training manual for counsellors/Geldard, DavidBasic research methods for librarians/Powell, Ronald RBeat the jitters! How to win at the interview/French, RupertBenefits to employers from an investment in training: Literature review/Misson, EdmundBest practice guide for the administration of grants/the Auditor-General/Australian National Audit OfficeBeyond the myths and magic of mentioning: how to facilitate an effective mentoring program/Murray, Margo with Owen, Marna ABlamey: the Commander-in-Chief/Horner, D MBlueprint to the digital economy: creating wealth in the era of e-business/edited Tapscott, Don; Lowy Alex and Ticoll, David Brain injury and stroke: a handbook to recovery/FreemanBravery above blunder: the 9th Australian Division at Finschhafen, Sattelberg and Sio/Coates, JohnBrief group counselling/Scott, Michael J., Stradling, Stephen GBrief therapy for post-traumatic stress disorder: traumatic incident reduction and related tech/Lori, SBudget papers—Full set—1999/TreasuryBurnout in families/Figley, Charles EThe Business Internet and Intranets: a manager's guide to key terms and concepts/Keen, Peter GCare matters: concepts, practice and research in health and social care/Brechin, A, et alCaring for older Europeans/Giarchi, GGThe changing federal role in US health care policy/Kronenfeld, JJChanging the game: organizational transformations of the first, second and hird kinds/Famholtz, EGChildren of trauma/Miller, TWChildren, families and communities : contexts and consequences/Bowes, Jennifer M; Hayes, AlanCognitive-behavioral therapies for trauma/Follette, VMCollaborative federalism: economic reform in Australia in the 1990s/Painter, MCommando double black: an historical narrative of the 2/5 Australian Independent Company/Pirie, AACommunity care in England and France/Davies, B, et alCommunity care, secondary health care, and care management/Challis; Darton, R; Stewart, K.Comparative social assistance/Ditch, JConcise medical dictionary—Oxford University PressContracting out of Government Services: report to the Attorney-General/Administrative Review CouncilThe corporate memory: information management in the electronic age/Megill, Kenneth ACounselling with dreams and nightmares /Cushway, SewellCreating killer web sites/Siegel, David SCultureShift: a leader's guide to managing change in health care/Lowery, Joan E. editorThe Circle of Innovation: you can't shrink your way to greatness/Peters, TomThe Changing Role of the Human Resources Function/Butteriss, Margaret Campaign and operational medals awarded to the Australian Defence Force/Australia—Canberra: Dept. of DefenceCancer and its management/Souhami, Robert L/Tobias, Jeffrey SThe China-Burma-India campaign, 1931-1945: historiography and annotated bibliography/Rasor, Eugene LCompetitive tendering and contracting guidance for managers/ Australia—Parkes, ACT: Competitive Tendering and Contracting Group, Dept. of Finance and Administration.Contact: Australians in Vietnam/McAulay, LexCoping with loss: helping patients and their families/Murray, Colin; Parkes, AndrewCorporate Internet planning guide: aligning Internet strategy with business goals/Gascoyne, Richard J; Ozcubukcu, KorayCorporate memory: strategies for knowledge management/Brooking, AnnieCosting of services/Australian National Audit OfficeCreating high-performance government organizations: a practical guide for public managers/Popovich, Mark G editorDeveloping quality in personal social services/Evers, A., et al.Developing questions for focus groups/Krueger, Richard ADestination Z/Baldock, RobertDoing Leadership Differently/Sinclair, AmandaDriving fear out of the workplace: creating the high-trust high-performance/Ryan, KD, Oestreich, DKThe dance of change: the challenges of sustaining momentum in learning organizations/Senge, Peter M; Kleiner, ArtData management in the APS/Australian National Audit OfficeDe Bono's thinking course/de Bono, EdwardDeliberative democracy in Australia: the changing place of parliament/Uhr, JohnDementia care in Victoria: building a pathway to excellence: executive summary and recommendations: final report, ministerial task force on dementia services in Victoria, October 