1998-03-043816SENATE30101998-03-04The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid) took the chair at 9.30 a.m., and read prayers.Parliamentary Zone301Motion (by Senator Kemp at the request of Senator Ian Campbell) agreed to:That, in accordance with section 5 of the Parliament Act 1974 , the Senate approves the proposal by the Joint House Department for capital works within the Parliamentary Zone, being the installation of drinking fountains in the public gardens and on the tennis court pavilions of Parliament House, approved by the Presiding Officers on 3 December 1997 and presented to the Senate on 3 March 1998.Business301301Motion (by Senator Kemp) agreed to:That intervening business be postponed till after consideration of government business orders of the day No. 2, (Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 1997-98 and 2 related bills), and No. 3 (Advance to the Minister for Finance for the year ended 30 June 1997).Bills301r373Billsr376Billsr374301Debate resumed from 3 March, on motion by Senator Newman:That these bills be now read a second time.09:32:00301Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—Madam President, I draw your attention to the fact that the appropriations have been brought on this morning with very short notice.YW4MACDONALDSenator Ian Macdonald—Have you spoken on this yet?AW5Carr, Sen KimSenator CARR—I do not believe I have spoken on the matter. I want to draw to the chamber's attention the fact that I was advised at 9.30 that we were to bring on the appropriations. The opposition is in some difficulty because I had not been advised of the change of program until this point. While we ac knowledge that the government has a right to change the program, it is normal to get us to agree to such a proposition before it actually goes ahead with the change. I am at a loss to explain this action, other than the fact that the government is not prepared to go on with the debate regarding the youth allowance. Senator Cooney has arrived, and I will seek leave to continue my remarks later. I wish to speak in this debate, but I understand that Senator Cooney is in continuation on the appropriation bills.YW4MACDONALDSenator Ian Macdonald—This is one of your better speeches, Kim.AW5Carr, Sen KimSenator CARR—You wait until you get the real speech! I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted.09:33:00301Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEYSF4VICALP00—I must apologise for not being here. I was in the middle of a speech yesterday and was talking about various actions by working people around Australia. I was talking about people at Webb Dock, Grafton, Yarrawonga and Cobar. The interesting thing is that these are all good Australians, people who want to do the right thing by their families, by the community and by Australia as a whole. It would be good if people in this chamber at various times visited these places where the working men and women of Australia are trying to do two things—to see that their employer makes a reasonable profit and to see that they themselves are given proper and decent wages to enable them to support their families.I started off in this debate talking about those qualities which should inform Australian society, which should be the sorts of things we are proud of. We should have an economy that we are proud of, but we should also have a working system which gives people who work within it proper wages, proper conditions and a decent way of life. Those two things must go together but they have been forgotten at the moment.In that context I want to talk about the migration policy we are now pursuing and, in particular, that policy which denies migrants coming here any social security for two years after arrival. That is working harshly at the moment in particular instances and it has been brought out by a recent decision before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, where two young people from Russia arrived here and found that they were not able to get sufficient income to live on. They took their case to the AAT and told the AAT that they had not been properly informed in Russia about the conditions here. The AAT found that their case had merit and awarded them an award in consequence. That was Mr Oleg Chelechkov and his wife, Galina Antipina.One other matter that I wish to mention in this context before I sit down is the war in Iraq. That has been spoken about in this debate, and Senator Quirke gave an eloquent speech about it. I want to say this about the Iraqi war: it is a matter which has exercised the minds of everybody in Australia, and even troubled some. The Australian bishops are opposed to it.Any war or crisis that arises may impact upon some Australians who have an ethnic background. When that happens, we should be absolutely determined that there should be no prejudice against people of that background in Australia. So people here of Arabic or Iraqi background should be assured that they have the full rights, the full entitlements and the full dignity of Australian citizens. As I sit down, I would like to emphasise again that people who have come from an Arabic background have done great things for Australia, and that should be remembered.09:38:00302Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—We are here today discussing this government's appropriation bills. Of course, that gives us the opportunity to reflect upon what this government has achieved since it came to office just on two years ago and what the future holds for the people of Australia under this government and under the measures that were contained not only in its last budget but also in its first budget. I will touch upon some of those issues from the first budget because many of those items are now coming to fruition and having their most dramatic effect.What are the achievements of this government? I sat down to try to make a few notes and, frankly, I have a blank page in front of me here because I cannot think of any. The achievements of this government are such that we have the health system in crisis. We have education in crisis. We have the cost of child care being increased so that people can no longer afford it. We have a situation with unemployment where employment programs have been dismantled, and there is no sign of any improvement in the employment situation. We have a situation where all this government can talk about is the fact that it sold one-third of Telstra, and its claims that it is protected from the current financial crisis in Asia. I will come to deal with a couple of those supposed claims of achievement by this government a little later.Let us go back to 1983 when Labor was elected to office. At that time, the Treasurer of this country was Mr Howard, the now Prime Minister. What was the economic position of the country at that time? John Howard, the then Treasurer, left the incoming government with a $10 billion deficit, a bit of a black hole. In fact, it was a huge black hole to the extent that in real terms, in today's terms, it would measure in excess of $25 billion.Yet, what have we heard from this government for the last year or two? All we have heard is this mantra about the supposed black hole left by the previous Labor government, a deficit which pales into insignificance beside the record of the then Treasurer, John Howard. When you put it beside the prevailing economic conditions that existed in the world when the last Liberal government was in power in the late 1970s and early 1980s, to run up a $10 billion deficit in those terms in those days when all the circumstances were favourable demonstrates the total economic inadequacy of the coalition parties in office.They did not have to face a drastically changing global economy. They did not have to face the stock market crash that occurred in 1987. They did not have to face, in fact they ran away from, the major issues confronting this country—that is, turning our manufacturing industry around, developing an economy that could be competitive on the world scene and putting Australia into a position where we could overcome the geographic and other disadvantages that we face as a nation far removed from the major economic power houses of Europe, Asia and the Americas.So they had the best of times and they came up with the worst of results. What have they done since they got back into power in 1996? They have gone back to their old ways. They have gone back to the policies that set out to destroy the social wage and the social justice protection that this country has so long provided—the great hallmarks of Australian society. As Senator Calvert has been overseas—and I had the pleasure, I must say, of his company for two weeks—he has seen the position in countries that do not enjoy the great health system, the great education system and the great system of social justice and the safety net protection that we have had in this country. But this government is setting out to destroy it.Let us look at health. The government has ripped out more than $800 million in funding for public hospitals in its two budgets. The key ingredient of our health system is that ordinary Australians can have access to public hospitals, to a universal health system.In its blind pursuit of increasing the level of private health insurance—not something that of itself is necessarily a bad thing—this government has so far wasted in excess of $600 million of taxpayers' money. It set up a system in the 1996 budget of a health insurance incentive rebate whereby people would be provided with a rebate of up to $450 a year for having private health insurance. It said at the time that this would, firstly, stabilise the participation rate in private health insurance coverage and, secondly, increase the coverage to 34 per cent by this financial year.What has been the result? This scheme will cost $1.7 billion over three years and has cost $600 million in its first year of operation. Notwithstanding this huge payout, essentially to subsidise the private health insurance industry, the rate of participation and the level of membership in private health insurance in this country has dropped to its lowest level ever of 31.6 per cent. It is going in the oppos ite direction to what the government said it would.Those opposite took public money that could have been better allocated to the public hospital system. They starved the states of funds in that regard. They transferred that money to a scheme to promote private health insurance which has been a total and absolute failure. It is about time the Prime Minister and the Minister for Health and Family Services (Dr Wooldridge) actually admitted that it has been a failure. If it keeps going on it will cost far more money—$600 million each year—and clearly will not do one thing to increase private health insurance coverage.At the same time that that has been happening the funds have been increasing their premiums such that, since this government came to office, in some cases the funding premiums have gone up in excess of 30 per cent. The premiums for most private health insurance funds are about to go up shortly by between eight and 15 per cent. Any possible benefit that members of a private health insurance scheme would have gained by receiving the $450 rebate has already been eaten up and cost them more through the increases they have had to pay. In terms of private health insurance this government has been a total failure.At the same time, by cutting the funds to the public hospital system and to the states the government is letting the public hospital system run down. This all goes back to the ideology that it has never liked Medicare but it does not have the guts to stand up and say that it does not like it and wants to do away with it. The Prime Minister recognised at the last election that he could not go to the people and tell them that he did not like Medicare and would dismantle it. He in fact said that he would protect and maintain it. If he had told the truth then I doubt whether he would have got the result that he got. He said he would protect it. He is not protecting it at all.He is forcing on the states ever increasing cost burdens for public hospitals. Is it any wonder that none of the states has agreed to the government's latest proposals on the Medicare agreements. Of the six states, five are run by people of this government's political persuasion—coalition governments; Liberal or National Party governments. The two territories are both run by coalition parties or supporters of the conservative forces in this country. None of them agrees with you, the Commonwealth government. They will not sign the latest Medicare agreement proposals because they know what you have done to health in this country.I have mentioned child care. This government has cut the subsidies for long day care. It has cut subsidies for out of hours school care. Every day we read reports in the papers of child-care centres being forced to close either because people are dropping out of child care because they cannot afford it or it has become uneconomic to run, particularly community based centres. By starving these centres of their subsidies the government has ensured that they do not have the support to maintain such a vital community service.It was a Labor government that promoted child care not just as a benefit but actually as a right, particularly for low income families where often both parents have to work. This government's attitude is that it would change it from a right back to a privilege—a privilege for those who can afford to pay high charges for child care, the wealthy.In terms of employment, this government has dismantled just about all, if not all, the programs under working nation. It has derided the working nation programs. As I go around this country, particularly in my home state of New South Wales, and talk to people in local government who are in electorates that are represented by coalition members they tell me that the worst thing this government ever did was cut out some of those employment programs.WW4KEMPSenator Kemp—No!656Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW—Senator Kemp shakes his head. Senator Kemp, I invite you to come with me and talk to the mayors of some of those shire councils on the north coast of New South Wales. They are not my political supporters; they are yours or those of your coalition colleagues, the National Party. They are disgusted with what you have done, because we had in place programs such as LEAP and skillshare—programs which in many cases involved the cooperation of the local government entity, the businesses in the community, the trade unions and the community groups. They were working to deal with real problems of unemployment in areas such as Lismore, Grafton and Kempsey, and I could name a dozen other centres. Those local government representatives have told me the worst thing your government ever did was cut out those programs.We have a situation at the moment in Grafton where the meat works has closed. The local state member, Harry Woods, now a minister in the Labor government of New South Wales, is desperately trying to get that meat works reopened because 300 jobs have been lost. Appeals to your government, to your minister—and I will be speaking more about this later today—have fallen on deaf ears. Three hundred workers lost their jobs on 12 December, two weeks before Christmas. Because the company went bankrupt it has not been able to pay out its accrued entitlements so workers and their families are left stranded.I have not heard boo from the National Farmers Federation. I have not heard a single word from them, and I have not heard a single word from this government about what they are going to do to help that situation. Yet I hear a heck of a lot from Mr Reith and others about the Melbourne waterfront. They get involved in a politically inspired frolic down there and do absolutely nothing about unemployment in rural areas.WW4KEMPSenator Kemp—The wharfies are right, are they?656Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW—Senator Kemp, 300 workers lost their jobs in Grafton and you have done nothing about it. At the same time you have introduced a work for the dole scheme. That same town has been selected to provide assistance to find 250 jobs. Why don't you do something about the 300 jobs that are going to be lost? As I said, I will have something more to say about that later.Areas such as education have been slashed. Funding for universities has been slashed under this government. At a time when Australia needs to increase its expenditure on education because of the critical importance of having a more educated, highly trained society in the competitive world that we live in, what is this government's approach? It rips 10 per cent plus out of the higher education budget. That is its approach. For the first time, in some cases there are fewer applicants than there are places in universities. No doubt my colleague Senator Carr will remind the government of its disgraceful record on education.I turn to two other issues in the couple of minutes remaining. This government holds up as its great hallmark and achievement the one-third sale of Telstra. They have said, and the Prime Minister trumpets, that hundreds of thousands of people who have never invested in the share market before bought shares in Telstra and that somehow this demonstrates that privatisation of a government utility is a great thing. But the argument is not that simple.In fact, I put it to you that the real reason why Australians, particularly those hundreds of thousands of Australians who never invested in the share market before—they never bought shares in BHP or Coles or any other large company—went out of their way and bought shares in Telstra was that they regard Telstra as a government backed, secure public enterprise. That is the great attraction of Telstra and that is why they bought shares in it because it has the same status as purchasing, say, government bonds. That is why they did it.Government members should not try to kid themselves that somehow the fact that people bought those shares meant that they supported the privatisation of Telstra. What people will not support is the total sell off of Telstra, particularly in the rural and regional areas because they know that if this government's real agenda on Telstra comes to pass then services to rural and regional Australia will very quickly decline. The cross-subsidisation that occurs for telecommunications in rural and regional Australia will disappear under a privatised Telstra.This government is entering into its last days in office. It will be with a great resounding vote from the people that they will finally consign them to opposition after the next election. (Time expired)09:59:00305Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—My concern in this debate on the appropriation bills is to raise with the chamber some issues concerning DEETYA. My worry is that under this government this once great department of state is being reduced to a shadow of its former self. Under the administration of the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs, Dr Kemp, this department will no longer be able to serve this parliament effectively and will not be able to meet its obligations to the Australian people to provide the services necessary to support our universities, schools, TAFE colleges and of course the unemployed.What troubles me most is that this government's priority with regard to education is so reflected in the way in which expenditure to this department has been reduced so dramatically. What we have seen through the successive budgets of this government is that DEETYA's expenditure on a whole of government basis has dropped from 11.2 per cent to 8.7 per cent. DEETYA, while it represents roughly, on those sorts of figures, around 10 per cent of the whole of government over the period of the government, is being asked to carry 30 per cent of the budget cuts. So while it represents 10 per cent of total budget expenditure it is being asked to carry 30 per cent of the budget cuts. That has meant that the $4.3 billion that has come out of DEETYA has naturally had an effect on the capacity of that department to fulfil its functions and to meet its obligations to the Australian people.What we have seen is a massive reduction in staff numbers of that department. In the first year of the government, there was about a 30 per cent drop in its staff. I have seen estimates that suggest that the department will in fact be reduced to about 3,000 people by the time this government has finished its first three-year cycle. It strikes me that that is far too savage a reduction not to have an impact on the qualities of services provided. In the discussions that I have had with officers through the estimates processes, what is becoming increasingly—Senator Conroy interjecting—AW5Carr, Sen KimSenator CARR—Indeed. I do feel it is necessary that the parliament examine the estimates fully and in detail. We do have to spend considerable amounts of time probing the government. What I have discovered though is that, to make up for these shortfalls in staffing in particular, to make up for the shortfall in function that the department has been forced to accept, there has been an increasing reliance on consultancies. I take just one agency within the DEETYA portfolio, and that is the Australian National Training Authority.Senator Conroy interjecting—AW5Carr, Sen KimSenator CARR—I will get to John Elliott later on. What we find is that there has been a 46 per cent increase in expenditure on consultancies in the Australian National Training Authority from 1995-96 to 1996-97, and that is from the funding sources of operating grants, national programs and national projects. We are basically seeing a shift away from staff officers undertaking functions to a position whereby consultants are employed to undertake the functions that would once have been done by the department by and large or officers of the authority. What troubles me about this is that quite often it is the former officers of the department that end up doing the consultancies. I do not begrudge officers of the department having work once they are retrenched or made redundant. I do not deny them that opportunity, but I do say there are guidelines for the employment of staff in consultancies and that, in my view, those guidelines have not always been followed.I am concerned at the increasing trend, as I see it, within this department to undertake consultancies without proper regard to a full competitive tender process. If we look at a question that I asked concerning the consultancies involving the development of what was then called the modern Australian apprenticeship scheme, which is now known as new apprenticeships and user choice—which is a further program the government has introduced in terms of attempts to privatise the TAFE systems—what we notice is that, of the consultancies that were undertaken, fewer than a third of them were undertaken on the basis of a full and open tendering process. So while 15 consultants relating to new apprenticeships, user choice and the new apprenticeships framework were engaged by ANTA, four consultants related specifically to the new apprenticeships scheme and five related to user choice.What you find of those is that the overwhelming majority—in fact, over 75 per cent—were undertaken either on the basis of a selective tender process or a closed tender process. That to me suggests that we do have a very serious problem. We have a serious problem when we look at the people who actually end up getting the consultancies. I might suggest—I do not want to name people at this point; we will go through that in due course—that we see a trend emerging here whereby there is not an open tendering process within DEETYA.We see, for instance, a similar pattern being established in other agencies within the department, such as the recent review of Abstudy. A consultancy was undertaken there. The department suggested that it could not really meet the requirements anymore and that there was a very limited number of people in the field so they had better have consultants look at it. Did we have an open process? Did we actually go out to the market and test the market, as this government expects everyone else to? No, we did not. What we did was employ consultants who, in the words of the officers, were `known to the department'. I bet they were known. What we have is a situation where consultants are employed and subcontracted to other persons, and I might suggest that they do not necessarily meet the full guideline requirements.What also troubles me is the way in which information is being provided to the estimates committee, particularly about these matters. I have been looking at this for a while and I have raised the questions for some time. I raised them in May and I raised the matters in November, and of course at the latest round in February. On 25 February, questions that I had on notice—some six, seven or eight of which went back to May—had not been answered by the department. I asked the department, `What's the score here?', and I was advised, `These answers have been prepared, but they have been with the minister's office since 18 February.'What troubled me was that in May I did receive one answer that listed 86 consultants. Of course, I asked questions and matters came back. Then I asked questions concerning reports from consultants, and I must say that I received a very large number of consultants' reports late on the night before the estimates in November. There were some 14 or so reports in a very large box dropped on my desk. I thanked the department very much for it; I just wondered when they thought I would have time to go through these consultants' reports given that the estimates processes were to begin within hours. But, being a bit of a fan of Sir Humphrey Appleby, I was suspicious enough to actually look through the box.I knew I would not have a chance to read too much of it, but I did look through the box. I can remember the Yes, Minister episode where Sir Humphrey Appleby actually prepared a brief for the minister and, of course, put it at the bottom of the dispatch box that was sent home. What I found, when I looked through my box of briefs, was that at the bottom was a revised answer which revealed that, of the 86 consultancies, the department said they had to re-define their definitions of consultants. In the first instance, Mr Burmester wrote:I have been advised that 30 were incorrectly categorised as consultancies but were actually contracts for services not consultancies (the main distinction being that consultants provide independent creative solutions whilst service contractors usually perform pre-determined services under direction).What a wonderful achievement that is. That was dated 11 November. I looked at this definition with some interest because a number of the functions actually being performed were at direction of government, directly by the minister. Of course, in the list that was provided to me, I see that there are a very significant number of consultants with the minister's sticky little fingers all over them.I do not think there is necessarily something wrong with the minister being involved in the development of a consultancy; I think there is a process involved. What troubles me is when that occurs without proper regard to due process and without proper regard to the administrative guidelines that relate to the awarding of contracts and, of course, the principles that apply in regard to not just the minister but also the departmental officers in the awarding of contracts which do not meet the competitive tendering process arrangements that one would normally expect.When I read those guidelines I note that there is great emphasis placed on the need for officers to ensure that they have, in fact, tested the market, that they have ensured that there is proper examination of possible competitors for any tender. There should be, according to the official guidelines, proper attention to allow for new entrants to the market. This is the irony of this government's position: it cuts the budgets of departments, it slashes services to the people of this country, it slashes the number of staff in the departments and, of course, reduces the capacity to service the people of this country in regional Australia and across the various sectors in education, and then employs a very large number of consultants to make up for it.Again, in the great Sir Humphrey Appleby style of this government, what you see is more people actually employed than otherwise would be the case, but not under wages and conditions that are accountable through the parliamentary processes, but at higher rates for limited numbers of people, of course, under terms and conditions which are not necessarily accountable to this parliament because they now have become commercial-in-confidence.So you have got a couple of other issues that relate here and worry me greatly about the probity in which consultancies are actually issued and this peculiar manner in which the department feels it can operate—presumably under directions from the minister. I do not blame the department. I think the department in this case is labouring under enormous burdens, the greatest burden being the minister. The minister himself—and his predecessor, Senator Vanstone, I suggest, may well have set it in train—set an administrative process to seek to re-define the definition of consultants in such a way as to deprive the parliament of effective scrutiny of their actions.I intend to pursue this matter at some length, as I am sure senators will be pleased to hear, and I am sure that the estimates process will highlight to us the enormous discrepancies that seem to me to be emerging.I do not think that it is just a question of employing mates, although that is an issue that does arise. I do think there is a fundamental contradiction in the way in which the government deals with consultants in that it expects the rest of the community to be subject to so-called open competitive processes, it expects the working people of this country to give up their unions and to give up their awards and to give up their entitlements, but it says that when it comes to the private business dealings of a few mates, you can provide separate and private arrangements that will see that there are measures put in place to deprive the parliament of the appropriate scrutiny of the financial dealings of the department and of the minister.There are a substantial number of questions relating to direct ministerial involvement in the awarding of these contracts. They go to substantial policy issues about the manner in which it is gathered from particular individuals. They go to fundamental questions about the conflict in proper administrative procedures and, in my judgment, the failure to meet proper administrative practice in terms of open, competitive tendering, which I say is the basis upon which you hold up as a virtue to everyone else the way in which they should perform.Then you come back to us and suggest that you cannot provide us with answers to legitimate questions because they involve far too many people who are service providers, not contractors, and because it would require far too much in the way of resources to actually establish how much money is being spent by the department in these contractual arrangements. I am not having that. These are matters that will be pursued.It strikes me that this department is facing great trauma. We have seen a series of administrative bungles over the last two years, in my judgment directly related to the reduced capacity of the department to meet its obligations. We have seen it in regard to the means test—ZW4SHERRYSenator Sherry—The minister.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—The shipping lines.AW5Carr, Sen KimSenator CARR—If the department has failed to meet its obligations—and of course the minister has come in here and pointed it out to us on numerous occasions—the real question that arises is the policy direction on which the officers are required to act. It is not good enough to just blame the Public Service. We have found, in terms of the means test and the `ship of fools' in Queensland, a whole host of other arrangements.We have a department that cannot cope with the consequences of this government's policy changes. It does not have the resources to properly undertake its functions and, as a consequence, not only are very large sums of money being lost but also, in my opinion, significant sums of money are being administered in a way which is contrary to the guidelines relating to the way in which contracts should be properly awarded by government. This is a deplorable situation, and I trust the parliament will take a great deal of interest in this matter over coming months.10:18:00308Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—We have covered a wide range of issues in the various speeches put forward on the appropriation bills. It will not surprise senators that quite a number of claims have been made which I do not accept or agree with. Some are just plain wrong. There was an opportunity, as there always is in the appropriations debate, for people to make political points.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Which ones were wrong?WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—Senator, you were not here all day, so you just keep quiet. As we know, there was an opportunity for people to make political points, and that is certainly accepted.There are a couple issues I will pick up on. I was intrigued by Senator Forshaw's claims about this government's record. He seems to have profoundly forgotten that Australia is now one of the high growth economies in the developed world. We have one of the lowest inflation rates. Interest rates on home loans have plummeted as a result of this government's policies. So I think, across a whole range of areas, this government has delivered and is delivering in spades.I was quite interested to hear Senator Forshaw refer in passing to the wharfies. That aroused some interest in the chamber. We were interested to hear whether Senator Forshaw would support the various rorts which have been revealed in relation to the waterfront.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—John Sharp's travel allowance, for one.WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—I don't think I would get on to that issue, Senator. We listened intently for a statement from Senator Forshaw as to whether he supported the sort of behaviour on the waterfront that we are seeing from the wharfies. The Hansard will record extreme sensitivity on the part of the Labor Party.Senator Carr, in not one of his better performances, it has to be said, trawled over a wide range of issues. He started by making very strong allegations about the running-down of the department and about the education policy of this government. I was inclined to remind him of Senator Carr's role in education in Victoria and the view of the former Premier of Victoria, Mr John Cain, about the role Senator Carr played in a previous government. But, rather than take up the time of the Senate—3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—That would be a cheap shot, wouldn't it?WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—It would be a shot; I don't know it would be a cheap shot. It would probably be quite an effective shot, actually. Anyway, that has been recorded. But let me say that Senator Carr does not come to this debate with clean hands. I will say no more than that.AW5CARRSenator Carr—Answer the allegation.WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—Senator Carr, you have plenty of time to raise issues. As I understand it, there is a general community assessment that you have absolutely failed to make any impact whatsoever. If you go on the way you are going, the questions you raise—as always—will be answered by this government.Mr Acting Deputy President, we have covered a very wide range of issues. I commend the bills to the parliament. As I said, we now have a government that is moving on a major reform agenda across a wide front, and I believe the results of that reform agenda are being seen and will continue to be seen.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills read a second time.309Bills (on motion by Senator Kemp) read a third time.Miscellaneous309309Consideration resumed from 19 November 1997.309Motion (by Senator Kemp) agreed to:That the committee approves the statement on the Advance to the Minister for Finance for the year 1996-97, of the Heads of Expenditure and the amounts charged thereto pursuant to section 36A of the Audit Act 1901.Resolution reported; report adopted.Bills309r346309Consideration resumed from 3 March.10:25:00309Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I move:(1) Schedule 1, item 6, page 6 (line 17), omit "and", substitute "or".This amendment relates to a blanket exemption from activity agreements for full-time students. At present there is nothing in the legislation which prevents full-time students being subject to youth allowance activity agreements. There are specific exemptions—from work for the dole and from applying for job vacancies—but no blanket exemption. We believe that studying full time should be enough to receive the youth allowance. There should not be scope for the secretary—and as we go along in this debate, we will see how all-powerful the secretary is being made—to force full-time students into such agreements. If students are not proceeding satisfactorily with their studies, they will be disenrolled by their educational institution and will then be subject to activity agreements as non-students.I can just see it now. There will probably be a click-on provision or something of that nature for those people attending or not attending lectures or tutorials. If you get past too many clicks, or do not get enough clicks, perhaps something will trigger in the Department of Social Security. The implications for privacy, for personal circumstance, for guilt unless proved innocent, are just enormous. The government seems to have gone too far here.(Quorum formed)10:29:00310Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—As I understand the issue before you, Madam Chairman, we have not yet heard from Senator Newman on this particular point. No doubt we will hear Senator Newman explain the position of the government. I refer to section 540B of the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Youth Allowance) Bill 1997 which deals with the issue of qualification for the youth allowance for a transferee from a social security pension. Can I check with you, Madam Chairman? I think we actually only have request No. 1 before the chair at the moment from Senator Margetts?10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—That is correct, yes. It is on sheet 866.5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—It effectively deals with the important issue of whether there is a requirement for a person who is receiving a social security pension to claim youth allowance within 14 days after the day on which the last instalment of the person's pension was paid. It proposes that the word `and' be replaced by the word `or' for the final part of proposed clause C. The person becomes qualified for a youth allowance at some time during the 14-day period, but after the first day of that period.DX5MARGETTSSenator Margetts—That certainly clarifies it for us.5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—Thank you very much, Senator Margetts. I am only here to serve. I do note, Madam Chairman, that Senator Neal is with us and I know that she is keen to make an even more fulsome speech on this particular issue. I hope I have been able to assist the committee on this matter, and I commend to you all the contribution that Senator Neal is about to make upon it.10:32:00310Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEALB36NSWALP00—The position of the opposition is that we will be supporting this amendment. It relates to the qualification for youth allowance. I think it is an attempt by the Greens to try to somewhat improve the wording and clarify it. I think that, on that basis, we are happy to support it.10:32:00310Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—The Democrats will also be supporting this amendment in relation to someone who is transferring from social security benefits to the common youth allowance. I think it is quite appropriate that it is an `or' arrangement in that exemption that Senator Margetts refers to. It is a fair amendment and I look forward to hearing the minister's response to it.10:33:00310Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—I am disheartened by the responses from the minor parties. In every case in the social security legislation you have to both qualify for a payment and claim it. This would change that basic premise for youth allowance, which seems a strange thing to do. I cannot understand why you would want to support such a thing. There is everything else in there: you both have to be qualified for a payment and make a claim for it. Why would you change that? It is incomprehensible. We would certainly oppose it.10:33:00310Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—Madam Chairman, I think the minister is being a little disingenuous here in as much as what we are saying is, `If you are a full-time student, then you qualify for youth allowance.' The government is saying, `You'll either be in training or you'll be employed. You won't be anything else.' We are saying, `If you are a full-time student, why should you then have to have an activity test?' They are saying, `We will support full-time students,' so why are they saying, `Somehow or other we are putting some other kind of test on students that does not exist now'?Bascially what that is saying is, it is going to be up to the secretary to somehow work out whether or not a person is satisfactorily continuing their studies. What it is saying is, within the normal situation for a full-time student, `If you don't satisfactorily progress, then you will find that you will be out of full-time study. You will be unenrolled from your place of study.' That is the normal situation. I think it is quite a horrifying implication if Social Security basically becomes the detective in what a person is doing at their place of study. I think the actual implications are bizarre, to say the least.Really, if the government is saying they are supporting students in full-time study, it seems ridiculous that they are then saying that, apart from the fact that they qualify because they are in full-time study—that this is their qualification—they then have to satisfy an activity test. You are saying you are making it simple; I think you are making it extremely complex and, once again, putting a lot of power into the hands of the secretary.10:35:00311Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—I think there is some confusion here because the advice I have got is that Senator Margetts is actually debating another issue that is not in this request at all. I think we had better get it straight before we move to a vote on the matter. Could you please double-check?10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—It is page 6 of the bill. It relates to schedule 1, item 6. It is the Greens (WA) amendment request No. 1 on sheet 866.10:36:00311Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—Basically what we are saying is that by replacing the word `and' with the word `or'—the words `and' and `or' are the important issue—a person who is in full-time study does not have to abide by the conditions of the social security pension.10:37:00311Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—The advice I have is that this amendment actually talks about transferring from a pension to youth allowance. That is not the same as somebody who is on Austudy. I think you had better look at it again, Senator Margetts.10:37:00311Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—I am a bit confused about it as well. We are talking about a person receiving a social security pension who claims the youth allowance within 14 days from when the last instalment of a person's pension was made, and the person becomes qualified for a youth allowance at some time during the 14-day period. Minister, does that affect persons in full-time study?10:38:00311Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—The answer is no. I point out to the committee that this is a beneficial measure which gives them 14 days in which to apply for the payment.10:38:00311Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—I am aware of the intent of this particular part of the bill, but my understanding is that Senator Margetts seeks not to compound those qualifications; that is, that you do not need to satisfy those three nominated criteria. If `and' is replaced with `or', people would just have to satisfy one of those particular criteria in order to qualify, so I do not see that there is anything less beneficial—perhaps even the opposite—with the intent and effect of Senator Margetts's amendment.10:39:00311Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—I am afraid that the answer is that it is beneficial to students to be able to have the benefits during that period, and what is being proposed is unworkable. Do you not see that?10:39:00311Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEALB36NSWALP00—The understanding of the minor parties, and certainly of the opposition, is that the request moved by Senator Margetts has the effect of saying that a person who is seeking a youth allowance benefit either has to satisfy the activity text or be in full-time study—they do not have to do both. Reading the preface of the bill, it seemed to require that a person should do both, which seems impossible. If that is not what the government believes the effect of the Greens amendment is, could the minister explain in detail exactly what the government believes the effect of it is.10:41:00312Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—The best way of describing the problem, as we see it, is that, if somebody has an existing benefit, if this request were successful, they would simply have to claim youth allowance and get it, because you would be removing the requirement that they be eligible. That is our concern with it. If you make it `claim or be entitled', you have removed the requirement that somebody has to be entitled to it; they would only have to claim. It has `claim and be entitled', and that is the same as the ability to access any other payment under the act, regardless of youth allowance: you have to claim and be entitled. The fact that you are already receiving a benefit from Social Security should not allow you to automatically transfer to youth allowance—you may not meet the eligibility criteria for youth allowance. That is our concern.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—You are getting me confused, too. Can I clarify it? I thought that the `and' that Senator Margetts was endeavouring to change to `or' was the one between sections (b) and (c).BE4Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMAN—Yes, that is right.Request not agreed to.10:43:00312Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—Three groups are mentioned in the next set of amendments, but an additional sheet, No. 872, has now also been circulated. These amendments are in relation to participation in work programs. They basically relate to work for the dole. It is the belief of the Greens (WA) that these should be removed. Although some of these provisions contain somewhat ameliorating clauses—for instance, that those under 18 and full-time students cannot be conscripted to the work for the dole program—we would like to remove the provisions— 10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—There is a stranger in the house. Would you please leave the area. Thank you.DX5Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTS—We would like to remove the provisions which relate to the work for the dole program. I realise that this debate has occurred in the chamber in the past, and arguments were put very strongly, certainly by the Greens (WA), in relation to that issue. What we had at the time was scapegoating politics. The situation in Australia and in other parts of the world is that people in society who have the least power to fight back are the ones who are targeted. In this particular case, the young people in our society are being targeted and, in many cases, particularly young Aboriginal people, because they do not fit into anybody's category of work or education, or because the education system is failing them in many ways.We have a situation where, although the government is saying that the dole no longer exists for young people, that somehow or other work for the dole exists for young people, and the government is not creating the opportunities within rural and regional communities to enable communities to best look after themselves, to create employment for young people, but basically is concentrating on this strange idea of efficiency where efficiency means that people are not needed in society any more. The majority of workers are struggling to support themselves and struggling to maintain their means of survival. Unfortunately, young people get left off the list.Our concerns continue in the same way as they did in June last year in relation to the issue of work for the dole and the compulsion associated with that. Through our group of amendments, in particular, we would like to remove reference to this level of compulsion associated with a common youth allowance and for work for the dole. If you have made unemployment disappear magically, then how can you suddenly say, `We've made unemployment disappear and there is no dole for young people, but there is work for the dole'? That does seem to be somewhat strange.Maybe the government is suddenly going to create a whole lot more new work opportuni ties for young people. I have not seen it. I have not seen the funding, I have not seen the policies which will create that, but they are saying that somehow or other there is no dole for young people but there is work for the dole. Now isn't that interesting.I think the group which will be most likely to be affected may be those particular groups who are already badly affected by the whole socioeconomic schema in Australia—the push to get rid of people in the Public Service, the push to remove services, and the push to concentrate almost solely on international competitiveness which means that people become simply market rather than actual people who need to work to survive and meet their needs and, of course, kids. The kids in our society are the ones who are getting it in the teeth and getting it in the head. Here we are, we have it lined up that in part of the so-called youth allowance bill, where we are going to magically make unemployment disappear for young people, we will not have the dole but we will have work for a dole which does not exist.I strongly put the position of the Greens (WA) that it should not be there. As far as we are concerned, the amendments go as a package. Although the sheet says that they are to be moved in three sections, I seek leave of the Senate to move Greens (WA) amendments 2 and 6, Greens (WA) amendments 1, 7, 8, 9, 13 to 16, and 7A and 7B on sheet 872, along with Greens (WA) amendment 12 together because I believe that it is almost meaningless to separate them. I believe that at least the debate should be taken cognately. Obviously, I prefer that the vote be taken together.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—You are seeking leave to move all of those amendments and debate them cognately. However, Greens (WA) amendment 12 on sheet 867 has to be put differently because it is opposition to a section. If you seek leave to debate all of those, we can do so.DX5Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTS—I seek leave of the Senate to debate them cognately and I seek leave of the Senate to move Greens (WA) amendments 2 and 6 on sheet 866 and Greens (WA) amendments 1, 7, 8, 9, 13-16 and 7A and 7B on sheet 872 together.Leave granted.DX5Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTS—I move:Schedule 1, item 6, page 9 (lines 27 to 31), omit paragraphs (e) and (f).Schedule 1, item 6, page 32 (lines 1 to 23), omit subsection (7).Schedule 1, item 6, page 52 (line 3), omit "subsections (2) and (3)", substitute "subsection (2)".Schedule 1, item 6, page 52 (lines 12 to 23), omit subsection (3).Schedule 1, item 6, page 78 (line 10), omit "subsections (2) and (3)", substitute "subsection (2)".Schedule 1, item 6, page 78 (lines 19 to 30), omit subsection (3).Schedule 1, item 6, page 83 (line 19), omit "subsections (2) and (3)", substitute "subsection (2)".Schedule 1, item 6, page 83 (line 28) to page 84 (line 10), omit subsection (3).Schedule 1, item 6, page 7 (lines 26 and 27), omit paragraph (2) (b).Schedule 1, item 6, page 14 (line 1 and 9) to page 16 (line 2), omit section 541E.Schedule 1, item 6, page 30 (lines 16 and 17), omit paragraph (f).Schedule 1, item 6, page 32 (line 26) to page 33 (line 4), omit subsection (8).We will also oppose schedule 1, item 6, page 77, lines 12 to 22, section 556A.10:50:00313Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—The Democrats will be supporting the amendments that have been moved by the Greens (WA). My understanding of these amendments is that they oppose the work for the dole provisions, including opposing the compulsory nature, the ability to cease a non-payment period if a person starts a work for the dole program and also the limits of young people not receiving the full amount of youth allowance being able to avoid work for the dole.The Democrats share some of the philosophical as well as economic objections to a scheme such as work for the dole. I am inclined to agree with Senator Margetts that I do not see any job creation strategies coming forward from this government when it comes to finding meaningful and sustainable employment opportunities for young Australians. The Democrats are on record many times explaining why we are opposed to a program that seeks to compel young Australians into positions of work and training when we believe it is the government's role to provide real, proper, accredited training and skill development and real jobs at the end of those skill and development processes.So we have a philosophical objection, but we also believe that, in conjunction with this particular legislation, the work for the dole is not a necessary inclusion and we oppose the work for the dole provisions that are contained within this legislation.10:51:00314Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEALB36NSWALP00—The opposition will not be supporting these amendments as proposed by the Greens. We have had a quite extensive debate in relation to work for the dole and how it affects young people, and the position of the opposition has been put quite extensively. In essence, our position is that although we are not absolutely opposed to work for the dole, we are very concerned that there are components within the scheme which do not ensure that young people have the best possible outcome available to them.I suppose, in essence, that the scheme is not operating in the correct way. There is no training component of work for the dole and there is a real concern that participation in that scheme will not enhance the job prospects of young people. In fact, it may in some way reduce their self-esteem, having regard to the manner in which it is presently operating. I am also particularly concerned that the work for the dole scheme has no job placement component within it, in that those young people who are participating in the work for the dole scheme are not also being given assistance in terms of job seeking.I was very concerned in the last week or so to be approached by one of the contractors who is providing positions through the work for the dole scheme who has applied for some funds to assist those people to find jobs and so far has been knocked back. I find it quite extraordinary that this government would not see fit to include a job seeking component in the work for the dole scheme, when a lot of their rhetoric was based on the assumption that it would enhance young people's capacity to enter the work force.I hope they will re-examine the operation of the work for the dole scheme and start to understand the position that the opposition has put from the beginning, which is that work for the dole, if it is going to operate, has to guarantee a level of training for participants and also assist them in job seeking.10:54:00314Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I would like to comment briefly on the response from Senator Neal on behalf of the Labor Party. The reason I am commenting is that I think many of the people who would support the Labor Party would find this response quite concerning, because it tends to be a poll-driven response. There is a recognition of what is not working and what is unfair about the work for the dole scheme but, unfortunately, I think the support is based mostly on what kind of things are said on talkback radio programs and so on, and what kind of polling comes out, when people do not understand what is happening in the community. For many people in the community, the matter is not debated widely, and what they see in the media is television programs which come on after the news and which might locate a couple of young people and say, `Look, they're living on $38,000 on the dole and they're just swanning about on the beaches.' We know that a lot of those stories are concocted and that it is very easy for any television program that is inclined to do so to create the image that young people really do not care; there is so much work around and they really do not want to bother.Ironically, some people know that some of the work that is offered is very exploitative. The Labor Party certainly know that many of the choices, if they are offered to young people, are not choices at all. Whilst they understand that, unfortunately, they are prepared to go along with the current scapegoat proposal by the government—that is, it is easier to go along with what appears to be a flow of public opinion, driven by tabloid media, driven by talkback radio programs, which basically are ratings based. I can understand the reasons, but I do not think it is particularly commendable for the Labor Party to go along with that when they