1997/Aged, Community and Mental Health DivisionDementia care in Victoria: building a pathway to excellence: final report: ministerial task force on dementia, service in Victoria October 1997/ Aged, Community and Mental Health DivisionDementia care in Victoria, a public health approach: a report of the ministerial task force on dementia services in Victoria 1997/Aged, Community and Mental Health DivisionDesert Storm: a forgotten war/Bin, AlbertoDesigning Web graphics .3/Weinman, Lynda; Karp, AliDesigning with style sheets, tables, and frames/Holzschlag, Molly EThe devil's rainbow/Furnas, J CDinosaur brains/Bernstein, Albert J; Rozen, FCDistance training: how innovative organizations are using technology to maximise learning and meet business objectives/Schreiber, Deborah A; Berge, Zane LDo what you are: discover the perfect career for you through the secrets of personality type/Tieger, Paul D; Barron-Tieger, BarbaraDon't just surf: effective research strategies for the net/Henninger, Maureen.Easy Windows 98/ O'Hara, ShellyEconomics and Australian health policy/Mooney, Gavin (ed)The effect of counselling intervention on the well-being of Australian Vietnam veterans/Dobson, MEffective Phrases for Performance Appraisals/Neal, James EEmotionally focused therapy for couples/ Greenberg, JohnsonEnvironment & aging theory: a focus on housing/Scheidt, RJ, Windley, PGThe EQOLL (Ensuring Quality of Later Life) Report/McCallum, et alEvaluating the healthcare system: effectiveness, efficiency, and equity/Aday, Lu Ann ; et alEvidence Based Practice in Primary Care/Silagy, ChrisExperimental projections of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander population/Australian Bureau of StatisticsExcel 97 for Windows for Dummies/Harvey, GE-policy: how to develop computer, E-policy, and Internet guidelines to protect your company and its assets/Overly, Michael REdward de Bono's masterthinker's handbook: a guide to innovative thinking/de Bono, EdwardEdward de Bono's textbook of wisdom/de Bono, EdwardEffective appraisal skills/Taylor, GrahamElectronic sources of information for business in Australia and New Zealand/Denison, TomEmerging issues for Australia in the assessment of older people: a review of recent international literature/Butler, Alex Ethical management for the public services/Lawton, AlanEthics and political practice: perspectives on legislative ethics/Preston, NoelEuphemism, spin, and the crisis in organisational life/Stein, Howard FEvidence based practice in primary care/edited Silagy, Chris ; Haines, AndrewEvidence-based medicine: a framework for clinical practice/Friedland, Daniel JThe evil deeds of the ratbag profession in the criminal justice system/Dawson, BrettThe excellent manager's companion/Holden, PhilipExecutive EQ: emotional intelligence in business/Cooper, Robert K; Sawaf, AymanFalls in older persons/Tideksaar, RFamily caregivers: disability, illness and ageing/Scholfield, RFirst and furthest: the operations of RAAF Catalinas May 1941 to March 1943/Riddell, JackFor hearths and homes: citizen soldiering in Australia 1854-1945/Wilcox, CThe forgotten force: the Australian military contribution to the occupation of Japan,1945-1952/Wood, JamesFour Aces: RAAF fighter pilots Europe & North Africa 1941-44/McAulay, LexFor hearths and homes: citizen soldiering in Australia, 1854-1945/Wilcox, CraigThe forgotten force: the Australian military contribution to the occupation of Japan, 1945-1952/Wood, JamesFriends in high places: how to achieve your ambitions, goals and potential with the help of a mentor: the executive woman's guide/McKenzie, Bonnie CFrom rhetoric to reality: developing a client focussed service/Villiers, GlenFrom training to performance improvement: navigating the transition/Fuller, JimFrontPage 98 for Windows/Davis, PhyllisGet the bloody job done: the Royal Australian Navy Helicopter Flight/Eather, SteveGovernment finance statistics: concepts, sources and methods. Australian Bureau of StatisticsGovernment in Australia/Fraser, BGovernment Who's Who of Australia—1999/Information Australia Group Pty LtdGuide to evidence based medicine in primary care/Silagy, Christopher/Haines, AndrewGuide to treatments that