know, in reality, that there has been nothing done to create jobs for young people, when they know that the element of compulsion has been included in this, and when they know that, in reality, the totality of this package is such that it is not of overall benefit to young people.It is extremely disappointing to see that this is the case. I think that, over time, more and more young people—who, of course, are voters as well, once they reach the age of 18, but who, of course, are not old enough to be independent, according to the government—will realise that they have been conned. Their parents will realise that they have been conned. I think, in the end, that the Labor Party will be blamed. I am sure many people in the Labor Party feel very concerned about this trend to look at the polls, to look at what the tabloid media is saying. Perhaps the Labor Party should be looking at programs like Frontline to see how some of these images of society can actually be created, when there is a desire to create the image that young people do not give a damn, do not want to work, and have got opportunities dripping all over the place which all they need to do is pluck. Basically, it is a lot easier to do that than to stand up for what is the reality in society.I wish there was a way of changing the mind of the ALP on this matter, but it looks very much like there is no chance in the immediate future. Perhaps at the election there will be a chance.10:57:00315Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—I also add my plea to Senator Neal and members of the opposition, given Senator Neal's concerns about the work for the dole scheme in relation to accreditation and training and the nature of some of those schemes, that she might change her mind and that of her party on this amendment. I concur with Senator Margetts in relation to the impact of work for the dole in terms of mainstream media and the way that government, decision makers and some elements of the media have perpetuated some of the most blatantly negative and regressive notions regarding young Australians—in particular, young unemployed Australians.With regard to the common youth allowance, I have said many times, Minister, that there are some positive aspects in this legislation, but there are also many nasty aspects. I think the only way that this government is getting away with the idea of stripping 16- and 17-year-olds of their benefits if they are unemployed—I acknowledge that some exemptions apply—is that they can rely on the fact that, firstly, these young people do not vote and, secondly, there are so many negative images of young Australians and young unemployed Australians floating around in the media and in the community that they can ensure the success of their legislation and other policy measures.They can certainly rely on the success of these kinds of punitive anti-youth measures when they have the support of the opposition of the day. Last year, the opposition supported the work for the dole bill, which enshrined, as I understand it, for the first time in legislation, the terminology `work for the dole', with all its negative connotations.I say to Senator Neal that, certainly, some people will support the concept of working for benefits and this jargon `mutual obligation and mutual responsibility'. A lot of people subscribe to that concept; I acknowledge that. The Democrats have never shied away from those principles of responsibility and commitment, provided it is mutual responsibility. But one of the most sinister aspects of the scheme is its compulsory nature and the fact that it relies upon all these images that young people need to be compelled to work. The negative images are that young people are somehow lazy, lacking motivation or requiring compulsion, when the reality is—and we all know it—that a majority of young people, especially young unemployed Australians, want to work. Unfortunately, this government is not giving them the opportunity to find real, sustainable and meaningful jobs.11:00:00315Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEALB36NSWALP00—I did not wish to extend this debate and make it a re-run of the debate on the work for the dole scheme, but I cannot stand aside and not respond to some of those fallacious statements made by both Senator Margetts and Senator Stott Despoja. This view that the Labor Party woke up yesterday, looked at the polls and decided what to do on work for the dole is really an example of some people not remembering history and those people who do not look at their history being doomed to repeat it.Certainly, the Labor Party has had a record over the years on employment and providing work for those people who are unemployed. I might remind you that the RED scheme—probably the largest scheme ever established for the purpose of providing work for those people who were on benefits—was done so under the auspices of the Labor Party. It was certainly not a scheme that the Labor Party would ever be embarrassed or ashamed of.I suppose we have been quite critical of the approach taken by the government in terms of work for the dole. I think it is very unfortunate that that terminology was used, because obviously it reflects a negative image of this proposal and gives the idea, I believe, that somehow those people who are not presently employed must be punished and used as an example to ensure that other people in the community do not intentionally go out and find themselves unemployed. It is really quite a bizarre proposition coming from the government.The essence of the scheme is that it is better for someone who is unemployed to have some activities that they are involved in than to have nothing at all, and that is the basis of the opposition's support for the scheme. We have said over and over again—and I said it earlier in the debate—that it is deplorable that there is no undertaking by the government to provide those people who are required to work for the dole with a decent type of training that will enhance their capacities to get employment in the future. In fact, as I have said, it has come to my attention that this government does not see fit to even have a job seeking component for those people who are participating in the scheme. I think that indicates that the sort of goodwill that is required in this mutual arrangement is lacking on the part of the government. What often happens is that, when there is goodwill lacking on one side of the contract, as it were—in this case, the government—it in turn creates a lack of goodwill on the other side, those people who are participants in the work for the dole scheme. I see that as a fairly mean and nasty approach and something that will mean that the end results of the scheme are going to be pretty negative.Having said all that, we do believe it is better that people are involved in some activity and that every little bit they are involved in will eventually improve their chances of entering the work force. I must say that I think their chances will improve only a very small amount compared with what could have happened if the scheme had had a proper training component and a view to actually getting people into employment, rather than—as it appears in the mind of the government—a view to punishing and embarrassing those people who are unlucky enough not to be in work, particularly our young people.I hope that clarifies the opposition's position somewhat. I must say I have to reject absolutely any view put by the Greens that somehow this is a new issue that the Labor Party started tackling last year and that our response to it and our position is somehow reliant on a poll.11:04:00316Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—At the outset, I utterly reject a claim made by Senator Margetts at the beginning of her contribution on these requests. She said that young Aboriginal people were being particularly targeted in work for the dole. I think that is quite disgraceful. There is no foundation for that whatsoever and, when you think about it, Senator Margetts, you will know that it was Aboriginal people who had a work for the dole scheme years before young white people were expected to make some contribution in return for the income support given to them by the taxpayer. I think you should think very seriously before you make claims like that.It is true that the debate on work for the dole has already taken place, but I do want to make a couple of points without holding up the committee. The community does very much endorse the work for the dole scheme. It is not a question of anybody being poll driven; it is a question of recognising that the community sees a virtue in young people being actively involved for the good of their community—for the community's sake and for their own sake. The government cannot sit by and watch more and more young people become isolated from their communities, become defeatist and be without hope because of long job search. We cannot do that and we are not prepared to do that, so the work for the dole scheme is something we are proud of.We have expanded the program and have made it an important element of the mutual obligations program that was announced by the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) in January. It will enable young people who have got literacy or numeracy problems or who live in remote areas of Australia where jobs are not very easy to come by to participate in voluntary work or part-time work and still satisfy their activity tests. That should be clearly understood in the context of the youth allowance debate.The Senate should be aware of the fact that something like 60 per cent—and I take these figures out of my head, so I cannot be absolutely sure of the exact figures—of those taking part in the work for the dole scheme to date have done so voluntarily. They have volunteered for it. Something like 40 per cent have actually been directed by Centrelink. They have not been compelled; they have been directed. So many of them are saying how glad they are that somebody did say to them, `We want you to go and take part in a work for the dole scheme.' They did not necessarily like the idea so much when they heard what the job was, but they have found since they have been in it that it has been really quite good.It is helping them meet people. They are getting out. They are making contacts with other young people. Instead of being isolated at home in front of the TV, for example, they are getting out and meeting people who can potentially find jobs for them and help them with job search. They are getting more confidence in themselves. Many of them are finding fulfilment in the work that they have been asked to do in response to the community's contribution to them.So it would be wrong to say that work for the dole has negative connotations either in the community or amongst the young people who have been involved in it. A relatively small percentage have actually been breached by Centrelink because they have chosen to not take part in work for the dole. The community has a right to know that there are some young people who are not prepared to make a contribution back to the community for their own sake and for the community's sake. But it is a very small proportion, Senator, which suggests that, even if they are being asked by Centrelink to take up a place, they still do it cheerfully and well, as I would expect young Australians to do.Do not let us forget in this debate that the very purpose of the youth allowance is focused on young people acquiring skills so that, in time to come, work for the dole will be less of an issue because young people will find it easier to get work. I spoke in the second reading debate about some of the young people in my home state of Tasmania who have no skills, who do not have sufficient education or training and who have little potential for getting work because the jobs that are available require people with skills. That is a mismatch which we should not accept in this country, and the youth allowance is designed to encourage young people and their parents to see the virtue of further training so that they can take the jobs that are offering.In a country where the types of jobs that are offering are changing so that the service industries and the new technologies are where the jobs are already and will be in the future, it would be grossly wrong of any government not to make an effort to try to get young people skilled to be able to take the jobs as they become available. That is what we are talking about today.I hope that the work for the dole scheme will not be something that is needed forever. It will not be an issue, certainly, because the community believes it is right and proper. But I would like to think that, because of the youth allowance and because of the improvement of the economy under this government's management, the jobs will come for these young people.11:10:00318Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—Senator Newman has indicated that I am wrong in suggesting that Aboriginal young people will in fact end up being targeted in such things as work for the dole. The reason I said that is the process of elimination of statistics.Which group is highly represented amongst unemployed young people in ability to obtain work in our society? Of course, statistically, Aboriginal people have harder times finding work in our society for various reasons. Which group finds it more difficult to fit in with the schools as they are and are less represented amongst year 11 and year 12 students? Of course it is the same group. Which group, therefore, is less likely to have the skills to be able to easily fit into a job? We know that the work for the dole component is for the 18-year-old plus, but the sheer statistics would indicate that there is a blame factor already built into this proposal. Because of that statistical bias, the blame factor will, inevitably, fall on groups like Aboriginal young people in Australia.Considering, as we said, that young people will be either in work, in training or in school, which group is most likely to be overrepresented in those two gaps? If there is any group that is likely to be overrepresented as falling in those two gaps, it is Aboriginal young people in Australia. Therefore, you cannot come to any other conclusion, unless somehow or other that statistic has escaped the government, that that particular group—that is, Aboriginal young people—are likely to be targeted for the work for the dole scheme.11:12:00318Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—I have a quick query for the minister. Minister, you stated that these young people were directed, not compelled. I am wondering if we are playing at a bit of a semantic debate here. If they were directed to take up a position and, for whatever reason, they decided not to or did not want to, would they be breached and would they lose their benefits? In which case, isn't direction just the same as compulsion?11:13:00318Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—I think we are splitting hairs a bit. I was trying to make the point that so few had actually had to be breached, they did go along with the direction that was given to them.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator McKiernan)—The question is that the requests and amendments be agreed to. Question put:11:17:00The committee divided. (The Chairman—Senator S. M. West)9Allison, L. Bartlett, A. J. J.Bourne, V. *Brown, B.Lees, M. H. Margetts, D.Murray, A. Stott Despoja, N.Woodley, J.56Abetz, E. Bishop, M.Boswell, R. L. D. Calvert, P. H.Campbell, G. Campbell, I. G.Chapman, H. G. P. Collins, J. M. A.Colston, M. A. Coonan, H.Cooney, B. Crane, W.Crowley, R. A. Denman, K. J.Eggleston, A. Ellison, C.Evans, C. V. *Ferguson, A. B.Ferris, J. Forshaw, M. G.Gibbs, B. Gibson, B. F.Harradine, B. Heffernan, W.Herron, J. Hill, R. M.Hogg, J. Kemp, R.Knowles, S. C. Lightfoot, P. R.Lundy, K. Macdonald, I.Macdonald, S. MacGibbon, D. J.Mackay, S. McGauran, J. J. J.McKiernan, J. P. Murphy, S. M.Neal, B. J. Newman, J. M.O'Brien, K. W. K. O'Chee, W. G.Parer, W. R. Patterson, K. C. L.Payne, M. A.Quirke, J. A.Reid, M. E. Reynolds, M.Sherry, N. Synon, K. M.Tambling, G. E. J. Tierney, J.Troeth, J. Vanstone, A. E.Watson, J. O. W. West, S. M.Question so resolved in the negative.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—The question now is that section 556A stand as printed.11:21:00319Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I think it is quite clear that the chamber has unfortunately decided that scapegoating in Australian politics is okay and that the major parties will continue to support the work for the dole scheme even though we know that it is a sham and a scapegoat scheme. The section I was asking to be deleted is one of those mildly ameliorating clauses which gives an extra payment of something like $20 a week. Since the Labor Party and the coalition have rejected my proposal in respect of the work for the dole scheme, there is no point going ahead with my opposition to section 556A. Because the worst part of the scheme has now been supported, there is no point in rejecting any part that is a minor amelioration of a bad scheme.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—I still have to put the question that section 556A stand as printed.DX5MARGETTSSenator Margetts—I am seeking to withdraw that amendment.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—It is not a motion or an amendment. You are ceasing your opposition to 556A. The question is that section 556A stand as printed.Question resolved in the affirmative.11:23:00319Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEALB36NSWALP00—by leave—I move:(1) Schedule 1, item 6, page 8 (line 11), omit "notify the person", substitute "by notice in writing given to the person, inform the person".(2) Schedule 1, item 6, page 8 (after line 16), after subsection (2), insert: (2A) A notice under subsection (2) must inform the person to whom it is given of the effect of failure by the person to comply with the requirement set out in the notice.There are a number of provisions which relate to notification contained within this piece of legislation. The mode of notification varies between verbal and, in some cases, in writing. There is also no uniform provision about the form of the notification or what it must contain. The purpose of the two opposition amendments is to ensure that all notifications must be uniform, that they must be in writing, that they must indicate what the consequences of not complying with the notice are. This is just to ensure that people are treated fairly, that they have notice in writing, that they are aware of what a failure by them to comply will be.11:24:00319Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—The Democrats share similar concerns to the opposition in relation to this legislation, the fact that there was not a requirement for notification to be in writing. We have foreshadowed similar amendments, which I am assuming will lapse but I am willing to indicate that they are withdrawn as well, to ensure both that notice is given in writing and that the person is informed of the effect of their failure to comply, having taken reasonable steps, of course. My understanding is that—and I will seek clarification from Senator Neal—you will be seeking to amend all those sections that deal with the issue of notification by ensuring that it is in writing and that the effect of non-compliance is included. You will be doing that. If you do that, the Democrats will withdraw the amendments in my name which serve the same purpose.11:25:00319Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—To suggest that the government is not intending to oppose these amendments might save people's time. I would like to draw to Senator Neal's attention that, in not opposing the substance of the amendments, there are some technical difficulties that I want to draw to your attention that would cause a problem if they were not fixed.Amendments 10 and 19 on sheet 858 need to specify that the new words are to be added after `the notice'. I am advised that the reason is that if you do not insert the words after `the notice' they could go in a place where they would have no meaning. I assure you there is nothing tricky about this. It is simply a question of the drafting of the amendments that you have. I will repeat this again in a minute if you want to look at it. Amendment 4 on sheet 863 should refer to schedule 1. It is currently expressed as amending schedule 12 and there is no such schedule 12 in the bill.B36NEALSenator Neal—That is not what we are looking at.BE4Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMAN—These are all part of 1 and 2, I think. It is unclear what is intended by amendment 5 on sheet 863 because it already appears to be covered by amendment 4 and there are no paragraphs in subsection (3) to which you could add a paragraph (f). It could be intended to be made to subsection (4) to add a paragraph (d) after paragraph (c) added by amendment 4 above. I do not know that you are any the wiser hearing that as I am going, but they are technical problems with the drafting of those amendments. We are not opposing the purpose and the direction of your amendments. We are prepared to accept those.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—At this stage Senator Neal has moved opposition amendments 1 and 2 on sheet 863. Were the problems you raised consequential upon the non-opposition of that?11:28:00320Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—In the meantime, may I ask the minister for the government's opinion of the Democrats amendments that have the same intent but are drafted slightly differently. I am wondering whether there are such difficulties in the drafting of ours. If so, we will dispense with them. If not, it may be more appropriate to move the Democrat amendments which serve the same purpose.11:28:00320Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEALB36NSWALP00—At this stage I have only moved amendments 1 and 2. There are no drafting difficulties with either of those two. There are some slight errors in our drafting I have to say, Minister, largely due to the fact that when we were preparing our amendments the third reading version of the bill, which involved some renumbering, was not available at the table office. In fact, I had to send round a member of my staff during question time to your office to actually get that bill. So some of the numbers are a bit out.I have some amendments to fix up that numbering problem which I will seek to make as the time arises. They may not cover all the matters you raise. Can I suggest that maybe you might send one of your advisers over to talk to my adviser to get those clarified while we are going through it.11:29:00320Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—I acknowledge that what Senator Neal said about the technical amendments is correct; they do not affect the first two. They apparently appear subsequently in several places, so they do need to be fixed. It was more to give you early warning of them. I hope that the Senate will be ready to move to make a decision on these two straight away.11:30:00320Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—It seems quite incredible that the government is even suggesting that people could be punished for not abiding by an activity test that they had not properly notified those people of. It seems that there are going to be a number of issues that will come up in this debate in relation to the ability for the secretary to penalise people, sometimes to quite extraordinary lengths, for non-compliance. This theme will keep coming up again and again.I want also to add to what Senator Neal was saying in relation to time. Last night, to a certain extent, we got abused for asking for a little more time to sort out these amendments in getting ready for this debate, but the irony was we were calling the government on almost a daily basis to find out what bills were coming up this week. We had only a short time to prepare. I must say I had my personal reasons why I was less prepared than I would have liked to have been last week, but the reality is we have a situation where, even now, in preparing for whatever comes next week, the same things are going to happen because we do not know this week what we are meant to be debating on the program next week.There are something like 91 bills which we are supposed to get through in 19 days, or something of that nature, and we do not even know what we are supposed to be preparing for in the very next week. I really do think sometimes that the government ought to be taking that into consideration with any kind of holier than thou attitude in relation to drafting problems, because I believe they are largely of the government's own making. We would have loved to have had more weeks to know exactly when this program was coming up. We would have loved to have had more access to the information.The consequential bill, which has many implications for what we are doing here, was really only just recently lobbed on our laps. There are unknown parts and we do not know anything at all about the regulations. We are going to be talking about these again and again during the debate on the bill, so I just think that the government ought to be a little careful about any comments in relation to other people's lack of preparation here.11:32:00321Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—This legislation was debated in the other House something like five months ago. It went through a full committee hearing in the Senate before Christmas. Briefings were offered to all the parties. The Greens (WA) in fact had briefings offered to them in late January, at which time they were told that this would be the first bill coming before this parliament. So I am afraid I cannot accept Senator Margetts's claims of the government being in any way responsible for the inability of the Greens to produce amendments in a timely fashion.Amendments agreed to.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Chapman)—We will now move to Democrats amendments Nos 1, 15, 18, 21 and 24. I understand Senator Stott Despoja is seeking leave to take those together.11:33:00321Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—In fact, Mr Temporary Chairman, I indicated earlier that I would not pursue those amendments given the success of the opposition's changes to the notice definitions to ensure that there was an effort to inform people as to the effect of non-compliance. 10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Does that apply to Democrat amendment No. 2? Are you moving that?11:34:00321Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—Yes. I move:(2) Schedule 1, item 6, page 10 (line 25), after "(4))", insert "(or would be so categorised except for reasons beyond the person's control)".Democrat amendment No. 2 relates to study definitions. What we seek to do with this amendment in relation to full-time study is to insert the words `or would be so categorised except for reasons beyond the person's control'. The reason we use that terminology is that obviously there will be some cases where courses are changed or there are circumstances beyond that person's control and for that reason they cannot pursue the same study units.I know that in some respects this is covered in the bill when it comes to health and other circumstances beyond a person's control, but I think it is worth putting in this more general definition. For example, full-time courses may be rescheduled or cancelled or there may be shifts in load for the year such as summer schools, et cetera, and this will allow institutions and students more flexibility. I think that some students may pursue, in good faith, full-time study, but their study commitments may be changed or altered in some way which is not of their doing; it is beyond their control. To satisfy that possibility, we have used these words.11:35:00321Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEALB36NSWALP00—We have had a look at this amendment. The opposition has some sympathy for the intentions of the Democrats in moving this amendment. Unfortunately, they do not seem to have encapsulated their intentions in the amendment proposed and it ends up, it appears to us, coming out as someone who has done three-quarters of three-quarters of the load, which I do not think is what they intended. But that being the case, we really cannot support it.11:36:00321Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—I might ask Senator Neal to clarify her comments, because I am talking about circumstances where situations may change and the words are `beyond the person's control'. This is not relating to the definition as to what constitutes full-time study. That might actually relate to a different amendment.11:37:00322Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—Perhaps I can help here. The Democrats have proposed amending the definition of full-time study so that a student who is not enrolled in and undertaking full-time study but would be so categorised except for reasons beyond the person's control can be considered a full-time student. I think you would say that is a fair summary of it.The government's response is that under the flexible youth allowance activity test—and I think that is one of the very special elements of the youth allowance—students who are unable to study full-time for reasons beyond their control are able to have their activity test requirements adjusted to take account of their personal circumstances. If a student, for example, has a disability which prevents them from undertaking a full-time study load, they can continue their course without a job search requirement, if this is reasonable in the circumstances. They do not have to be classified as a full-time student.The amendment that Senator Stott Despoja is proposing is so broad—and this is our problem with it—that almost anyone undertaking study could be classified as a full-time student. The flexibility that I know that she is trying to aim for I think is already achieved in the legislation. We think that is a very special quality about the legislation, that that flexibility of the activity test in youth allowance is one of the reasons for doing it. As I said in my second reading speech, so often young people, under the current arrangements, slip between the cracks and are not eligible for help in either direction: in the youth training allowance or in Austudy. But this means that they do not slip between the cracks and I do not think that students who are studying to their full capacity are disadvantaged by the arrangements under youth allowance, and therefore I cannot support the amendment put forward by the Democrats.11:39:00322Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—There should be a provision which allows for those with special circumstances to have a concession under the definition of full-time study. There should also be a provision which allows those who have to finish their course under special circumstances to have a similar concession. The minister must be able to assure us that these provisions are in the guidelines. Obviously, that is why the amendment needs to be moved.This is similar to Greens (WA) amendment 8673 which we will dealing with later, but I am prepared to support Democrats' amendment No. 2 on sheet 858 because, in reality, although the minister mentions flexibility, in my speech at the second reading stage I gave a whole lot of examples where the discretion is really in the hands of the secretary and the flexibility is basically for various means by which the government makes people ineligible for various kinds of allowances on the youth allowance.The reality is that sometimes students have to be almost contortionists. They have to be that flexible in order to be able to comply with what the government is putting them through in relation to these circumstances. The government has not indicated that these provisions are actually in the guidelines.11:40:00322Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—I recognise the strength of that comment at the end by Senator Margetts. Yes, they are in the guidelines, Senator, and can I emphasise again that one of the drivers of youth allowance—one of the reasons for youth allowance being necessary—was to achieve this flexibility.The concessions have not been specifically spelled out for youth allowance to allow for greater flexibility because, under the flexible activity test, a young person can have their activity test requirements adjusted so that they can continue to study without other activities being imposed. That is why we are going down this route in the first place, to have a youth allowance which is more flexible than the current arrangements are. It is to improve on the current arrangements that we are wanting a flexible situation. It would make it less flexible if the legislation made it overly prescriptive as to what could be done to accommodate the personal special circumstances of young people So the answer to you is, yes, we have them in the guidelines.11:41:00323Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I just want to emphasise why the Greens (WA) are concerned about this issue: that the so-called flexibility that the minister is talking about leaves it to the discretion of the secretary. The process by which the secretary in the end will be required to make specific decisions on the individual cases of people might be quite complex and actually require quite a bureaucratic wrangle.I am dealing with students currently on another issue, who are trying to get rulings from departments in relation to things like self-employment and whether or not their income is too much, what year it is, whether or not they can get a ruling, what kind of guidelines there are, when they are going to get them and so on. I know how difficult it is when things are not very clear. It would help everybody, and I believe save a whole lot of time, if these guidelines were clear enough so that people did not have to go to the secretary for a ruling—to go through that harassment of having to go and get a ruling and have to wait in that level of uncertainty to find out what their future is, whether they can study, whether they can continue to eat, and so on.In the real workings of the real world, it does not help if people do not know what their entitlements are, and it does not help if the department is not clearly able to tell people what they are entitled to. The trouble is, there seem to be responsibilities but very few rights for people under this scheme, and it appears the responsibilities are all on the students. They have little ability to know, in fact, what they are entitled to.11:43:00323Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—One of the problems that Senator Margetts is adverting to is that, in looking after her constituents, it is the very prescriptive nature of the Austudy guidelines that lead to some of the problems that she faced for students of her constituents. We are trying to avoid that situation so that a young person's personal circumstances can be taken into account and accommodated. They might be able to take a much smaller load for a certain length of time. To be able to do that sort of thing on an individual basis is, surely, much more humane, and that is why we are concerned not to replicate the kind of prescriptive regime which has been applying up till now in Austudy. It is a beneficial direction, as we see it.Amendment not agreed to.11:45:00323Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I move:(2) Schedule 1, item 6, page 10 (lines 28 and 29), omit paragraph (d).We are dealing with amendment 2 on sheet 867 which relates to what is considered to be satisfactory progress. As I have mentioned before, the Greens (WA) believe that there is too much discretion given to the secretary. This must be a very, very omnipotent secretary who decides whether somebody is proceeding satisfactorily in their course. We believe it should be left to the university or to the school to decide, not to the Department of Social Security.In that sense we have had the debate in relation to Democrat amendment 3 on sheet 858. This is similar to that. Basically, we urge support for removing that paragraph, which we believe gives too much discretion to the secretary when working out what is satisfactory progress.11:45:00323Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—Of course, we have had some of this debate on previous amendments. I have made clear what is the government's intention. It is important, though, to ensure that young people do not spend an unreasonable time undertaking a course of study and, for that reason, Senator Margetts' proposal to remove the satisfactory progress rule altogether is not supported.However, Senator Stott-Despoja has proposed an amendment that the guidelines on how to define satisfactory progress be a disallowable instrument, and the government is prepared to accept that amendment. I hope that will satisfy Senator Margetts' concerns.11:47:00324Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—I extend my thanks to the Minister for Social Security (Senator Newman) for accepting our amendment. Just to clarify it, we have debated our amendment No.2 but we have not debated amendment 3 on sheet 858.I think that will alleviate some of Senator Margetts' concerns, as the minister has said, and will enable a degree of flexibility—as is, I presume, intended by the legislation. We too recognise that this power potentially could be used as some kind of punitive mechanism and could be open to abuse; that was the rationale behind making it a disallowable instrument. I am glad to hear it has some support.11:47:00324Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEALB36NSWALP00—I indicate that the opposition will not be supporting this amendment. It seems to me that satisfactory progress should be a requirement. There are some concerns in the community that someone might be a never-ending student. But we certainly will be looking with great interest at the amendment proposed by the Democrats which will in some way make the provisions as to satisfactory progress more transparent.Amendment not agreed to.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Chapman)—We now move to opposition amendments 3 and 13. Senator Neal, are you seeking leave for them to be moved together?11:48:00324Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEALB36NSWALP00—In fact, we withdraw amendment 3. I move:(13) Schedule 2, item 8, page 173 (lines 3 to 5), omit ", if the person is undertaking full-time study (see section 541B) at any time during the fortnight".Essentially, amendment 13 relates to the student income bank and extending that provision to the unemployed. Obviously, there are some great advantages to be obtained from the income bank. It allows a student who may, under some circumstances, not be able to earn a great deal during the academic year to earn, obviously during holiday periods when they are freer, fairly large amounts of money. This provision will allow a student, as it were, to spread that income over the year for the purpose of social security so that they do not lose out on their eligibility for the youth allowance. It seems to be a very good provision.With this amendment we are attempting to ensure that the provision is also available for the unemployed. It seems to the opposition that it is quite unfortunate to in some ways discourage young, unemployed people from maybe taking two or three weeks of employment because it could well mean they miss out on their allowance not only for that period but also for a period after. I suppose it would seem to us quite sad that they would have to essentially reject some experience that would be very valuable—in terms of training to allow them to be more attractive future employees—because if they did not it would mean that they would be trying to live on air for some weeks after that.We think it would be quite fair and advantageous, in terms of getting those people back to work, to allow young people to perhaps take up short periods of employment, get the advantage of the skills they might derive, and be able to bank that up and, as it were, have it spread over the whole year so their eligibility is not affected. In essence, that is the effect of our amendment.11:52:00324Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—I think the income bank for students is a particularly good initiative as it recognises that patterns of employment for students are limited by their studies. We all know that students tend to earn the bulk of their income during vacations, and that is why—when you are bringing together two payments for people who have quite different lifestyles—a provision needs to be introduced.There are students studying throughout the year but available to do quite intensive work during vacations and there are young people who are unemployed and looking for work who must be available to take work as it is offered and as it is available throughout the year. That is why we looked at this and decided that the proper route was to make a special provision for the circumstances of a student's life, occasioned by their study demands, and that there would be no earnings bank for those who are looking for work and expected to take what work is there.I think that it is important to make sure that unemployed people do understand current arrangements introduced prior to our coming into government, which I think were a step very much in the right direction. They encouraged people to undertake casual work by enabling them to earn $60 per fortnight with no effect on their payment, and to lose only 50c in the dollar for the next $80 per fortnight. The introduction in 1995 of the 70c taper for income over $140 per fortnight has actually led to most unemployed people always being better off if they can earn income rather than rely purely on income support. Those changes in 1995 have made a big difference to the ability and the encouragement of unemployed people of any age to take up some work as it presents itself.The government does not support the extension of the income bank to unemployed people at this time, and would not do so unless we had evidence that it would be a significant deterrent to people's willingness to take up casual or part-time employment. As I say, the moves that you introduced in the Labor government in 1995 have quite significantly increased the incentives for people to take up that sort of work as it is available. So we would not wish to extend the income bank to all young people. It was set in place simply there to recognise the particular circumstances that young people who are students face in not being able to work very easily during semesters and during the academic year.11:54:00325Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—In some of these debates it might be helpful if we could have a run of comments before the minister responds, but I guess it depends on the particular minister's preference at the time. The opposition's amendment No. 13 appears to be the same as our amendment No. 31 and therefore we will be supporting this idea of the income bank.I think it is a good idea for people on the dole. It does mean that people have the opportunity to survive. Unfortunately, the trend at the moment is that the government is wishing to make sure that people are as dependent as possible at all times. If anything happens during the normal course of events—if they need hospital bills paid, and even unemployed people have cars that break down and so on—it means that there is nothing backing them up. Having the income bank and spreading that over a period of time is a very useful thing for everybody. I will be supporting opposition amendment No. 13. It is a good idea for people to start thinking about what is fair and reasonable for people who are finding it difficult to survive in our community.11:56:00325Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—I would like to ask the minister to clarify her remarks about extending this to unemployed young people. In your comments before I was not quite sure what you were implying. Were you suggesting that doing this would be a disincentive for unemployed people to take up certain types of work? I would have thought extending this scheme to unemployed people does give them the opportunity to undertake a bit more casual or part-time work of a short-term nature without having such a high penalty. Whilst I recognise the withdrawal rates that the minister outlined, it still does mean that as soon as people are earning more than $60 they are getting an effective tax rate of 50 per cent, which is still fairly significant if you are on a very low income. I would have thought extending this scheme to unemployed people would be an incentive for them to take up occasional work, which can then obviously be a stepping stone to getting further into the full-time workforce.11:57:00325Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—The answer is that we do believe, as I said before, that the incentives introduced by the previous government for unemployed people of any age to seek and take work when it is offered and in the quantities in which it is offered actually are working. The incentives are there and people are making use of it. So there is no particular justification to change that requirement on all unemployed people, not simply those in this age bracket.We made a special arrangement for students because they were not in the same position as young unemployed people. Students with a full study load are not easily able to fit in some part-time and casual work. We were focusing on doing something a bit different for them because of their special circumstances. If we were to extend that—without justification, as I see it—to those who are not in full-time study, then we would in fact be incurring substantial costs to revenue—in the realm of tens of millions of dollars, I am advised.I do not believe the case for it has been made out when the reforms that were introduced three years ago are in fact working. We see now that those changes to the income testing have meant that people are taking up that work when it offers. I do not think the young unemployed who are going to be receiving youth allowance will be disadvantaged. They will, in fact, still have access to casual and part-time work where they can get it.11:59:00326Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEALB36NSWALP00—The opposition has been for some time—and is becoming more and more so—concerned about the impediments that exist with the interface of the social security system, taxation and the way work is offered at the present time. It seems more and more that there is a huge obstacle that unemployed people need to overcome in order to move from social security to full-time employment. This is particularly the case with young people.It seems to me a little worrying that the minister says that there is no evidence to suggest that having a `no income bank' is a discouragement for young people to go into short-term employment. I think that common sense indicates that a young person could greatly benefit from, say, full-time work, but for only a short period—one or two weeks—particularly if they have never worked before. For many 16- to 18-year-olds who are unemployed, this is very sadly the case in this day and age. Certainly a short period of work will enhance their self-esteem and also the skills that they offer to a potential full-time employer in the future. It seems to me, on the face of it, to be very beneficial to allow a young person to go into work for even one or two weeks. Also, it seems to me to be obvious, by way of common sense, that if you are a young person who is on a youth allowance and you are offered a position for one or two weeks, even though you might be very keen to do the work, very keen to get the money, if you know that you will be off benefits for that time and for a number of weeks thereafter, you will be discouraged from taking up short-term work because of the suffering that you will have to go through for the period after that. It is quite common for young people who are unemployed to get short periods of employment—and I have actually talked to a number of young people who are unemployed—and be unemployed again for quite long periods. In those circumstances it would seem to me that their overall income, if averaged out over the whole year, will be well below the $60 a fortnight which is already allowed. It seems to me not to be unfair to allow them to spread that income out over the year and still be entitled to the benefit.I am somewhat concerned by the minister's proposition; that very vague estimate of cost. I would hope that a minister of the Crown could be a little bit more precise than `tens of millions'. That figure seems to have been plucked out of the air. But also she fails to accept that we need to do everything we can do as a community and as a parliament to improve the chances of young people to go back into work. I think allowing them full-time work experience for one or two weeks is something that will improve their chances. It will mean that, ultimately, a young person is going back to work. We will save the money required to support them on social security for some time, probably, and maybe for the rest of their life.The very sad situation is that if we make it hard for young people to go back to work—and the way the system operates discourages them—experience shows us that in many cases they will end up being people who have trouble getting into the work force for the rest of their lives. The way our community operates at the moment makes it hard for people to go back to work, and creates generations which do not have access to employment. So, in my view, allowing them to spread their $30 a week `free zone' or `free income' is a fairly small price to pay for the possibility of sending young people who are keen to work back into the work force by allowing them to develop the skills they need.12:04:00327Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—I would like to correct perhaps a misunderstanding on the part of Senator Neal. If a young person does take some full-time work when it is offered and it is for under six weeks, it may well affect their payments, but it does not have an impact on their long-term entitlement to youth allowance—they just go straight back on. They are on a nil basis for the period that they are in the work force and then they go straight back on. They do not have to re-apply at the end of the six weeks.12:05:00327Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEALB36NSWALP00—So it would only apply in a situation where they were offered employment for a period over five weeks? Is that correct?BE4NEWMANSenator Newman—It is six weeks.B36Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEAL—Okay. I was not aware of that, but I think my argument applies just as well to periods in excess of six weeks as it does to periods under that. Obviously that provision allows for that situation. But it seems to me that, if the income that they earn over that short period—even though it is in excess of six weeks—is averaged out, they are still within the $30 a week free boundary. I think it shows that this provision will probably affect only a relatively small number of people and, therefore, as a cost to the social security system it will not be substantial. When those particular people have the luck to be offered short-term employment in excess of that six weeks, I certainly think that we should do everything possible to encourage them to take up that employment.12:06:00327Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—I am interested in the minister's response to Senator Neal as to the costs. I also heard what she said about that ballpark figure. I know that the Senate is not here to frustrate government, and I think the minister would understand that, as a whole, the Senate is dealing with this measure in a manner that is attempting to improve what has been suggested. This legislation is, frankly, going to run into huge problems this afternoon. We are tinkering around the edges here, but it is going to run into huge problems because of the government's intention to transfer the burden of 18- to 20-year-old unemployed persons from the Commonwealth budget to the budget of families without, in turn, acknowledging that particular transfer in the taxation system. That is a thorough injustice and a major question which will need to be considered this afternoon.On this particular one, I would like to hear from the minister why the amendment would cause so much cost to the government. I cannot follow that. There are other arguments that the minister has put forward that may indeed be telling and significant, but the issue of cost is one that I would like to hear a detailed response from the minister on.12:08:00327Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—We do not have the precise figures with us. The advice that I gave the Senate a little while ago was based on our experience with the earnings credit scheme. Beyond that, I cannot be more precise today. Question put: That the amendment (Senator Neal's ) be agreed to.12:13:00The committee divided. (The Chairman—Senator S. M. West)33Allison, L. Bartlett, A. J. J.Bishop, M. Bolkus, N.Bourne, V. Brown, B.Campbell, G. Carr, K.Collins, J. M. A. Conroy, S. *Cooney, B. Crowley, R. A.Denman, K. J. Evans, C. V.Forshaw, M. G. Gibbs, B.Hogg, J. Lees, M. H.Lundy, K. Margetts, D.McKiernan, J. P. Murphy, S. M.Murray, A. Neal, B. J.O'Brien, K. W. K. Quirke, J. A.Ray, R. F. Reynolds, M.Schacht, C. C. Sherry, N.Stott Despoja, N. West, S. M.Woodley, J.35Abetz, E. Boswell, R. L. D.Calvert, P. H. Campbell, I. G.Chapman, H. G. P. Colston, M. A.Coonan, H. Ellison, C.Ferguson, A. B. Ferris, J.Gibson, B. F. Harradine, B.Heffernan, W. Herron, J.Hill, R. M. Kemp, R.Knowles, S. C. Lightfoot, P. R.Macdonald, I. Macdonald, S.MacGibbon, D. J. McGauran, J. J. J.Minchin, N. H. Newman, J. M.O'Chee, W. G. *Parer, W. R.Patterson, K. C. L. Payne, M. A.Reid, M. E. Synon, K. M.Tambling, G. E. J. Tierney, J.Troeth, J. Vanstone, A. E.Watson, J. O. W.Collins, R. L. Crane, W.Cook, P. F. S. Brownhill, D. G. C.Faulkner, J. P. Alston, R. K. R.Mackay, S. Eggleston, A.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the negative.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Chapman)—We will now move to Greens amendments Nos 3, 4 and 5 on sheet 866.12:18:00328Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I move:(4) Schedule 1, item 6, page 11 (lines 8 to 12), omit paragraph (c).(5) Schedule 1, item 6, page 11 (lines 13 to 18), omit subsection (3).The sheet, as it is written, included amendment 31 and we have just dealt with that in opposition amendment No. 13. Therefore, I will not be seeking to move that. I also indicate that amendment No. 3 has been alluded to, albeit by accident, by Senator Neal on behalf of the opposition. In as much as we were trying to cover the issue that three-quarters of a HECS load would be considered to be acceptable as full-time study, in fact, it is covered in the government's bill.B36NEALSenator Neal—I was wondering which amendment I was talking to.DX5Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTS—This is the one, Senator Neal. Therefore, I will not be proceeding with Greens (WA) amendment No. 3. Amendments Nos 4 and 5 relate to definitions of full-time study and seek to remove the circular, inadequate and onerous definitions of full-time study. We believe the definition in section 541B(2)(b) is a sufficient alternative position. I would like to ask the minister what is meant by paragraph 541B(2)(c), relating to undertaking full-time study, which states:(c) otherwise—an amount of full-time study equivalent to the average amount of full-time study that a person would have to undertake for the duration of the course in order to complete the course in the minimum amount of time needed to complete it.Minister, would you explain what that means please?12:21:00328Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—The advice I have received is that a person can be regarded as a full-time student if they are doing the workload normally associated with full-time study over the length of a course. In other words, it can fluctuate from time to time so long as they are achieving a full-time load over the period.12:22:00328Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—In relation to our amendment No. 5 on sheet 866 which deals with the alternative meaning of a normal amount of full-time study, is the minister aware that a person studying for a law degree in most tertiary institutions has less than 20 contact hours per week? Law degree was picked out by my adviser, but I would like to say law degree, arts degree, you name it. How did these hours get picked out and how is it an appropriate alternative definition?12:22:00328Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—Law is a HECS course and, therefore, would fit in one of the definitions for full-time study because there are three parts to the definition. In a HECS course, the student must be doing three-quarters of a full HECS load or, in a non-HECS course, the student is full-time if the institution defines them as full-time, or, as I said earlier, a person can be regarded as full-time if they are doing the workload normally associated with full-time study over the length of a course. That catch-all is designed to give greater flexibility, to be beneficial where somebody does not fit into the first two definitions.Amendments not agreed to.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Chapman)—We will now move to the Greens (WA) amendment No. 3 on sheet 867.12:23:00329Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I move:(3) Schedule 1, item 6, page 11 (after line 18), after subsection (3), insert:(3A) For the purposes of this Act, if a person is disabled within the meaning of the AUSTUDY Regulations, the normal amount of full-time study for that person in respect of a course is 25% of the normal amount of full-time study.The Greens (WA) amendment No. 3 on sheet 867 indicates that there should be a provision which allows those with disabilities to have a concession for the definition of full-time study. The Democrats amendment No. 2 on sheet 858 has a similar purpose. There should also be a provision which allows those who have to finish their course, or for some other special circumstance, to have a similar concession. To a certain extent, we have had this debate, but I would still urge the committee to support this amendment.329Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—(12.24 p.m.)