work/Nathan, Peter EGuts: the seven laws/Lutz, RA Gender and institutions: welfare, work and citizenship/edited by Gatens, Moira; Mackinnon, AlisonGetting over the line: selected Commonwealth bodies' management of the year 2000 problem/Australian National Audit OfficeGlobal nation? : Australia and the politics of globalisation/Wiseman, JohnGoverning Australia: studies in contemporary rationalities of government/edited Dean, Mitchell; Hindess, BarryGoverning in the information age/Bellamy, Christine; Taylor, John AHandling customer complaints turning challenges into opportunities/Denham,J.Harrison's Principles of internal medicine. Edited by Fauci, A S; et alHealth care for older people/Iliffe, Steve/Patterson, Linda/ Gould, Mairi MHealth in rural and remote Australia/Australian Institute of Health and WelfareHealth policy in the market state/Hancock, LindaHealth psychology: theory and practice/Allen, FelicityHealth service frameworks for small rural & remote communities: issues and option/Humphreys, MathewsThe heart of long-term care/Ladd, KaneHistorical dictionary of the Persian Gulf war, 1990-1991/Newell, ClaytonHome care for older adults: a guide for families and other caregivers/Rosswurm, MaryHome care of the elderly/Zang, Sheryl MaraThe horizontal organization/Ostroff, FrankHow to make an agreement: prodedural aspects for employers/Australian Department of Workplace Relations & Small BusinessHTML for dummies/Tittel, E; James, SAHumanitarian action and peace-keeping operations/Instit of Policy Studies of SingaporeHyperculture: the human cost of speed/Bertman, StephenHarvard Business Review on knowledge Management/by Harvard Business ReviewHandbook of training evaluation and measurement methods/Phillips, Jack JHardwired leadership: unleashing the power of personality to become a new millennium leader/Pearman, Roger RHealth in rural and remote Australia: the first report of the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare on rural health/Strong, KathleenHMAS Sydney: loss and controversy/Frame, Tom Honing your knowledge skills/Funes, Mariana; Johnson, NancyHow people work: psychological approaches to management problems/Gellerman, Saul WHow to use Microsoft Outlook 97/Lewites, DeborahHTML 4 for the World Wide Web/Castro, ElizabethHuman resource champions: the next agenda for adding value and delivering results/Ulrich, DaveInside Microsoft Visual Basic/Hillier, ScottThe Imperial War Museum book of 1918: year of victory/BrownInternational handbook of multi-generational legacies of trauma /Danieli, YaelInternet: the complete reference/Young, MLInternet for dummies/Levine, JohnInternet publishing with Acrobat/Kent, GordonIntroduction to Australian public policy/ Fenna, AAn introduction to counselling/McLeod, JohnIt's only too late if you don't start now: how to create your second life after/Sher, BInternational Health: how Australia compares/by Bhatia, Kuldeep & Looper, MichaelInnovation: leadership strategies for the competitive edge/Kuczmarski, ThomasInterim Australian/New Zealand Standard Radiofrequency fields/Standards AustraliaI remember when—: Reminiscences of World War II veterans and widows/Arts Access (Organization), Austin & Repatriation Medical CentreIf you want to evaluate your library/Lancaster, Wilfrid F—2nd editionInformation online & on disc 99: strategies for the next millenium: proceedings of the Ninth Australasian Information Online & On Disc Conference and Exhibition, Sydney Convention and Exhibition Centre, Sydney Australia, 19-21 January 1999Intelligent leadership/Mant, AlistairThe internal consultant: using inside expertise to improve systems, manage change and develop strategy/Meislin, MarciaInternational health: how Australia compares/De Looper, MichaelThe International statistical classification of diseases and related health problems, 10th revision, Australian modification (ICD-10-CM)/National Centre for Classification in Health AustraliaThe Internet unleashed, 1997/Ellsworth, Jill ; Barron, Billy et al.Intranet publishing/Bodensiek, PaulIt's your constitution: governing Australia today/Saunders, Cheryl Java Bible/Walsh, Aaron & Fronckowiak, JohnJob hunter's word finder/Bluemond, JA jungle circus: memories of Vietnam/Towers, MikeKeys to employee success in coming decades/Sims, RR, Veres, JGKaizen and you: achieving success through self knowledge and constant improvement/Popovich, Igor SThe knowing organization: how organizations use information to construct meaning, create knowledge, and make decisions/Choo, Chun WeiKnowledge organisations: what every manager should know/Liebowitz, Jay; Beckman, TomThe Kokoda track/Clark, SylviaLavarack: rival general/Lodge, A BLanguage and communication in old age/Hamilton, H.E.Leadership & values: Australian executives and the balance of power, profits and people/Sarros, James [et al.]Leadership in government: study of the Australian Public Service /by Andrew Korac-Kakabadse and Nada Korac-Kakabadse.Leading the organisation to learn: the 10 levers for putting knowledge and learning to work/Cope, MickLeading women/Cox, EvaLearn Microsoft Visual Basic/Cornell, GaryTwo weeks in Lillput: bear-baiting and backbiting at the constitutional convention/Vizard, SteveThe Law handbook/Fitzroy Legal ServiceLeveraging people and profit: the hard work of soft management/Nagle, Bernard A; Pascarella, PerryLeveraging the new infrastructure: how market leaders capitalize on information technology/Weill, Peter and Broadbent, MarianneA little bit of hope: Australian Force-Somalia/Breen, BobManagement: how to do it/Payne, J. and S.Management teams handbook/McIntyre, MGManaging core public services/McKevitt, DavidMartindale : the complete drug referenceMastering Access 97 for Windows 95/NT/Simpson, Alan; Olson, ElizabethMedical aspects of chemical and biological warfare/Sidell, FR; Takaeuji, ET; Franz,D.RMen's health/O'Dowd, J., Jewell, D.Microsoft Excel 97 advanced topics step by step [book and 3.5] /Jacobson, R Microsoft Front page 98 step by step [book & CDROM ]/CatapultMicrosoft Office 97 in easy steps/Copestake, SMicrosoft Office 97 no experience/Courter, MarquisA military history of Australia/Grey, JeffreyMind skills for managers/Malone, Samuel AMore lives than a cat : three and a half years as a prisoner of war of the Japanese/Baker, GuyManaging People: a competence approach to supervisory management/Cartwright, RogerThe management of performance information for Specific Purpose Payments: the state of play/Australian National Audit OfficeMaritime power in the twentieth century: the Australian experience. Stevens, DavidMeeting managers' information needs/Butcher, HelenThe Merck manual of diagnosis and therapy/Berkow, Robert; et alMicrosoft FrontPage 97/Tyler, DeniseMicrosoft Image composer for dummies/Johnson, BrianA military history of Australia /Grey, Jeffrey.The motivation book: a guide to company well-being for you and your staff/Morton, Garry WManaging Activities: a competence approach to supervisory management/Cartwright, RogerManagers as Mentors: building partnerships for learning/Bell, Chip RMIMS Annual 1998/MedMedia MIMS AustraliaThe Merck Manual of Diagnosis and Therapy/Edited by Beers, Mark H and Berkow, RobertNational Health Survey: Summary of results/Australian Bureau of StatisticsNational Health survey: use of medications, Australia/ Australian Bureau of StatisticsNational Health survey: user guide, Australia. Australian Bureau of StatisticsNew psychotherapy for men: a case study approach/Pollack,William/Levant, RonaldNew public health (Australian perspective)/Baum, FNew Zealand Vietnam War veterans and their partners: health and/Withers, RodyNight fighters over Korea/O'Rourke, GeraldNot quite men, no longer boys/LaughtonThe National Serviceman: "the 90 day wonder": Puckapunyal 1951 to 1959/by Oliver, James KNeanderthals at work: how people and politics can drive you crazy-- and what you can do about them/Bernstein, Albert J Rozen, SC Never forget Australia = n'oublions jamais l'Australie : Australia and Villers-Bretonneux, 1918-1993/Blankfield, AllanThe new Palgrave dictionary of economics and the law/edited by Newman, PeterThe new public health: an Australian perspective/Baum, FrancesNo need for heroes/MacGregor, Sandy;Thomson, JimmyNon-stop service: continuity management guidelines for public sector agencies/Emergency Management AustraliaNot always on horseback: an Australian correspondent at war and peace in Asia, 1961-1993/Warner, DenisNot quite men, no longer boys/Laughton, KennyOffice 97 for busy people : the book to use when there's no time to lose!