—The Democrats will be supporting this amendment. We think it is thoroughly fair and reasonable and, indeed, would have moved one comparable, or the same, had the Greens (WA) not done so.It is something that we have mentioned on many occasions when debating education, training and student assistance legislation. I believe it may have been something that we attempted to do in relation to open learning and the criteria that students had to satisfy. We believe that a 25 per cent discount is more than appropriate for those students who may have some form of disability. I think, in the interests of fairness, all parties in the chamber should support this amendment.12:25:00329Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEALB36NSWALP00—I have to say that I have some sympathy for these provisions. I would very much like to hear from the minister why we should not have this provision and, if it is already provided for, where it is provided for.12:25:00329Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—I would like to ask Senator Margetts: is this a 25 per cent discount?DX5MARGETTSSenator Margetts—No.6H4Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE—It is not. It is in fact 25 per cent of the normal amount of full-time study. So it is really not a discount. I thought Senator Stott Despoja said it was a discount. I just wanted to make that very clear. Senator Margetts says that it is 25 per cent of the normal amount of full-time study. I have looked at this area and I am very familiar with it. Having regard to the advice and the experiences I have had in this area, I, like Senator Neal, would like to hear from the minister why this sort of proposal is not acceptable to the government. It may well be acceptable to the government. The government may consider it an appropriate measure and, if so, the minister might like to tell us. If not, can she outline why not?12:26:00329Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—As was said by Senator Margetts, we had this debate earlier this morning. It is very much a part of the flexible activity test that I was talking about earlier—the fact that we are trying to make an allowance for young people which is utterly responsive to their personal circumstances. We feel that the current situation for young people, whether it is Austudy or youth training allowance, is very prescriptive and does not allow for the complexities, if you like, of young people's lives. I gave some examples of that.Again, in regard to this matter—and this is provided for in the guidelines, as I said earlier—under the flexible activity test, students who are unable to study full-time for reasons beyond their control are able to have their activity test requirements adjusted to take account of their personal circumstances.Let me give an example. If students have a disability which prevents them from undertak ing a full-time study load, they can continue their course without a jobsearch requirement if this is reasonable in the circumstances. They do not have to be classified as full-time students. Therefore, I do not see that this amendment is required. The flexibility is there now to look at a young person's personal circumstances and, under the guidelines, which provide for great flexibility, adjust any requirements to their personal needs.I do not believe that young people will be disadvantaged at all as a result of what we are doing; quite to the contrary. Therefore, I do not believe that this amendment is appropriate.12:28:00330Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I wonder whether the minister has had responses from any groups dealing with people with disabilities who have seen what the implications of this legislation are. It would, I imagine, be greatly helpful for people who believe they have abilities but for whom, for physical reasons, a 25 per cent workload would be as difficult, as onerous and as energy consuming as for other able bodied people who are doing what is defined as a full-time load.Wouldn't it be a lot more acceptable to those people if they do not have to plead special cases each time? It seems to me that basic human rights would indicate that people who, for physical reasons, are simply unable to undertake a full-time student load should have some sort of guidelines so that they do not have to plead special cases each time.It seems to me that you are creating a class of people and saying, `We do understand, but you have to come to us—each one of you—and plead special circumstances each time.' Things are hard enough already, I imagine, for many people undertaking studies in terms of transport, moving around, study time or the need for translators or assistance from other people. Things are hard enough without having to first go and plead their case or make a special application.12:30:00330Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—First of all, I apologise to Senator Harradine if I misled him in any way by using the word `discount'. I had in my mind amendments moved previously by the Democrats in relation to a proposed 25 per cent discount on fees for study in open learning institutions for people with a disability, but I do recognise that this is 25 per cent of course load.I agree with the comments by Senator Margetts, and I acknowledge the minister's desire to have a degree of flexibility within this legislation. With all due respect, though, while there is some flexibility provided for, I believe in some circumstances we need to spell out in this legislation what that flexibility entails or what special circumstances may mean. Specifically, in the case of students with a disability, this amendment would not only satisfy the government's desire for flexibility; it would also make very clear that this particular group of people is catered for within this legislation.I think there are other examples in this legislation where you could argue, `We're trying to aim for a degree of flexibility when we define circumstances such as travel and unreasonable paid work.' I will seek to further define that because, yes, there is flexibility, but a lot of this is open to very general, very broad interpretation that may not in the end be beneficial for those people who are seeking to obtain or who are on the common youth allowance.I believe unreasonable paid work and unreasonable or unfair travel should be spelt out, just as in this case I believe we should spell out how we can assist students with a disability in their circumstances. So I strongly support this amendment and I do not see it as prescriptive in such a way that will stop flexibility. I think it is just spelling things out in a way that will assist particular groups in our community.12:32:00330Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—Let me point out to Senator Stott Despoja that currently, if you have a disability under Austudy, as I understand it you have to apply for concessional treatment. Then, because Austudy does not go from year to year, you have to reapply every year. What will happen under the youth allowance is that you will still have to be approved for the concessional load, but your youth allowance will continue on. Unless you stop being a student or stop meeting the eligibility criteria laid down, you will continue to get youth allowance. You will not have to reapply.In other words, if your condition does not get better and you still continue with that disability, then that is it as far as the youth allowance is concerned. You are being treated in a more beneficial manner. It is less intrusive. I think it was Senator Stott Despoja who said that it was likely to be intrusive if you kept coming back to officials to justify your position. I think this is much less intrusive than the current arrangements. The guidelines that you have had a very early version of are making provision for how this will operate, and I am sure you would agree that it is designed to greater accommodate the needs of young people.12:34:00331Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—Thank you, Minister. I first acknowledge deficiencies in the current arrangements, especially student assistance for students with a disability. This is a different aspect of eligibility criteria. This is not simply to do with the number of times you establish your eligibility criteria or the fact that you establish your eligibility criteria and that that is ongoing. We are talking about how we define the study arrangement for that particular student. They may be different aspects of determining eligibility, but I do not see them as mutually exclusive in any way.12:35:00331Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—To determine what study load a student is going to be required to meet, they would first have to give evidence as to their circumstances. What I was just saying to you in that previous answer is very relevant to what we are doing, because they will be required to bring that to determine the load they will be expected to carry. You are wiping away what I just said to you when it was extremely relevant. Do you not see that?12:35:00331Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—The minister is not entirely convincing the chamber from what I can see. I think it would be extremely helpful if the guidelines were specific. For instance, for a person with a disability, a study load of more than 25 per cent may be considered full-time study. How would people know what is reasonable to put in their application? There might be people with disabilities who may not have had experience with full-time study and who may think they might be required to do three-quarters or half. How would they know if there is not something in the guidelines that would give some indication of what they should apply for and what would be reasonable to assume will get a positive response from the government?12:36:00331Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEALB36NSWALP00—I have to say that I tend to be suspicious when the government says, `We want flexibility because we want to help you,' because often the flexibility helps the government rather than a particular individual involved. I understand, from the comments that have been made, that both the Democrats and the Greens obviously share that view.My difficulty is that, in this particular situation, it is almost impossible to pinpoint a particular level for a disabled person and to say that that will be fair in all cases. So this is probably one of the few situations where I am convinced of the need for flexibility. With people who are disabled, in some cases 90 per cent may be quite reasonable and in other cases only five per cent may be quite reasonable. It really depends on the particular level of difficulty the person has and on all sorts of other factors that I am sure I could not hope to possibly take into account or even think about here in the chamber today.I believe—and this is the position of the opposition—that, for those disabled persons and their eligibility for study, it probably is preferable to allow their very individual circumstances to be taken into account. I suppose it is always open to this chamber to take action at a later stage. We tend to have rounds of social security amendments come through quite regularly. So, if it is not being administered fairly and we have complaints from disabled persons about this being applied too stringently, we can come back to it. At the moment I cannot see the proposal put up as being a solution to the difficulties of those particular persons.12:38:00332Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I hear what Senator Neal has said on behalf of the Labor Party, but I imagine also we are not necessarily going to get statistics. It is going to be very difficult for people to actually make some kind of formal complaint through, say, the Commonwealth Ombudsman or the appeals tribunal if they do not know what the levels are. So, basically, you may not have the statistics six months or 12 months down the track if people clearly do not have a level by which they can say, `We believe that our circumstance would apply for the highest level of leniency or whatever.' So, in reality, we may never get a situation where we clearly have the statistics to be able to come back to this chamber to say what is fair and reasonable.I remind the Senate that, under the various cuts in social security—another scapegoat mechanism by the government—the real flexibility within the system is diminishing daily. The real choices that exist for people are diminishing daily. As has been mentioned, the reality is that flexibility means fewer rights for anybody. I think that is what it comes down to.The Democrats and the Greens are saying that there has to be a point where people say, `I have the right to be educated, and I think it's reasonable that I can put myself through, say, 25 per cent or more of a course because that is the most that I can achieve, given my circumstances.' Unfortunately, what the government is talking about with flexibility means few, if any, rights.12:40:00332Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—I utterly reject that. That is a cheap shot. This is something that has been designed to improve the lot of young people, and for it to be dismissed in that way, because we are giving greater flexibility and because we believe the current system is working against the interests of young people, is uncalled for.As far as people having rights and the Senate knowing how people are affected by these measures, let me point out to you the advice that I have received: DEETYA do not count the cases of people now who are rejected. Under the new system, they will be counted and, of course, they also have rights of appeal. So I think that you were misinformed quite clearly, Senator.Let me just make it absolutely clear what is going to happen to the definition of `full-time study'. In a HECS course, the student must be doing three-quarters of a full-time HECS load to be classified as a full-time student. In a non-HECS course, the student is full time if the institution defines them as full time, or a person can also be regarded as full time if they are doing the workload normally associated with full-time study over the length of a course. But, if a person does not fit any of these definitions—and this is very important—they can be considered full time if they are doing at least 15 contact hours a week.If a young person does not meet the definition of full-time study, they can still qualify for youth allowance and have their activity test requirements adjusted to accommodate their study requirements. So, in that context, you cannot other than acknowledge that this is a beneficial measure for them.12:42:00332Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I am not entirely sure Senator Newman is existing in the same world with the same people who come into our office on a daily basis. Senator Newman says the rights to appeal have not been taken out, but we know that the basis of appeal becomes very furry, very difficult, if it is hard to pinpoint the guideline which the government or the government department is failing to follow. Therefore, I believe there will be far fewer successful cases because it will be extremely difficult to argue when people have been treated unfairly if the discretion is left with the department and with the secretary.12:42:00332Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—Just briefly, I echo Senator Margetts's comments because that is the point I was trying to make. Flexibility is all well and good if it really is to the benefit of those people who are applying for or who are on the benefits, but it does make sense in some circumstances to spell out quite specifically what the expectations are and, in this case, what certain eligibility criteria would be, in particular for disabled students.Amendment not agreed to.12:43:00333Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—I move:(3) Schedule 1, item 6, page 11 (after line 18), after subsection (3), insert:Meaning of satisfactory progress(3A) In forming an opinion about whether a person is making satisfactory progress for the purpose of paragraph (1)(d), the Secretary is to have regard to the guidelines.(3B) The Minister, by determination in writing: (a) is to set guidelines for the exercise of the Secretary's discretion under subsection (3A); and (b) may revoke or vary those guidelines.(3C) Guidelines made for the purpose of subsection (3A) are a disallowable instrument.This amendment relates to the definition of `satisfactory progress'. We have had some discussion on this. I acknowledge that the minister is willing to support this amendment.BE4NEWMANSenator Newman—The government is prepared to accept the next three amendments from the Democrats.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Perhaps Senator Stott Despoja could move the next three amendments; that is, Nos 3, 4 and 5.3I6Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA—Mr Chairman, I would prefer to deal with them separately in the sense that they relate to different matters.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—You have moved amendment No. 3. Do you want to speak again when the committee resumes later in the day?3I6Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA—Yes.Progress reported.Matters of Public Interest33310000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! It being 12.45 p.m., we will now proceed to debate matters of public interest.33312:45:00333Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSONLI4VICLP10—I rise today in frustration with the campaign of misinformation, scaremongering and untruth that has been, and continues to be, peddled to all Australians—and, in particular, older Australians—by Labor and the shadow minister for social security, the aged and family services, Ms Jenny Macklin. Australia's present and future ageing population need our utmost consideration and assistance. They, and their families, deserve to be listened to and need to be well-informed and given the correct information. This most certainly applies to those in nursing homes and those facing the prospect of entering a nursing home. At this stage in their life older Australians and their families need and deserve things to be clear.I was away during the debate at the end of last year. I think sometimes that there was divine intervention that I was away because I was incensed when I saw some of the press releases and heard some of the untruths and misrepresentations of policy that were being peddled by the shadow minister during that debate. There were distortions of the facts. Time after time, the press releases that Ms Macklin put out only told half the story or distorted the story. She used the most emotive language, such as `De facto death duty remains,' which was designed specifically to frighten older Australians.I defy anybody on the other side of the chamber to go through my press releases when I was shadow minister for aged care and senior citizens and find where I misrepresented Labor policy. We used to go through—and perhaps I was naive and stupid—and check to make sure that we had the facts right and were not misrepresenting policy.We all know that in politics it is fair to attack the government's position when you are in opposition. All is fair in love and war in attacking the issue. It is not fair to misrepresent the government's policy. That is what Ms Macklin did. Time and time again, the shadow minister said things like, `All people will have to pay $26,000. People will have to sell their homes.' She was frightening older people. It did not behove her to do so; it did not do much for her credibility. I have found as I have moved around the aged sector that her credibility has fallen to zero amongst that sector. They realise what she was doing. She was making it more difficult for the aged care sector and older people. You can criticise and attack a policy but to misrepresent it is reprehensible.Ms Macklin has been less than scrupulous in representing coalition policy, not only in the area of aged care but also in other areas. I will get on to that later. I defy anyone to go through my press releases when I was in that position and show that I misrepresented policy. Yes, I criticised it, but never did I misrepresent or knowingly go around trying to scare older people.Before I go on any further about the disgraceful campaign that Ms Macklin mounted, I want to run through why we had to bring in aged care reforms in the first place. This is something that is vital to understand in this situation. When you look at the current state of nursing homes, the reason we need reform is due to Labor's neglect. It is total hypocrisy for Labor and Ms Macklin to go around now saying what they are going to do when in government. They had 13 years to do something and they did nothing.I have always given credit where credit was due. Labor did do something about hostels. Most of our hostels are now the best in the world. But somehow you could not get your minds around doing something about nursing homes. That was too hard and you neglected them. There was 13 years of neglect. You failed to do anything about nursing homes.Senator Conroy interjecting—LI4Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSON—You would not know. You were not here—656FORSHAWSenator Forshaw—What do you mean I do not know?LI4Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSON—You did not take an interest in nursing homes. Nursing homes were totally neglected while you were in government. You did nothing about them. I admitted that you did something about hostels, but you did nothing about nursing homes. While I am at it, I will remind you of the long list of broken promises. I will never forget the lead up to the 1993 election—you have to be around for a long time; you have to have a corporate memory in this place—when the then Labor Party minister and Prime Minister went around touting that they were going to take all pensioners out of the taxation system. We kept asking how you were going to do it and where you were going to get the money from. Do you know what happened? Five days after the election the minister came out and said, `We got it wrong. It should not have been in our policy. We did not mean to say that to pensioners. We said it before the election, but we are awfully sorry, it was a big mistake.'Those opposite have the hide to come in and talk about how they care about older people. This was the biggest and shonkiest fib told to older people before the 1993 election. I will constantly remind older people about Labor making that promise. They told every pensioner that they would take them out of the tax system and then five days after the election that promise was gone. This highlights how Labor has deceived, and continues to deceive, older Australians.In relation to aged care, Labor literally ran down funding for nursing homes at an amazing rate. In their last four years in government, capital funding for nursing homes was reduced by 75 per cent. I should repeat that: three-quarters of the money needed to maintain the capital of nursing homes was taken out. This rundown was despite reports and advice to the then government that there was a need for upgrading.Professor Gregory revealed the crisis facing nursing homes. Labor was told over and over again but they cut the funds provided for upgrading nursing homes. He estimated that we would need $520 million. In 1994, during 13 years of Labor, he said 75 per cent of homes needed fixing or rebuilding to meet Australian design standards; 70 per cent of homes needed fixing or rebuilding to meet Commonwealth outcome standards; 13 per cent of them did not meet fire authority standards; 39 per cent, nearly 40 per cent—over one-third—of residents were in rooms with four or more beds; and toilets were not large enough to allow older people with frames or wheelchairs to receive assistance—that was the most common structural fault. These are the sorts of things he was saying towards the end of Labor's 13 years in government.What did Labor do about it? Nothing. They sat on their hands. The aged care industry was crying out for assistance. It was actually coming and suggesting ways and means of doing it. One of the ways and means it suggested was that those who are able to make a contribution ought to. People from the aged care industry argued that it was unfair to have someone who had $1 million worth of assets, or $250,000 worth of assets, paying exactly the same amount of money as a pensioner and receiving the same daily subsidy as a pensioner based on the level of care they needed.What Labor are saying about aged care—and they have not changed their policy—is that millionaires, people with superannuation, and retired politicians on a pension will pay exactly the same amount in a nursing home as pensioners. They think that is a fair deal. We do not, and the aged care industry does not think that is a fair deal either. The industry came up with suggestions. Of course the Labor Party did not want to hear those. They did not want to support anything we were prepared to do because they had neglected the area for 13 years.It is totally unacceptable that elderly and frail Australians are required to be accommodated in substandard conditions because of Labor's rigidity, because Labor is not prepared to do or support what they did in hostels and transfer the same philosophy to nursing homes. That is what we are doing. We are saying, `Make those people in hostels who are able make a contribution make one.'Let me tell you that when you go into a hostel—and I have gone into hundreds of them; probably more than anybody in this chamber, hostel after hostel, nursing home after nursing home—where people make a contribution you do not find that the person who has made a contribution gets cream on their two fruits and the one who has not made a contribution does not. That is the kind of scaremongering that was going on over there—if you make a contribution you will get a better room, you will get better food. What nonsense! That did not happen in hostels under Labor's policy and it will not happen in nursing homes either.What we are saying is that we need to have first-class, world-class, residential care for older Australians who need that care. Some ladies in a church group at Balwyn that I know had the foresight 35 or 40 years ago to purchase land. They have the land and they have been able to accumulate capital and have built a world-class nursing home. We have seen some world-class nursing homes. We know they exist, but not all areas are in that situation, especially in Labor held electorates. They are not in that situation. They do not have the resources or the community activities and the community groups who have had the resources to do that. We need a way of raising capital to upgrade nursing homes and also to maintain it for the increase that will be required because of the ageing population.One of the things that we need to discuss—and Ms Macklin does not discuss this—is that not everyone goes into a nursing home. About seven per cent of people in the age group requiring care are in nursing homes. Many of them are in their own homes fit and well and looking after themselves, or many others are frail and have family caring for them either in their own homes or their family takes them into their home. If I am caring for an older family member in my home, using resources to do that and not taking public funding for it, and my spouse and I are working, I am also paying taxes for somebody else who is in a situation where their family cannot support them. I am not condemning that. Many people are in that situation. I have been in that situation myself where I have not been able to care for a person—my stepfather was in a nursing home.If I am caring for my family at home, I am also contributing through my taxes for care for that person in a nursing home—I am paying double. It seems to me that if I were a family member using up some of my resources or my parents' resources or an aunt's resources to care for them at home, and if I am in a situation where I need that person to be in a nursing home or hostel, perhaps I have to think that some of my inheritance might have to go to caring for my relative in a first-class facility, especially if they are able to afford it—if they have resources of $250,000 or if they have a resource of a home or a house.We have to look at the fact that the next generation has to accept that some of their parents' money will be spent in caring for them: and it ought to be. What we ought to be doing is working together to provide the best care we can give older people in this country—because a country is judged by the way it cares for its older people—and not having the sort of scaremongering we have had from the shadow minister. Not only have we had that scaremongering about nursing homes, we have had it also in all sorts of other areas. One of the Democrats, Senator Woodley, was very critical of Jenny Macklin. He said that it might be easy to think he was attacking Ms Macklin's deception because she is on the other side, and that is politics—that is not the case. He said he was attacking her because she made, and continues to make incorrect statements, which mislead and cause stress.Senator Woodley was saying that she was misleading. Peter Walsh challenged Jenny Macklin in an article he wrote to spell out where Labor was going to get its extra money for nursing homes. If you are not going to get it from those who have the ability to pay, where is it going to come from? Taxes? Where is the money going to come from? Those nursing homes have to be upgraded. You had 13 years in government and you did nothing about it. We have to find a way to do it. Jenny Macklin continues to scare older people.I do not have time to say how Jenny Macklin has also scared people about the pharmaceutical benefits scheme, and I will take an opportunity to do that later, but she has used the same tactics: untruths; telling older people that they have to take drugs that are less effective, have passed their use-by date or whatever else—total misrepresentations of policy.656FORSHAWSenator Forshaw—Older does not mean past the use-by date.LI4Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSON—That is what she said. She said they are ineffective. I will get the words for you. You are frowning there, Senator Forshaw. I will get you the brochure she used. She said that they would have to go back to using drugs that are unsafe, cheaper, older and less effective. There is absolute rubbish in this pamphlet that she put out around her electorate, scaring older people. The shadow minister for the aged is scaring older people. She can continue to do that, but she will be damned.33613:00:00336Lees, Sen MegSenator LEES8U4SAAD00—I rise to address what I believe is a very important issue: the resignation yesterday of the Speaker of the House of Representatives. The Australian Democrats are concerned that the Speaker has, essentially, been forced out of his post by the heavy-handed tactics of the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) and his burly parliamentary minder, Mr Peter Reith. Isn't this the same honest John Howard who, before the last election, promised faithfully to `restore community respect for, as well as the dignity and relevance of, the national parliament'? I cannot think of another Prime Minister who has shown greater contempt for the parliament and its processes.It is ironic that a politician who made his political name dissecting the extra parliamentary loan-raising activities of the Whitlam government way back in 1975 has, on attaining office, engaged himself in such a prolonged and vicious attack on the parliament and its processes, such an attack that now we have the Speaker of the House resigning in disgust.Let not the government console itself with the thought that these views are just held by the Prime Minister's political opponents. Last week, the Chief Justice of the High Court warned that there are dangers in concentrating power in cabinet and the executive govern ment. There is, he said, a risk of efficiency turning into tyranny. Just two weeks after this extraordinary intervention by the Chief Justice, his predecessor, Sir Anthony Mason, warned that the executive government was conducting treaty negotiations such as the MAI under a veil of secrecy which, without public and parliamentary scrutiny, was limiting the choices that Australians could make in the future. So here we have two prominent law-makers warning Australians about the power of cabinet versus that of parliament. It seems that it was the power of cabinet which yesterday claimed the Speaker of the House as a victim.But the contempt for parliament does not stop with the bullying of the Speaker by Messrs Howard and Reith. It runs far deeper than that. The very same bullying tactics adopted by the Prime Minister against his own Speaker are regularly employed to downgrade the status and powers of the Senate. Let me cite some examples. There have been attempts to get around Senate amendments to bills on employment services and the Public Service by regulation and administrative processes. These reforms are simply unacceptable without the accountability safeguards sought by the Senate.Now let us turn our attention to the efforts of the government to pre-empt the decisions of the Senate. The tender documents for the privatisation of the National Transmission Agency and the Australian National Railway were actually released publicly before the legislation was approved by the Senate. We see a constant stream of DSS decisions to start their marketing campaigns—in this case the marketing campaign on the youth allowance, which is currently before this chamber today—well before the legislation has actually passed through the Senate. The government has refused to comply with resolutions of the Senate. Ministers stand in contempt of the Senate for refusing to release the documentation on the ACIL contract, as well as the legal advice on the native title legislation sought by the Senate last November.The government has tried to reduce the independence of the Clerk of the Senate by imposing a mandatory term of office. It has moved to reduce the ability of the parliament to use the Auditor-General's office to inquire into government spending by giving the Attorney-General the power to prevent reports being published. Both efforts, I am disappointed to note, also had ALP backing.The government has cut the resources available to senators and members to do their work, with the parliamentary library and Senate committees in particular having research resources significantly pruned. Then there was the breach of parliamentary convention by the government when it auctioned off the deputy presidency of the Senate to win an extra supporter for major Senate votes. Then there was the reallocation of Senate resources by the Senate to award Senator Colston's assistant a pay rise, without even the approval of the Senate President.Let us turn our attention to the appalling daily spectacle of ministers refusing point-blank to answer questions in question time. Time and time again we get the same waffle. We get the dreary reiteration of black holes, referring to Labor's time in office. Very rarely is the question even couched in terms that would warrant such an answer or one even vaguely like it. So much for the reform of question time! That is yet another promise that this Prime Minister apparently decided was not one of his core promises. I would suggest question time now is even less informative than it was in Paul Keating's time.But this is not enough for this government. It is no secret that this thuggish government—and I stress that word thuggish because that is what it is—has set its sights on the independence of the Senate, the body described by the former Auditor-General John Taylor as the last effective brake on executive government. Every time the Senate amends a bill and those amendments are not exactly what the government wants, the bill joins this ever-lengthening queue at the double dissolution bus stop. We have more huffing and puffing about how this cannot be accepted. In other words, the Prime Minister will not be happy until this chamber is simply an echo chamber of the other chamber for his every wish and whim.This government has shown far greater contempt for this parliament than any govern ment in memory. Democracy and the people of Australia are the losers if this government with its born-to-rule mentality succeeds in avoiding the checks and balances provided by the parliament. Australia will not be served by a parliament that cannot hold the government to account, that does not provide a balanced and fair forum for debate on day-to-day issues, that does not provide a pressure valve for the public to actually have a say to express its views on government proposals that are either plainly wrong or unpopular.On behalf of the Australian Democrats, I wish to extend to Bob Halverson a deep regret that he has chosen to take the action that he has taken. I hope that the new Speaker of the House of Representatives is treated fairly and is treated in such a way that he will have the ability to have his decisions listened to. Then we shall see a truly independent Speaker allowed to be independent.33813:08:00338Synon, Sen KarenSenator SYNONFQ6VICLP10—I am very proud, as the youngest and most recent female appointment to the Senate from the Liberal Party of Australia, to speak at this time on International Women's Day 1998. I am proud for many reasons: I am inspired by the government I represent and the programs it has in place for women in this country; I am inspired by the traditions of the Liberal Party of Australia; I am inspired by my women colleagues and friends; I am inspired by examples of leading women in Australia today, particularly those from my home state of Victoria; and I am inspired by the struggle of women in third world and totalitarian regimes for democratic rights and equality.The 8th of March is now recognised throughout the world as International Women's Day. International Women's Day has been celebrated in Australia since 1928, with the first celebrations in Sydney and Melbourne in 1931. The reason for the recognition of a special day has changed over the years for many women in the world. The day began as a commemoration of a time in 1908 when women garment workers in New York banded together to demand the vote, better conditions and equal pay. On an international level, the United Nations has organised the celebration of International Women's Day as an official celebration since 1977.There is no doubt that we have a proud heritage to live up to. We must continue to discuss and act upon issues that help women of all walks of life to advance themselves within society. Ninety years has seen a lot of progress and, as we know, Australia has a distinguished history in contributing to this progress. Most of us are aware that Australia holds the proud record of being the first country in which women could stand for national parliament. However, in many developing countries, there is still a long way to go.The plight of women around the world embraces important issues for all humanity. These issues are, for example, women's health, education, housing, personal safety, freedom from political and religious oppression, conservation and the environment—the list goes on. The facts, however, are that 80 per cent of the world's 25 million refugees are women and children. Throughout the world, 86 million girls—43 million more than boys—never go to school. Of the world's 1 billion illiterate people, two-thirds are women. Violence, or the fear of violence, on the streets, in the community and in the home remains one of the major concerns for women today.A few streets away from my electoral office in inner Melbourne is the Australian base of the International Women's Development Agency. The International Women's Development Agency is Australia's only aid and development organisation that works solely for women's development. It certainly helps to keep in perspective, as we remember International Women's Day, that most of the world's poorest people are women. In fact, 70 per cent of the world's poor are women. These women, largely from the developing world, deserve recognition in our Senate today. They deserve to be recognised, not only as they form more than 50 per cent of the world's population but more so as they are the main providers of their families' basic needs. They are workers in the labour force and still in some countries they are the unpaid workers in an otherwise paid labour force. They are the child bearers, healers and managers of environmental resources that are slipping away in many parts of the world.It must be recognised today that so much of the progress that women have made in the developed world is still being fought for in the developing world. In a remote western province of Papua New Guinea, for example, women are gradually gaining confidence to speak in the presence of men and to address issues such as domestic violence, which in that area is directly related to drug and alcohol abuse. For the first time ever, a woman has been elected to the provincial liquor board, which has reformed its policy to reduce the availability of drugs and alcohol in the area. These sobering facts do keep our celebration of women's achievements in perspective. However, let me return to my thoughts on Australia.I would like to make mention of some women from Victoria who I believe deserve recognition in this chamber today as we approach International Women's Day. Firstly, I wish to pay tribute to the young Victorian women who did an excellent job in representing Victoria at the Constitutional Convention last month. They are Dannalee Bell, Poppy King, Sophie Panopoulos and Misha Schubert. These confident, articulate young women give us a marvellous insight into what the future generation will bring to public life. I have worked with young people for many years and I am inspired by what young women are doing in today's Australia. Last month's example of our young Australians in action was no exception.There are two other Victorian women of the many I could mention that I would like to mention today. Like many Victorians, I will be attending Victoria's international grand prix this weekend. Judith Griggs has done an outstanding job for Victoria as the Executive Director of the Australian Grand Prix Corporation. Not so very long ago, the thought of a woman organising an international car race would have been a rare one indeed.Another woman I would like to mention is Ms Shirley Martin. A few weeks ago Shirley Martin was awarded a Public Service medal for outstanding public service to the Adult Migrant Education Service in Victoria. Shirley has recently retired as the Director of Victoria's Adult Migrant Education Service. In my recent role as a senior public servant in Victoria, I worked with Shirley closely. Just as I am inspired by the examples set by high profile women who make great things happen in my state, I am also inspired by knowing people like Shirley Martin—people who work tirelessly in the background to serve the public.How proud I am to be part of a party in government which has an excellent track record of equality of station and of freedom from discrimination, both positive and negative, when it comes to gender balance. In the Liberal Party we do not need an Emily's List to show the Australian people that we are working to promote more women in our ranks. The Liberal Party of Australia has an inborn mechanism which provides women with equal opportunity in every area of our activities. The prominence of women in our party, and indeed in Australia's government today, is attributable to the fact that when Robert Menzies forged a cohesive party from like-minded but disparate organisations throughout the country, he was assisted by the Australian Women's National League. This women's league formed our women's sections within the Liberal Party. Today there are 45 dynamic, committed and hardworking women's sections in Victoria alone.Women and men are equally represented throughout the Victorian division of the Liberal Party. From Victoria's proud history of women's sections, Australia's first ever female state president of a political party, Mrs Joy Mein, was elected. Mrs Mein is now the Chairman of the International Women's Democrat Union.Of course, thanks to the Liberal Party's commitment to women, Australia has now developed the world's fastest rate of growth in getting females into national parliaments. Last year the Inter-Parliamentary Union found that between 1991 and 1997 the percentage of women in the lower houses in Australia grew from 6.7 per cent to 15.5 per cent. Sixty per cent of women in this federal parliament are Liberal or National Party women. This is in contrast with the ALP's 27 per cent. In real numbers, out of the total of 47 female members of parliament, 28 of them are coalition women and only 13 ALP. These women are representing the reality of Australia's society—members of parliament who are mothers, who are single women and who are married without children. Many of these women have done outstanding things to give all women an opportunity to advance themselves in our nation's houses of parliament.Wives of parliamentarians also deserve special mention. In Victoria about 20 years ago, Mrs Paula Brown visited her newly elected husband in Spring Street and discovered there was not a highchair in the parliamentary dining room. Thankfully, Paula's hard work has improved the lot of women and family minded members of parliament in Victoria's parliamentary dining room. Suffice it to say, a highchair is now a standard part of furniture in parliamentary dining rooms. It was therefore with great disappointment that, on entering federal parliament, I discovered there was no parent room or child-care facility in this parliament—surely an indictment in this modern age and something which must be addressed as a matter of urgency.I hope we continue to see in our parliaments balanced and representative people personally committed to making our nation a better place to live, work and raise families—both elected members and the people who are close to our elected members. I know that encouraging women in our national parliaments, as in all other organisations, will bring great benefits to all of us. In our nation's parliament we need this advancement. We need the balance, the resourcefulness, the ability to act within constraints, the ability to embrace change and the ability, if that is what it is called, to employ consideration, nurturing and compassion.I remind my fellow senators that, when we throw around terms like `motherhood statements' or `motherhood and apple pie statements', we must be sure to recognise that such terms cannot be synonymous with meaningless trifle. They are articulations which in my opinion are the real, basic and fundamental truths of life. Motherhood state ments are known as such because they express things that we so often take for granted.In my opinion, motherhood is central to the business of life, not superfluous to it. In recognition of International Women's Day 1998, I remind the Senate of this distinction. I applaud all women who are mothers, both in the unpaid work force and in the paid work force, inside or outside the home. I hope that people feel confident to make many more serious and determined motherhood statements in this country.I also want to pay tribute to the women who have gone before me, women who have not had the advantages of equality that many of my generation have taken for granted. Many of these older women are still actively involved in all areas of our society and many women stand in this parliament today as a tribute to their vision and hard work.Finally, I would like to applaud this government's programs that are working to continue to improve the lifestyles of women in Australia today. Apart from a highly dynamic Office of the Status of Women, there are some terrific programs that have been boosted by the commitment of this government to the women of Australia.In conclusion, women in 1998 are active and adamant. I salute them today. I salute the women of the world and I salute the women of Australia as we recognise International Women's Day on Sunday, 8 March.34013:21:00340Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—Today I rise to relate details of a tragedy in rural Australia. It is unfortunate that this is an increasing situation in rural and regional Australia brought about in many cases by the policies of this current government but also, as in the case that I will show, by the absolute neglect and disinterest of this government. I refer to the situation of the Grafton meatworks. I did make some brief remarks about this in an appropriation speech this morning, but I would like to put on the record details of what has occurred with the Grafton meatworks and particularly the lack of action by this government.The South Grafton Abattoir, the Grafton meatworks, is a company that was owned and operated by the Gilbertson family from Victoria from 1980 to 1997. Prior to 1980, it had a long and proud history as a cooperative meatworks. I am sure the Gilbertson family is well known to many members of parliament for its involvement in a range of industries, particularly for many years in the meat industry. Since about 1901 this family has been involved in the meat industry—operating abattoirs, small goods factories and retail butcher shops. They also today have substantial interests in other activities such as land development in Victoria.A few years ago the Gilbertson family sold most of their interests in the meat industry to Japanese companies, but they retained ownership of the South Grafton Abattoir. The South Grafton Abattoir, located of course in Grafton, is owned and operated by a holding company known as J.J. Gilbertson Pty Ltd. It has its head office in Moonee Ponds in Victoria. I am advised that the two principals are Mr Ian Gilbertson and Mr George Gilbertson, who also live in Victoria.However, the workers employed at the South Grafton Meatworks were employed by two separate companies called R.J. Gilbertson (Qld) Pty Ltd and Giltech Pty Ltd. The directors of these two companies that were employing the workers were Ian and George Gilbertson. So we had a situation where the premises, the infrastructure, the assets of the company, the meatworks themselves, were owned by one company and the workers at the establishment were employed by two separate companies. But both companies, thought seperate legal entities, had the same persons as directors. That is important because of what has recently transpired.On 7 October 1997 the ANZ bank, which had issued a line of credit, decided that further funding arrangements to the company should cease as it was having difficulty trading and it appointed directors of a chartered accounting firm in Victoria to act as manager-receiver of the company. At that time of appointment, the company owed the workers substantial amounts of money. In the order of $1.8 million was owed in accrued leave entitlements, such as annual leave, sick leave and long service leave. As a result of further events—the employees were terminated—they were also owed around $1.2 million in redundancy and severance pay entitlements.After the company was put under an administrator, the meat workers union representing the employees cooperated with the administrator to the point where they agreed to reduce their paid working time to two days per week to help the company to continue operating and reduce some of its costs. However, that situation did not lead to any substantial improvement. On 12 December 1997, just two weeks before Christmas, 300 workers were terminated by the Gilbertson company and the meatworks was closed.At the time the workers were terminated they were not paid any of their entitlements—amounting to $3 million in both accrued leave, severance and redundancy payments. Subsequently, the administrator has paid some 16 per cent of the entitlements to the workers, obviously as a result of assessing the amount owed to the various creditors, including the workers, and making a partial payout. But clearly a substantial amount of money is still owed to the workers. In view of the fact that the company had substantial debts of around $9 million, it is unlikely that the workers will ever be fully paid their lawful entitlements.I am sure that senators and members of parliament are already aware of the tragic situation that has occurred at Cobar—the amounts involved there are substantially greater—where the Ashanti company just closed the mine and flew the country. This situation at Grafton is another example of employment in the rural sector in this country being affected by company closures and, further, where the workers, who have slaved for many years—in the case of the Grafton meatworks' employees some for over 35 years—are terminated without any of their entitlements being paid out.There is a range of concerns that I am investigating at the moment with respect to the operations of the Gilbertson company. Requests have been made for the relevant ministers and I understand the Australian Securities Commission to look at the activities of this company over the past few years. I will leave that for another time.I just want to say to the Gilbertson company directors, Mr Ian and George Gilbertson, who continue to reside in their mansion in Victoria and still have all of their other business interests in their other companies to ensure that they continue to get paid and live as multimillionaires, I am not going to let this one go. I am going to get to the bottom of it. I am going to expose just precisely what has happened and also ensure that the public of Australia know the activities of companies like the Gilbertsons'. When workers are left stranded and when their families are placed in a situation of not only being unemployed but also being unable to get even their lawful entitlements, those companies should not be allowed to go unchallenged. I will pursue that further.What has happened subsequently? After the meatworks closed and 300 workers just two weeks prior to Christmas were put out on the street, approaches were made to the federal government to give them some assistance, to see if something could be done to have the meatworks reopened because it was one of the major employers in Grafton. I see Senator Boswell is here. He would appreciate the importance of that enterprise in that town.Approaches were made to the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) and to Minister Anderson, the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy. No response. Not interested. Indeed, when the workers' representatives, the union, finally got to meet Minister Anderson it was only by virtue of the good fortune that he happened to be in Grafton and they went along and virtually ensured that he had to talk to them.I am advised by one of the workers there that, when they were discussing this issue with Mr Anderson, he suggested that maybe one of the problems with the company was that there was too much workers compensation, too much sick leave. What a disgraceful thing to tell workers who have just been sacked without being paid their entitlements—and some of them had worked more than 30 years for that company. What a terrible thing for a minister to suggest.I want to know why this government has not done a damn thing to help get those meatworks reopened. The Carr government and the local state member, Harry Woods, now the Minister for Regional Development and Rural Affairs in the New South Wales government, have done everything possible to work with the major creditor, the bank, and with potential purchasers to see if these meatworks can be reopened. They have offered concessions in respect to such issues as payroll tax and stamp duty to see if that can be brought about. But the federal government remains absolutely silent. It does not appear to be interested in the issue.Also, what has the NFF done about this? I have not seen or heard one statement from Mr McGauchie, Mr Hoolihan, Mr Ferguson or any of the other representatives of the NFF about how the government should try to assist employment in rural Australia—not one word. The NFF was quite prepared years ago to put money into supporting a meatworks in the Northern Territory at Mudginberri. Why? Because it was a non-union operation. But where is the NFF now when there is a meatworks in Grafton that needs its support and needs its advocacy? It is silent, but it is not so silent down on the Melbourne waterfront where it is trying to stir up a political dispute simply for its own political and ideological ends.YW4MACDONALDSenator Ian Macdonald—Good work they're doing too.656Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW—According to you they are. But they are doing absolutely nothing for 300 workers and their families in the town of Grafton. You all ought to be ashamed of yourselves. You do not give a damn about these people, but you get out there and talk about how you are going to assist the NFF to take on the wharfies.Why don't you direct your attention to the real issues that are confronting rural Australia? Why don't you do something to support those workers and their families from Cobar? They are Australians, they are workers and they are entitled to some support. But they get nothing from you, nothing from the National Party and nothing from this government. Frankly, I think it is a disgrace.I have really only just started to draw attention to this issue today. I can assure you that I am going to have plenty more to say and I will continue to expose this government and some of their supporters, such as the Gilbertson family, for the despicable and disgraceful actions that they have taken in regard to decent hardworking employees in rural and regional Australia.34313:35:00343Abetz, Sen EricSenator ABETZN26TASLP10—Last Sunday I had the pleasure of appearing on the ABC's Speaking out program to discuss an issue which I have had an ongoing interest in—that is, our relationship with our indigenous people. During the program a caller praised the richness of the Aboriginal culture and then went on to denigrate the Australian culture. That comment, unfortunately, epitomises what has gone wrong in the discussion of Aboriginal affairs in this country. The simple fact is that people will naturally identify and feel comfortable within their own cultural parameters.You do not win mainstream support for policies targeting Aboriginal wellbeing by attacking the mainstream Australian culture. It is often said that you do not make yourself taller by trying to cut your opponent off at the knees. In a similar vein, you do not enhance Aboriginal culture by denigrating white culture. A mature approach is to celebrate the richness and diversity of both cultures and also to be even-handed in dealing with those aspects of the cultures which are not uplifting and which are deserving of criticism.Some spokesmen and commentators appear to labour under a `reverse racism' or `cultural cringe' about white culture. To a certain extent, this has been reflected in the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission report entitled Bringing them home. Whilst the report has highlighted and reinforced in our national consciousness the shameful way we treated many Aboriginal families, it went overboard to an extent that lost community goodwill, as witnessed by the opinion polls taken at the time.On 18 June last year, I addressed the Bringing them home report in the adjournment debate, being critical of the arbitrary use of the term `genocide'. The failure to provide balance in the report concerns me. The Australian taxpayer directly funded the inquiry to the tune of $1.5 million—a large sum of money—and the Australian people deserve better.Since the report was delivered in April 1997, there has been a string of well reasoned critiques of the report which clearly undermine it. I refer to people such as Mr Howson, Dr Partington and Dr Brunton to name a few. In recent times, Sir Ronald Wilson, the former President of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, sought to take Dr Brunton to task over his well reasoned critique. In doing so, I believe that Sir Ronald left himself and the whole report exposed by failing to answer the detailed and valid criticisms. For example, on the issue of labelling the well intentioned policies of the time as genocide, Sir Ronald told us, courtesy of the Herald Sun yesterday:Recommendations were made only where the evidence was overwhelming.Dispassionate observers would argue that the term `genocide' was inflammatory and unsustainable. It caused damage and was wrong. Nevertheless, Sir Ronald's assurance of `overwhelming evidence' does not ring true when one reads the comments of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commissioner Chris Sidoti in answers to questions I asked on 10 June 1997 about the term `genocide' at a Senate committee hearing.On page 110 of the Hansard, Mr Sidoti tellingly said:Perhaps as a last comment I can assure you that there was no single issue in this process that we argued more and longer about ourselves than this issue before we finally came to that conclusion. . . It is interesting, because that description hardly fits the hyperbole of `overwhelming evidence', especially when it is recalled that one of the commissioners, Mr Mick Dodson, had, prior to the conclusion of the hearing, asserted that assimilation is genocide. A failure then to make the allegation of genocide would have left Mr Dodson with egg all over his face. He would have been left somewhat embarrassed.Whether this weighed on the commission's corporate mind, I do not know, but there seems little or no other reason for the use of the inflammatory term. Mr Dodson's pre-emptory remarks should have disqualified him from the inquiry. Also, Sir Ronald had a difficult conflict. As a church moderator in the 1960s, he felt he had to apologise for his own role in the removal of children. To quote Sir Ronald:It is very distressing. I felt I had to apologise even though I had no knowledge of the wrongness of the practice.I simply ask rhetorically: if, at the time, he did not have any knowledge of the wrongness of the practice, why does he assert that other people engaged in the practice at the time did have that knowledge which he denies for himself.