/Nelson, SLOn killing: psychological cost of learning to kill in war and society/Grossman, DOn managing people [Harvard Business Review]Organization of multimedia resources: principles and practice of information retrieval/Burke, MAOur healthier nation: a contract for health/British Department of HealthOccupational health and safety in Australia: industry, public sector and small business/Peterson, Chris LOGIT and FedLink infrastructure: Office of Government Information Technology, Department of Finance and Administration/Australian National Audit OfficeOur war: how the British Commonwealth fought the Second World War/by Somerville, ChristopherOutlearning the wolves: surviving and thriving in a learning organization/by Hutchens, DavidA planning model for innovation: new learning technologies/Mitchell, JohnPaint Shop Pro Web techniques/Clark, T MichaelParkinson's disease: a team approach/edited Morris, Meg E; Iansek, Robert.PCWEEK: the intranet advantage/Holtz, ShelPeacekeepers and their wives: American participation in the multinational force/Segal DR; Segal, MVPeirson and Bird's Business Finance/by Peirson, Grahan; et alPersonal assistance: the future of home care/Morris, RobertPersuading Aristotle : timeless art of persuasion in business negotiation/Thompson,P.Peter Drucker on the profession of management/Drucker, Peter edited by Stone, Nan Piece of Mind/MacGregor, SandyPost traumatic stress disorder in litigation: guidelines for forensic assessment/Simon, Robert I.Post-traumatic stress disorder: a lifespan developmental perspective/Maercker, A; Schutzwwohl, MPower Over Panic: freedom from panic/anxiety related disorders/Fox, BronwynPractical guide to information systems strategic planning/Cassidy, APractical Prince 2/Bentley, ColinPractice of child therapy/Morris RJ; Kraton, TRPrinciples and practice of geriatric medicine/edited by Pathy, MSJProgram evaluation: forms and approaches/Owen, John MProject Management Memory Jogger/Martin, TatePromoting men's health: an essential book for nurses/Laws, JPublic interest whistleblowing/Australia.—Canberra: Public Service & Merit Protection CommissionPublic sector accounting and accountability in Australia/Funnell, Warwick NPublic sector ethics: finding and implementing values/Sampford, CJGPublic sector management in Australia: new challenges, new directions/O'Faircheallaigh, Ciaran; Wanna, JThe performance improvement cycle: guidance for managers/Competitive Tendering and Contracting Group, Department of Finance and AdministrationThe planning of aged care: Department of Health and Aged Care/Australian National Audit OfficeThe practice of facilitation: managing group process and solving problems/Webne-Behrman, HThe princessa : Machiavelli for women/Rubin, HarrietThe psychology of peacekeeping/Langholtz, HJThe pursuit of organizational intelligence: decisions and learning in organizations/March, JGPut it in writing: learn how to write clearly, quickly, and persuasively/Joseph, AlbertThe Quality in customer service package/Australian National Audit OfficeThe RAAF at war/Turner, JimReal time: preparing for the age of the never satisfied customer /McKenna, RegisRebuilding shattered lives: the responsible treatment of complex post-traumatic and dissociative disorders /Chu, James AReconstructuring old age: new agendas in social theory and social practice/Phillipson, Chris Recovering from the war: a guide for all veterans, family members, friends & therapists/Patience, HMThe red diamond navy/Tennant, JoeReforming the public sector: problems and solutions/Clark, C. & Corbett, D.Reorienting a nation: consultants and Australian Public Policy/Martin, JFResearch methodology: a step-by step guide for beginners/by Kumar, RanjitRestructuring chronic illness management: best practices and innovations in team-based treatment/Christianson, Jon B; Taylor, Ruth; Knutson, David JReview, regulate, or reform?: what works to control workers' compensation medical costs/Grannemann, Thomas WRoden Cutler, VC; McCullough, ColleenRoger