`Genocide' is a criminal term. Genocide is a crime. How can you commit a crime without having the intention to commit it or the knowledge of what you are doing? This is a very basic legal principle but, when confronted with it himself, Sir Ronald—might I add, quite properly—denies any knowledge of the wrongness of the practice. Might I suggest that the report would have done a lot better if it had given all the other people the benefit of the doubt as well.In effect, what we had was Mick Dodson drawing conclusions before the inquiry was complete and Sir Ronald inquiring into his own conduct as moderator of a church and then making recommendations. I simply refer to this unfortunate scenario to question the treatment that Justice Callinan has received in recent times in relation to the allegation of apprehended bias. I accept that Justice Callinan could be apprehended as having bias. Indeed, that is why he stood down, but if that is the case and the test, one wonders why Mr Dodson and Sir Ronald, who clearly had actual and glaring bias, were not asked under the same premise to stand down by those who were asking for Justice Callinan to stand down. There has been a strange silence over that undoubted bias.In the context of this alarmist assertion of genocide—6L6GIBBSSenator Gibbs—It was genocide.N26Abetz, Sen EricSenator ABETZ—it should be recalled that assimilation was a policy strongly supported by international bodies at the time. As Dr Brunton so devastatingly points out, Senator Gibbs, the policy of the ILO—that organisation the Labor Party always bows down to and tugs the old forelock to—in the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s was to develop and assimilate indigenous people into modern society. Assimilation was seen as just and desirable.Dr Brunton further quotes a communist trade union official Tom Wright, whose 1939 pamphlet `New Deal for Aborigines' was endorsed by the New South Wales Labour Council and, indeed, the National Missionary Society. The broad spectrum of the community supported this assertion that there was a need to make clear, legislative and administrative distinctions between `full bloods' and `mixed bloods'. Yet the report asserts that mixed race or half-castes, as they were called, were recognised as `children of the group'. I would submit: they clearly were not.Dr Brunton also cites Marg Harris's revelations made on the Sunday program that her brother, who had a white father, was killed at birth because of his half-caste status. So we are dealing with social views of a time completely different from those which we currently have.The treatment of Aboriginal families and their children by the removal policy was horrendous. With the benefit of hindsight, we realise that the policy was not beneficial—indeed, it was very negative. But these removal policies were not only limited to our indigenous families. They applied equally and as devastatingly to white children from the poorer sectors of the community and unmarried mothers.Just last week, I had the honour and privilege of being given an account of a child migrant's turbulent uprooting from the United Kingdom, of being brought to Australia where she was fostered out to what she described as a very loving and caring couple only to be returned to her natural parents in South Africa—where they then were—and where her father sexually abused her. Previously I had been provided with other similar accounts. She came out to Australia in 1954.The unfortunate fact remains that our concepts of neglect and welfare today are different to those that existed many decades ago. Even on today's standards, Aboriginal children suffer from terribly high rates of neglect and abuse at the hands of their own parents in comparison with the white community. The Central Land Council gave evidence of that to the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, on which I serve. There are legion examples of what I would describe as `intellectual laziness' in the report. Some people such as Dr Brunton go even further and describe it as `morally irresponsible'.Standing back and looking at the debate that has ensued, we have seen the opportunity for the Bringing them home report to provide genuine reflection by Australian society being squandered for advocacy purposes. The opportunity for healing and reconciliation afforded by the inquiry has been prejudiced through intemperate remarks, overstating matters and misrepresenting motives. In doing so, we as a nation can overlook and try to excuse ourselves from focusing on the tragic consequences of the welfare lobby and social engineers interfering in family life.I am very pleased that the Howard government has not done so, despite what I consider to be the inadequacies of the report. Minister Herron and the Liberal government have come to grips with the real and fundamental issues. That is why, on 17 December last year, a $63 million package of practical assistance was announced that was targeted to provide much needed relief to our Aboriginal brothers and sisters.In the short time remaining, I will outline some of those benefits: $2 million for Australian Archives to index, copy and preserve thousands of files so that they are more readily accessible; close to $6 million for further development of indigenous family support and parenting programs; $1.6 million to the National Library for an oral history project in recognition of the importance of indigenous people and others telling their stories of family separation; a $9 million boost to culture and language maintenance programs; $11.25 million to establish a national network of family link-up services to assist individuals; $16 million for 50 new counsellors to assist those affected by past policies and for those going through the reunion process; and $17 million to expand the network of regional centres for emotional and social wellbeing and to give counsellors professional support and assistance.The period of family separations represents a very sad phase in the history of indigenous and non-indigenous relations in this country. It occurred at a time when Australia was developing economically and becoming a force in the region. The general community was prospering, but for many indigenous people it was a time of poverty, helplessness and great personal tragedy. The report Bringing them home has shown us all just how tragic a time it was for many of our indigenous people.We know that we must never forget the past; that we must learn from the past so that we do not allow such circumstances and policies to happen in our community again. Australia is a decent and harmonious nation with a society which is fundamentally based on fairness, tolerance and mutual respect with an appreciation of racial and cultural diversity. This government is committed to upholding those values. (Time expired)34513:50:00345Watson, Sen JohnSenator WATSONVJ4TASLP10—Tasmania's representation as a quality supplier in international markets is well-known. An important step was taken recently to enhance that reputation. In fact, our drive towards quality assurance from paddock to plate has recently taken a major step forward with the establishment of the quality assurance umbrella body for Tasmanian primary industry—the Tasmanian Quality Assurance Incorporated. TQA, as it is known, is a Tasmanian government funded association of industry groups. The need for paddock to plate certification of production standards was identified by Premier Tony Rundle in his direction statement for Tasmania to maximise the state's ability to market high quality produce, both interstate and overseas.Throughout Tasmanian primary industry, various industry groups have been and are involved in implementing their own quality assurance schemes. In a nutshell, these quality assurance schemes are about addressing market requirements and selling more Tasmanian produce now and into the future.These industry group quality assurance schemes are all different as customer requirements for wool are not the same as those for vegetables. The people involved in implementing quality assurance schemes have found, however, that there are many areas of common interest as most farms run more than one enterprise.To address these issues, representatives from a number of quality assurance schemes encompassing the meat, wool, apple and vegetable industries, as well as the Egg Marketing Board, have been working together to develop a proposal for an umbrella body. The Department of Primary Industry and Fisheries facilitated the development of a TQA proposal, and the Tasmanian government has provided $300,000 support over a three-year period. The corporate structure of Tasmanian Quality Assurance has been established, a committee of management has been formed, and its first manager has been appointed. The initial committee has been drawn from industry representatives involved in quality assurance, and is headed by Mr Russell Paterson, managing director of Australia's leading speciality cheese manufacturer, Lactos. The committee members have been drawn from a diverse range of primary producers covering the meat, wool, vegetables, egg and fruit industries. A representative from the Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries represents the government's interests.The TQA committee will prepare a business plan and prioritise issues for implementation. Areas such as auditing, record keeping, trading and promotion are common across many QA schemes. It is considered the aim of TQA that the implementation of quality assurance on farm does not become overly complex or costly. To do so would reduce the interest from the very people the scheme is aiming to assist.Therefore, the role of TQA will be to ensure that the agreed standards of member schemes can be implemented in a coordinated and cost-effective fashion across Tasmanian primary industry. TQA will provide auditing and other services to member schemes. They will also provide a first stop shop for quality assurance in Tasmanian primary industry. All producers interested in QA will have a single point of contact. Additionally, TQA will investigate the issue of a Tasmanian brand or label for all Tasmanian produce and its quality assurance to agreed minimum standards.Tasmanian Quality Assurance is supported by the Tasmanian Farmers and Graziers Association, and the Australian Quality Council has been consulted. The Tasmanian primary industry group is a growing industry. It is a caring industry and has a very fine future with a need to fulfil customer requirements very firmly set in its sights.Tasmanian producers are justifiably proud of the excellent reputation of their products on international markets. A visit to Japan to any of their markets will reveal that Tasmania has got its act right and is an acknowledged leader in those markets. That reputation can only be enhanced by initiatives such as Tasmanian Quality Assurance and the paddock-to-plate emphasis promoted and endorsed by the Tasmanian government. I endorse the actions taken and I believe primary industry in our state has a great future.Sitting suspended from 1.55 p.m. to 2.00 p.m.Distinguished Visitors34610000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! I draw the attention of honourable senators to the presence in the chamber of a parliamentary delegation from the National Assembly of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, led by the Chairman of the National Assembly, His Excellency Mr Nong Duk Manh. On behalf of honourable senators, I have pleasure in welcoming you to the Senate and trust that your visit will be both informative and enjoyable. With the concurrence of honourable senators, I propose to invite the Chairman to take a place on the floor of the Senate.UNKNOWNHonourable senatorsHonourable senators—Hear, hear!Mr Nong Duk Manh was thereupon seated accordingly.Questions Without Notice347347347Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—My question is to Senator Hill in his capacity as Minister representing the Minister for Trade. In view of the admission on page 25 of Mr Fischer's trade statement that the Asian financial crisis will lower profits, reduce domestic spending, adversely affect household incomes, damage business and consumer confidence and cost Australian jobs, will you now tell us why you have not been honest in admitting these facts before? When will these impacts be felt; how deep will they go; how many Australian jobs will be lost; and which industries will be hardest hit?347Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment10—I am not sure what Senator Cook is looking to do—one might suggest undermine Australian business and business confidence. Of course there will be some consequences from what is happening in Asia, Senator Cook. What is happening in Asia is quite dramatic. But I can tell you what: the effect upon Australia would be an awful lot worse if we had followed your recipe. If we had continued your policies that gave us $10.3 billion of deficit when we came to government, where would this country be now? If we had not reined in inflation and expenditure, got down interest rates and given Australian business a real opportunity to compete, where would we be now?The cheek of Senator Cook to come in after the record of his government, to which he contributed for some time as trade minister, and seek to give us a lecture! Of course there will be some consequence. We do not know the full details of that consequence. Time will tell. We do not know the full depth of the difficulties in Asia, but we do know that not only have we set the macro-economic parameters so that Australian business has its best opportunity to compete and survive in this very difficult environment but furthermore, as Senator Cook ought to be prepared to acknowledge, we have gone out and supported the IMF arrangements in South Korea, in Indonesia and in Thailand. In other words, we have gone out to support Australian business during this difficult time. All the signs are that we will be able to weather this difficulty in reasonably good shape.What Senator Cook ought to be doing is giving encouragement and support to Australian business rather than looking for figures in a way to undermine confidence and to in some way then attempt to attribute blame to the Howard government. This contribution does not do you justice or the Labor Party justice, Senator Cook. You ought to lift your eyes a little, lift your horizons, and do something positive for Australian business for a change.347Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Over the last 12 months the current account deficit has blown out by 23 per cent, foreign debt has hit an all-time high of $222 billion and today the national account figures record lower than expected growth, and all this before the effects of the Asian crisis hit our shores. In view of those damaging statistics, will the government stop hiding the true position from the Australian people and give an unequivocal commitment to promptly put down an honest statement of the impact of Asia on this nation's economic future, including what the revised growth figure is, what the employment impact will be, what will be the impact on the current account deficit and how these changes will affect interest rates? Will you come clean and tell the Australian people what you have been hiding from them up until now? (Time expired)347Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment10—As Mr Costello said earlier today, today's national accounts show continuing strong economic growth with the Australian economy growing at 3.6 per cent through the year to the December quarter 1997. Yes, there will be consequences of the difficulties in Asia. The impact of the East Asian financial crisis is showing up through the trade figures, as you say, to some extent, but exports to markets other than Asia remain strong. In the six months to December 1997 compared with the same period in 1996, exports to Japan increased by 18.6 per cent.RF4COOKSenator Cook—Madam President, I raise a point of order. This is not an answer to the question I asked. I asked whether the government will give an unequivocal guarantee to come clean with the Australian people and say what the impacts of the Asian currency crisis are. Madam President, will you ask Senator Hill to answer that question?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Hill, you should apply yourself to the question as asked and answer it.BH4Senator HILL—Obviously the government has been giving a full and accurate account. What I am saying to Senator Cook is that, in his efforts to undermine the Australian economy, he ought to take into account that, although exports to Korea, Thailand, Indonesia and Malaysia have fallen slightly, exports to Japan have gone up by 18.6 per cent in the quarter I mentioned, to China by 22 per cent, to Singapore by 31 per cent, to Taiwan by 26 per cent and to Hong Kong by 45 per cent. That is actually good news, Senator Cook. (Time expired)348348Boswell, Sen RonaldSenator BOSWELLYE4QLDNP10—My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business, Senator Alston. Minister, you would be aware that for 13 years the Labor Party turned a blind eye to the rorts on the waterfront. What is the government doing to improve the competitiveness and the productivity of the waterfront and are there any threats to these vital reforms?348Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, the Information Economy and the Arts10—We are doing quite a lot. Thanks to the invaluable assistance of the shadow minister for the selfish `me generation' yuppies, who was instrumental in ensuring that we got industrial relations reforms through this parliament, we now have in place a regime that does offer opportunities to employers to deliver real productivity gains. Quite clearly, freedom of association arrangements, ending monopoly rorts on the waterfront and, of course, making sure that secondary boycotts are not able to used to stymie reforms, are critically important as well.But the real problem, Madam President, is not our support. We are there in spades when it counts. The real problem is the Labor Party because the Labor Party, as Senator Boswell rightly said, for the last 13 years has been burying its head in the sand. It is pretty obvious why. Because the Labor Party is a wholly owned subsidiary of the trade union movement. You know who happens to be in the parliament this very day? A delegation from the MUA central New South Wales branch. I suppose they have seen you, Senator Faulkner, have they? They have been working their way through the list. They are wanting assurances that you will maintain cabotage. They are wanting to be assured that a strong and well-organised Australian shipping industry is vital to the economy, the community and the environment. In other words, they want to keep on with the great racket—the greatest scandal in Australian political history and one that you have condoned repeatedly.The Labor Party has said nothing on this issue. We stand fairly and squarely behind the need for dramatic improvements on the waterfront. What has this mob done about crane rates of 18 per hour compared with those of our competitors of 25 to 30 per hour? Absolutely nothing. I hesitate to call Mr Beazley gutless, but the fact is that he has said virtually nothing on this issue. But when he did say something recently about this, he simply took the opportunity to bag the Howard government. What he said was: the people who work on the waterfront are prepared to sit down and talk these issues through. We know they are prepared to sit down and talk; we want to know when they will stand up and work!The fact is that you are not interested in reforms, yet you had the breathtaking gall and hypocrisy to pass a motion at the national conference in January that Labor will work constructively with waterfront users by encouraging greater competition through new stevedoring operations. It is breathtaking, Madam President. What have you done to demonstrate any commitment at all to that? Simply mealy mouthed words which you hope will get you through.The fact is, of course, they are terribly embarrassed. They know full well that this mob have rorted the system for years. They dudded you every time you tried to engage in reforms. When Mr McMullan was recently asked whether the MUA had his unequivocal support, he simply said, `It is not a matter of unequivocal support.' The fact is, as Graham Richardson said recently, you cannot expect the ALP to do anything else because they are simply beholden to the trade union movement. He is absolutely right, and that is what is going to continue to happen in this vital area.I ask the Labor Party and Labor senators in this place to get up and say whether they support the rorts that are going on, these $110,000 a year silvertails getting money for about 30 hours a week. Do you support that? Do you support what is going on at the moment? Are you really in favour of competition? Of course you are not because you are not allowed to be. You have been given your riding orders. You have been told at the very least to say nothing; to sit on the sidelines. You are not even game to get out there and criticise the MUA, even though you know 60 per cent of Australians think it is an absolute racket that has been going on for far too long. This is a critical issue, one that will be vital in the electorate, and you have already been found wanting. (Time expired)349349Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—My question is directed to Senator Hill, the Minister for the Environment. Minister, isn't it true that Mr Campbell of your department has confirmed that Mr Cosier, a member of your personal staff, instructed the department to review rejected or ineligible NHT funding applications from Victoria? Why won't you tell us when your office issued that direction, and what representations were made to you and your office, and by whom, prior to the direction being issued?349Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment10—Madam President, we are back to it again: the slanders and slurs of yesterday. Do you remember Senator Faulkner yesterday including Maurice Howard Lawrence Baillieu within his slander? Do you remember that? Madam President, he died in 1961. Thirty-seven years ago he died. What about the slander yesterday of Richard Percy Clive Baillieu? He died 57 years ago, in 1941. What about John Madden Baillieu? He got a serve yesterday. We were told that he was chairman of EL&C Baillieu. He is an old man of over 80 who retired from that job nearly three years ago.Opposition senators interjecting—BH4Senator HILL—It shows what a grubby exercise you are up to here. He died three years ago, Madam President. He died when the Labor Party was in office, as a matter of interest.Senator Cook interjecting—BH4Senator HILL—You might think this is funny, Senator Cook. Yesterday you were slandering the living—but apparently also the dead. The mathematics of the donation, Senator Ray, are very interesting. Our research to date does not add up to the figure that you set out here—the coincidental figure that served your purposes out of this place and got a story for you. Our figures do not add up to that. It is interesting, so you might disclose it.It seems, Madam President, that for at least a substantial part of the donations, they were made when Labor was in office as well. What is this all about? Why have you dragged the Baillieu family out like this? Why don't you go outside and slander the Baillieus in the same way, rather than using this coward's castle?This is what this question is all about. You said that in some way we improperly gave the Baillieus a benefit, that they were part of some conspiracy to get a benefit. And you went further and implied that they gave it back to the Liberal Party. These facts do not substantiate what you said. You did not do your homework. You slandered this family, and you behaved disgracefully.What did Mr Antony Baillieu say in this morning's paper? He said:It's very disappointing. The politicians, the slanderous statements they make about people,—that is you, Senator Faulkner—. . . the slanderous statements they make about people, they're too busy talking, if they've gave it a little bit more thought, and thought half the time they bloody well spoke—that is you, Senator Faulkner—they'd come out with considerably more useful stuff, instead of pursuing rubbish like this. It's rubbish, total rubbish . . . I can tell you now, there is absolutely no snout in the trough.Do you still say the Baillieus have their snout in the trough? You go outside—5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Yes. I say you go outside—Honourable senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! There is far too much noise in the chamber and shouting at each other across the chamber. I can scarcely hear what is being said; I doubt that anyone else can either. Senator Hill, address your remarks through the chair.BH4Senator HILL—We will see if Senator Faulkner goes outside and slanders this family again today. That will be a test of how big a man he is.But the point is, Madam President: I have said that I take responsibility for the fact that my department reviewed projects that were unsuccessful at the RAP and SAP level in Victoria. I have explained why they did it. Do you want me to go through it all again? Do you want me to tell you the deficiencies in the RAP process. (Time expired)350Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Senator Hill can shiver and shake and shout all he likes at the microphone, but what I want to know is this: I want to know, Senator Hill, when your office issued the direction to your department to review the rejected or ineligible Natural Heritage Trust applications; I want to know what representations were made to you and your office, and I want to know who they were made by prior to that direction being issued? So I ask you, Minister, to answer the question directed to you.350Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment10—Madam President, I do not know what he is on about. What I have said is that I take full responsibility for my department reviewing the unsuccessful projects in Victoria. I have said, because of the deficiencies in the RAP in relation to this Eynesbury project—that you like to call the Baillieu project so that you can attack the Baillieu family—that apparently the federal representative was not even on that particular RAP.I explained the SAP deficiencies in this place as well—the fact that the SAP in Vic toria was divided into another sub-component did not give a total consideration of the matter. So why shouldn't we reassess the projects to see if there were any mistakes?They looked at 199, from memory, Madam President, and found three that they recommended I should fund. I did that. This one had been disallowed by mistake—error—at the RAP level. Why should this excellent project suffer simply because the RAP made an error? You ought to be coming in here and applauding what was done, which is designed to achieve a better environmental outcome. (Time expired)350350Eggleston, Sen AlanSenator EGGLESTON4L6WALP10—Madam President, I have a question for the Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Parer. Labor recently dumped its ridiculous three mines policy on uranium mining and replaced it with what it calls a `no new mines policy', although apparently those sitting opposite have not yet decided what constitutes a new mine. My question is: how does this new policy, as claimed by Labor, produce certainty for this industry when the ALP leader in the Northern Territory describes it as `offensive' and `nonsense'? Will the minister inform the Senate what impact, if any, this new policy will have on the industry?