C. Parker's Guide to Web content and design: eight steps to Web site success/Parker, Roger CRunning Microsoft FrontPage 98/Buyens, JimRural and remote Australia : health for all by the year 2000: proceedings of the 4th National Rural Health Conference, Perth, 9-12 February 1997/edited by Gregory, Gordon; Murray, DesSacred places: war memorials in the Australian landscape/Inglis, KSSandakan : conspiracy of silence/Silver, LRScams and swindlers: investment disasters and how to avoid them: true stories from ASIC/Brown, BruceThe Second World War and its Australian Army battle honours/Maitland, GLThe secrets of finding and keeping a job/Burns, RobertThe secrets of getting a job/Garside, PhillipSecrets of successful speaking/Hanigan, MaureenSelf esteem at work: how confident people make powerful companies/Branden, N.Seniors guide: a services guide for older people in New South Wales/Council of the AgeingSensemaking in organizations/Weick, Karl EShe won't be right mate! The impact of managed care on Australian psychiatry and the Australian community/Psychiatrists Working GroupShell shock: the psychological impact of war [stress under fire]/Holden, WendyShell-shock: a history of the changing attitude to war neurosis/Babington, ASingapore Samurai/Penrod DeanSleeping with your ears open: on patrol with the Australian SAS/McKay, Gary Smart choices: a practical guide to making better decisions/Hammond, John SSocial security and retirement around the world/Gruber, Jonathan edited by: Wise, David AA soldier in the family: a source book for Australian military genealogy: the First Fleet to the Gulf War/Box, AllanSoldiers of diplomacy: the United Nations, peacekeeping and the New World Order/Coulon, JocelynSouth-East Asian commitments 1950-1965: the proceedings of the 1997 RAAF History Conference held in Canberra on 7 November 1997Stalemate in Korea and how we coped, 1952-1953/Brown, ColinStatistical methods of quality assurance/Mittag, RinneStolen valor: how the Vietnam generation was robbed of its heroes and its history/Burkett, BG; Whitely.G.Stop stealing sheep and find out how Type works/ Spiekermann, ErikStraight talk about post traumatic stress disorder/Porterfield, KMStrategies for dual career couples/Stevens, PaulStrength of purpose: Australian women of achievement from Federation to the mid-20th century/De Vries, SusannaSuperior teams: what they are and how to develop them/Kinlaw, DCSupramedicine: from health outcomes to outcome medicine/Price, EddieThe Second Eighth: a history of the 2/8th Australian Infantry Battalion/Bentley, ArthurThe sustainable corporation: organisational renewal in Australia/Dunphy, Dexter; Griffiths, AndrewSwitch on to Your Inner Strength/MacGregor, SandyA systematic approach to getting results/Lovejoy, STactics: the art and science of success/De Bono, EdwardTaming time or how do you eat an elephant?/Kroehnert, GTarakan: an Australian tragedy/Stanley, PeterTax reform: not a new tax: a new tax system—overview/Costello, PTax reform: not a new tax: a new tax system/Costello,PTeach Yourself Microsoft FrontPage 98 in 24 hours/Shafran, AndyTeach yourself Microsoft Powerpoint 97 visually/Maran, R Team play—successful people management/McKinnon, STelemedicine in hospitals: issues in implementation/Bruhn, JGTerritorial games: understanding and ending turf wars at work/Simmons, AnnetteThat disreputable firm: the inside story of Slater & Gordon/Cannon, MichaelThe three Rs of performance: core concepts for planning, measurement, and management/Montague, SteveTherapeutic guidelines: antibiotic/Therapeutic Guidelines LimitedTherapy with troubled teenagers: rewriting young lives in progress/Bertolino, RobertThrough the wire: action with the SAS in Borneo and the Special Forces in Vietnam/Savage, DavidTime for life/Tonini, BTo the last ridge/Downing, WHTobacco use among racial/ethnic minority groups: a report of the Surgeon General. US Dept. of Health and Human Services.Trauma recovery and empowerment: a clinician's guide for working with women in groups/Harris, M; Anglin, J.Treating anxiety disorders/Roth, WR; Yalom, IDUnits of the Royal Australian Air Force: set of 10 volumes/RAAF Historical SectionUniversity of Canberra Faculty Handbook 1999Up Top: the Royal Australian Navy and Southeast Asian conflicts, 1955-1972/Grey, JeffreyUse of medications Australia/Australian Bureau of StatisticsUsing the Internet Smarter and Faster/Broadbent, BrookeThe Victorian Internet/Standage, TomVeterans at risk research project/Thomson Goodall AssociatesVictoria: a global centre for the information age/Multimedia VictoriaVietnam wives: facing the challenges of life with veterans suffering post-traumatic stress/Matsakis, AThe Vung Tau Ferry (HMAS Sydney) and escort ships (Vietnam 1965-1972)/Nott, Rodney; Payne, NoelWar and our world/Keegan JThe war in Vietnam/Edmonds, AOWe Have not Forgotten: Yass & Districts' War 1914-1918/Mongan, Cheryl; Reid, RichardWe were the first: the units history of no 1 independent company/McNab, Alexander `Sandy' Web page design: a different multimedia/Morris, Mary E S; Hinrichs, Randy JWebsters New World Dictionary of the Vietnam WarWelfare bushed: social care in rural Australia/Cheers, BWellsprings of knowledge: building and sustaining the sources of innovation/Leonard-Barton, DorothyWhat color is your parachute?: a practical manual for job-hunters and career-changers/Nelson/Bolles, RichardWhen too much change is never enough/Bodi, A; Maggs, G.; Edgar, DWhitakers Almanac 1999Wild web graphics with Microsoft Image Composer/Karlins, DavidWinning grants step by step: Support Centers of America's complete workbook for planning, developing, and writing successful proposals/Carlson, MimWoman, work, child/Benveniste, JodieWomen and leadership: creating balance in life/Brown, Genevieve; Irby, Beverly JWomen managing for the millennium/Garratt, SallyWomen's wire web directory/Pack, EllenThe women's power handbook/Kirner, J; Moira Rayner, MWork for a living and be free to live/McDargh, EileenThe work of teams/Katzenbach, Jon RWorking in Community Services: Management and practice/Wearing, MichaelWorking knowledge: how organisations manage what they know/Davenport, Thomas H; Prusak, LaurenceWorking with involuntary clients: a guide to practice/Trotter, CThe Workplace Relations Act 1996: a pocket guide for Australian Government employment/DWRSBWorkplace Relations police in Australian Government employment/DWRSBWriting for business success/Siedle, RobWriting, researching, communication: communication skills for the information age/Windschuttle, KeithXML complete/Holzner, SYou can negotiate anything/ Cohen, HYou lead, they'll follow: how to inspire, lead and manage people, reall/Kehoe, Daniel; Godden, Stephen 8555(Question No. 776)7768555Plibersek, Tanya, MPMs Plibersek83MSydneyALP00 asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 23 June 1999:(1) Does the RAN own, or did it own, properties at 87-115 Brougham Street and 106-122 McElhone Street, Woolloomooloo.(2) Did the RAN sell the properties referred to in part (1); if so, what sum did it receive from the sale.(3) Have the properties been leased back to the RAN; if so, (a) at what cost and (b) for what term.(4) How many of the properties are occupied.(5) How many of the properties have been occupied during the period since June 1998.(6) For what period has each property referred to in part (5) been occupied since June 1998.(7) Have some properties been unoccupied for lengthy periods; if so, why.(8) Will the RAN turn the vacant properties over to the NSW Department for Housing, or another body, for use as low cost housing.8555Moore, John, MPMr MooreEI4RyanLPDefence10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The Defence Housing Authority previously owned 26 properties at these addresses.(2) The properties were sold by the Defence Housing Authority on 24 June 1997 for $6.3 million.(3) The properties have been leased back by the Defence Housing Authority.(a) $7,800 per week.(b) 12 years.(4) None.(5) 12.(6) The occupancy periods were: 8 days; 4 months 18 days; 6 months 18 days; 6 months 20 days; 7 months 8 days; 7 months 11 days; 7 months 13 days; 7 months 29 days; 8 months; 8 months 2 days; 8 months 3 days; and, 8 months 25 days.(7) Yes. Australian Defence Force families have been reluctant to occupy the properties.(8) No. The properties are to be returned to the owner.