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—The minister's answer should be confined more to his area of responsibility and less to Labor Party policy.350Parer, Sen WarwickSenator PARERKI4QLDLPResources and Energy10—Thank you, Madam President. I think it is interesting to look at the history of uranium mining in Australia, and particularly at the erratic and illogical history of the Labor Party going back to the 1970s. In the 1970s we had the Labor Party not only wanting uranium mining but also uranium enrichment.UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—Could I take a point of order, Madam President? It took Senator Parer only 10 seconds to be in breach of your ruling, which drew his attention to what he can answer—that is, the last part of Senator Eggleston's question, which was not on opposition policy; most of the question was directed to opposition policy. I would have thought, implied in your ruling, that you ruled that out. But Senator Parer is immediately into it with a prepared answer.KI4Senator PARER—On the point of order, Madam President: I think I am describing the history of uranium mining in Australia going back to the 1970s as a lead-up to the answer to the question asked by Senator Eggleston.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—A history may be relevant, but it should be kept as a history rather than Labor Party policy.KI4Senator PARER—It is a history. Madam President, back in the 1980s, the government of the day adopted what they called a three mines policy. But do you know what it was, Madam President? It was a two mines policy. They could not even count. So what that meant, Madam President, was that we had good uranium from two mines—the Ranger and Olympic Dam mines—but the uranium from other mines was bad uranium.Since the last election there have been some sensible proposals, particularly by people like Senator Quirke, who referred to nuclear energy reducing CO2 emissions. It might be interesting for the Senate to recognise that one of the Japanese responses to greenhouse in Kyoto was that they were going to build more nuclear power stations. Guess where they would like to get the uranium? They would like to get most of it from Australia, as they do right now. But, as Senator Eggleston has pointed out, the current opposition position on this is at odds with the government position. Our position is to say, `Let's have uranium mining, but let's do it in a way that is environmentally effective and where uranium is used only for peaceful purposes in power stations.'What has this irrelevant group come up with now? It is very important, because the uranium industry is a growth industry in Australia, and some 19 per cent of electricity throughout the world is generated from uranium. Our major markets are Japan, Korea, the European Union and the United States. What the new policy means is that they have gone the full circle. They are now saying that mines developed under the coalition will be bad uranium and other uranium will be good uranium. This is really sensible stuff isn't it?The shadow minister, poor Stephen Smith, attempted to describe this at a conference in Adelaide and, to his credit, tried to defend the indefensible. Let me tell you exactly what he said:In short it is a new political lexicon:—that is nice, isn't it; that went over well with them—Three mines becomes `no new mines'. Upon return to office a Labor Government will allow export of uranium only from those mines in existence on our return.. . . . . . . . .At Conference, and subsequently I have been asked to define or delineate what is a new mine and what is an existing mine—you have to listen to this; I ask all senators: what is a new mine and what is an existing mine?—Firstly this is not something in respect of which you can make a judgement about in the abstract—certainty—It is not something you can make a judgement about now. You can only do that in the concrete. In other words, you can only do that on day one of a Beazley Labor Government.Clear as mud. What did he say on ABC radio on 27 January? With regard to defining a mine, he said:As I said to the conference, that's not a judgment you can make in the abstract. At the moment you can say with absolute certainty, I think, that there are only two existing uranium mines . . . There are a lot of quotes from people on the other side, apart from those of Senator Quirke and Senator Collins, but the one that most sticks in my mind is a beauty. It is the one of then Senator Gareth Evans.(Time expired)351Eggleston, Sen AlanSenator EGGLESTON4L6WALP10—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Minister, could you be specific about the impact of the development of further uranium mines on the Australian economy?351Parer, Sen WarwickSenator PARERKI4QLDLPResources and Energy10—The effect will be that we will create investments, exports and jobs. I could not help but notice that Senator Cook comes in here with the gall to talk about the current account deficit when the whole range of their policy is to attack it by not allowing mines. But the best quote, as I said, was one by former Senator Evans on nuclear safeguards. On 18 September 1995, he said in response to Senator Kernot:If you do not understand that, you do not understand the way in which the safeguard system operates. If you do not understand that, you do not understand what has kept the world relatively free of nuclear weapons proliferation for the last generation. If you do not understand the dimensions of this subject, you should not be opening your mouth Senator Kernot, in public because every time you do you make an idiot of yourself.That was just under three years ago. Senator Evans went on to say:We are actively encouraging not only the existing uranium producers but also the Roxby Downs joint venturers to seek to get into those markets and engage in continuing discussions with them about ways in which that might be assisted.(Time expired)352352Bishop, Sen MarkSenator BISHOP2L6WAALP00—My question is to Senator Hill, the Minister for the Environment. Can you explain why the Crane project, the Yallobup Creek Catchment Group, does not appear in either the FOI list of projects in WA provided to the Australian newspaper, or in the consolidated list of projects disaggregated by state which your Department provided to the shadow minister? The documents you tabled show the Crane family and other members of the landcare group sought over $300,000 in NHT funds over four years. How much funding did you approve; when did you approve it; and what is the reason these details were not published?352Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment10—The honourable senator goes very close to misleading in that question but not quite as close as Mr Kerr yesterday. Honourable senators will remember that in this place I said that Senator Crane gained no benefit from this application at all. In the other place, what did Mr Kerr, the shadow spokesman, then ask the Prime Minister? I quote:Is the Prime Minister aware that the Minister for the Environment has acknowledged in the Senate that a NHT grant benefited Senator Crane?And you did pretty much the same thing in that question then. What I said yesterday was confirmed by Senator Crane in his personal explanation, which you may not have read. I hope that you did not, because that might explain your question. Yesterday he said that he had made no application, he is to get no benefit from it, and that has been confirmed by those who are running the project. I would have thought that was clear. So why don't you put that to one side instead of trying to slur yet another person unfairly?The other part of the question was why it was not referenced to this project in response to an FOI. I have no idea, Senator. I had no idea that it was not included, but now that you have brought it to my attention I will follow it up and get you an answer.352352Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEYHX5QLDAD00—Madam President, my question is directed to you. Last year a group called Defenders of Native Title organised a human ring around Parliament House which involved over 1,000 people linking hands. Were you satisfied that the demonstration was conducted in a disciplined, peaceful and courteous manner? If you were, why did you and the Speaker of the House refuse permission for an identical procedure today? Why do the Presiding Officers consider the peaceful holding of hands and the display of political messages from the same group and in the same way as a subversive threat to security?352The PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT10000PON/A10—I know of no suggestion that anything of that kind was said. The words `a subversive threat to security' are words of yours and of no-one else that I know of, Senator. Six months or so ago, a request was granted for this purpose. It was understood at that time to be a one-off situation. It was requested again this week and we indicated that the appropriate place for demonstrations was at the front of the building. It was also indicated that if people walked around the building that would not be out of order and, if it was peaceful, no notice would be taken of it, but that no placards should be taken. I saw people walking around in this area with placards, contrary to what I understood had been agreed would take place.352Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEYHX5QLDAD00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. In view of the fact that today's walking demonstration was again entirely peaceful, courteous and disciplined, would you consider a more positive response if another request of the same kind were made by this group?353The PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT10000PON/A10—It is a hypothetical question. Any requests for the use of this building for demonstrations are looked at at the time and considered in the light of what has occurred previously and what we believe is in the best interests of people who wish to demonstrate. It is not possible to have demonstrations all around the building at the whim of those who wish to do so. There is a place at the front of the building where orderly demonstrations do take place and which are properly organised between those who wish to demonstrate and the security officers of this building. I believe the system works very well—most people cooperate.353353Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—My question is directed to Senator Hill, the Minister for the Environment. Minister, given that you have denied that the member for Leichhardt, Mr Warren Entsch, was present when you took decisions on the Queensland applications for Natural Heritage Trust funding, will you now confirm that you had extended discussions with Mr Entsch in relation to those applications? Following any discussions, were any revisions made to the recommendations of the Queensland state assessment panel—any changes to the rankings of applications, any late applications assessed or accepted—and, if so, what were the reasons for the changes?353Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment10—If I understand it properly, what we are being condemned for is attempting to do the job thoroughly. In other words, what we are being condemned for is treating each application seriously and, as much as possible, assessing it at the Commonwealth level. That is what we are being condemned for here. It is interesting. What is the case? The case is that, as a result of doing the job properly, we exercised some improper decision that led to advantage to the coalition.Senator Robert Ray interjecting—BH4Senator HILL—Yes, you did. That is what you said when this started. You started con demning the process because the majority of funds went to what you said were coalition seats. Then, when it was pointed out that we held 40 rural seats and you held three, that sounded rather hollow, so then you turned it around and you started attacking the proponents and you attacked the Baillieus. Of course, you got it wrong again because the Baillieus also happened to be in a Labor seat. So be it. You did not happen to mention that, because that did not suit your argument.We have sought to do this job properly and we have sought to assess all the applications. We did not get to assess them all—we have not even been able to get them all from the states—but we sought to assess all the applications as far as we were able.Before I get to that, let us see what the judgment is of the unbiased observers of this process as to whether it is politically biased. Interestingly, today conservation councils around Australia released a letter—the greens organisations, I might say. They are not generally seen to favour us. What do they say? They said:However, we have seen no evidence that projects were approved according to political advantage in Coalition held electorates.They saw no evidence at all. You are determined to find it, but the conservation groups, which are much closer to the ground—5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Madam President, I raise a point of order. You might recall that I asked Senator Hill a question in relation to the involvement or the possible involvement of Mr Entsch in this process. I asked him if he could confirm the extent of discussions. I also asked him whether revisions were made to recommendations of the Queensland panel—any changes to rankings of applications—and whether any late applications were assessed or accepted. I ask you, Madam President, now that we have had another two-minute effort to duck this question—just like the other questions that have been asked of him have been ducked in question time—to direct the minister to answer the question.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—I do draw the minister's attention to the question.BH4Senator HILL—Certainly. Thank you, Madam President. I am just going to the motive of the question before answering the substance. I will put it in another way. I will give you the final sentence of the conservation councils' letter. They said:The Natural Heritage Trust is designed to facilitate action from the ground-up, but with the coordination, leadership and oversight of the Commonwealth. This is the role of any federal government. This is why Ministers Anderson and Hill have scrutinised all projects—so that the outcomes promised, are delivered. We should expect nothing less.So the greens organisations around Australia are saying that they would expect nothing less than the level of scrutiny that we have given applications for this project. We wanted to give it that scrutiny because we are committed to the Natural Heritage Trust. We are not wanting to wreck it like the Labor Party. We see that it can bring enormous advantage to Australia. It is addressing the neglect of the previous government in relation to natural resource management issues.The department, when it was reassessing unsuccessful SAP grants in Queensland, provided a brief to me on eight projects. It recommended that four of those projects be approved and I accepted their recommendation.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—The question was about Mr Entsch.BH4Senator HILL—Mr Entsch, like many politicians—including your leader, Mr Beazley, and your spokesman—has lobbied me in relation to particular projects. There is no secret about that. Your environment spokesman last wrote to me last week asking that a project be looked at. There is no secret about that. Apparently, according to my department, when the Cairns council project was—(Time expired)354Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Minister, why won't you answer direct questions about extended discussions you had with Mr Entsch in relation to these applications? Why won't you tell us whether there are any revisions from the SAP recommendations, any late applications assessed or accepted? Why won't you tell us when Mr Cosier in your office directed Victoria to reassess? Why won't you tell us about the representations that you received at that time? Why won't you tell us about how much funding you approved for the Crane project? Why won't you tell us when you did approve it? Why won't you tell us what the reasons for that were? Why won't you answer the questions properly directed to you in question time by opposition senators? Perhaps it is because this is a massive rort.354Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment10—`This is a massive slander' would have been a better thing to add to the question, Senator. You will drag anyone down in an attempt to serve your short-term political interests. It does not matter who it is. But I bet you have not got the guts out there to have another go at the Baillieus. I do not think you listened to the answer. I said that the department gave me further advice on eight projects. It recommended the funding of four of them. I accepted the recommendation. The Cairns City Council one, which was an excellent project—Senator Faulkner interjecting—BH4Senator HILL—Will you give me the chance to give some details of that? The Cairns City Council one, an excellent project, was among them, and the department advisers, when they gave their objective advice to me, knew of no representation from Mr Entsch.354354Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—My question is to the Minister for the Environment. I ask the minister, as Australia's premier environmental officer, will you join those conservationists who are trying to protect the Mother Cummings Peak forest and the Great Western Tiers against the destruction which is occurring there today in national estate value forests? Secondly, I ask, in light of Senator Parer's information to a Senate committee last year that, following the regional forest agreement, Commonwealth action on forests in East Gippsland transferred to the Prime Minister's department, was it you or the Prime Minister who gave the go-ahead for the illegal logging in the Goolengook River heritage zone in Victoria last year and this year? What action are you taking, in response to the court's finding in East Gippsland last week that that logging has no legal basis, to see that logging halts not only in Goolengook but in East Gippsland until the mess you created is sorted out and until a lawful basis is found for continued logging?355Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment10—We are pleased with the progress we have made in relation to regional forest agreements. After the mess that we inherited as well from Senator Faulkner, I might say, I am pleased that we were able to achieve a regional forest agreement in East Gippsland. I am pleased that we are close to achieving one in the central highlands in Victoria. I am pleased that we have been able to achieve one in Tasmania. I am pleased with the progress we are making towards achieving one in Western Australia, which I expect to be complete within the next few months. If we had got a bit more cooperation from the New South Wales state government we would be closer to achieving one in Eden as well so, if you have any influence, Senator, you might pass that on to your mates back in Sydney.Why am I pleased? I am pleased because it gives the opportunity for this country, in an unprecedented way, to preserve the best of conservation values in those forests, while at the same time allowing industry to grow and to employ with certainty through sustainable forestry practices—ecologically sustainable practices and economically sustainable practices. That was the purpose of the program we have set in place.I have to say that I thought the outcome in Tasmania with respect to what the honourable senator seems to be referring to today was an excellent one. It cost the Commonwealth quite a bit of money, but we were prepared to put that into providing long-term sustainable jobs within the industry.FX5MURPHYSenator Murphy—How many jobs? Zip!BH4Senator HILL—Are you criticising that?QD4BROWNSenator Brown—Madam President, on a point of order: it is halfway through the answering time for this question and the minister has not addressed the specific questions which I put to him, including the ques tion as to whether he or the Prime Minister authorised the illegal logging in Goolengook.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—A number of questions were posed initially, and I believe that Senator Hill has been addressing them. There are others still unanswered.BH4Senator HILL—Madam President, I thought the first question was about the Great Western Tiers. I was saying that I believe that the outcome in Tasmania was an excellent outcome, but there are always some who are not prepared to accept a fair outcome; particularly a fair outcome in relation to jobs. This government is committed to good environmental outcomes, but it is also committed to providing Australian jobs and, in this instance, Tasmanian jobs.FX5MURPHYSenator Murphy—Tell us how many jobs in Tasmania. Tell us? How many? Zip!BH4Senator HILL—In Tasmania we can, pursuant to that agreement, now have an excellent conservation regime, but at the same time give the industry greater hope than it has ever had before, Senator. As a coalition member, I am proud of that.In relation to the recent litigation in Victoria, I am advised that this matter relates to a point of law concerning the Victorian Heritage Rivers Act 1992. I am not aware of any implications of the decision for the regional forest agreement that this government signed last year. The Victorian government, I am told, is currently seeking legal advice on the matter, but I understand that it is likely that the Victorian government will appeal the decision. It would, therefore, be inappropriate for me to comment further at this stage.355Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Minister, in the meantime, on the basis of legal advice which I have furnished to your office, is it not true that there is a prima facie case that continued logging in East Gippsland is illegal? Are you going to act on that, as the primary environmental officer in this country, or is your inactivity going to stand as testimony to the continuing fact that instead you are Australia's premier bio-stitute?355Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment10—I think that is supposed to be amusing, Madam President. The point is that we believe we have a good outcome for the environment and a good outcome for jobs in East Gippsland as well as in Tasmania. A point of law has now arisen under the Victorian legislation. That point of law will ultimately be determined in higher courts. I have said, Senator, it would be inappropriate for me to delve further into that matter at this time.356356Hogg, Sen JohnSenator HOGG7L6QLDALP00—My question is addressed to the Minister for the Environment. Minister, can you explain how, according to documentation provided to the shadow Minister for the Environment, a project entitled `Managing Tilapia to minimise spread in the Barron' received $19,200 under bushcare as project No. 972008 and a further $19,200 under the fisheries action program as project No. 972116? Why did you decide to fund this project in this way? Did the federal member for Leichhardt, Mr Entsch, discuss this project with you?356Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment10—This was one of those projects that I referred to earlier that the department advised me I should approve, which advice I accepted. I am told that following approval of the project, the department discovered that the Barron River project had been funded by DPIE through the fisheries action program. Funding through bushcare was, therefore, not pursued.356Hogg, Sen JohnSenator HOGG7L6QLDALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Minister, can you explain why these two projects and another bushcare project in Cairns for $31,000 entitled `Incentives and recognition for the protection of freehold land for conservation values' were not listed in the material FOI-ed by the Australian ?356Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment10—No, Madam President, but what I can tell you, now that I have been given the chance, is of the importance of the Cairns project. This project was proposed by the Cairns City Council.7L6HOGGSenator Hogg—Answer the question.BH4Senator HILL—You might not be interested, but it is vitally important because it leads to better environmental outcomes in this country. It is an innovative and very worthwhile project because it was the Cairns City Council, looking for ways to provide incentives, that will lead to—VW4HERRONSenator Herron—A life member of the Labor Party.BH4Senator HILL—If the Labor Party pushed the project, I congratulate the Labor Party. Perhaps they ought to have a talk to some of their Labor senators down in this place because it was showing leadership. We are looking for ways for local government to provide incentives that will, in turn, provide people with better environmental practices. This was a project whereby the Cairns City Council was exploring a range of incentives. It was innovating a leadership program and, according to my department, well worth supporting. (Time expired)356356Abetz, Sen EricSenator ABETZN26TASLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Justice. Minister, previously you have confirmed that the coalition government is supporting Mr Skase's bankruptcy trustee's actions to recover assets by way of legal action. Senator Bolkus, the exposed leaker of Federal Court documents, has claimed, I would submit falsely, that the government delayed legal action against Mr Skase. Minister, did you delay signing any documents?356Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPMinister for Justice10—I thank Senator Abetz for his continued interest in the Skase matter and in Senator Bolkus's incompetence. Senator Bolkus has alleged that there was a delay on numerous occasions on my part in signing certain documents. He says I have held up service of injunctions. He made the allegation at the same press conference he leaked the confidential Federal Court documents at. Senator Bolkus has made these allegations with no evidence whatsoever. That never inhibits Senator Bolkus saying something. Nonetheless, he has gone ahead because he will say or do anything to get publicity for himself and he could see the Skase matter as an easy way to get himself a run in the media.There was no delay in signing any documents in my office. Do you know why there was no delay in signing any documents? Because there were not any documents. Mr Donnelly does not need to come and say to the Minister for Justice, `Can I serve these documents today?' You kid yourself if you think you have that right. You have it wrong again, Senator Bolkus. You have been making misleading and deceptive statements with a reckless disregard for the truth.Hearing those allegations, I thought I had better check with Mr Donnelly, Mr Skase's trustee, for his advice on these matters and he replied. He said he was aware of the various allegations of delay that had been published in the media recently.XE4BOLKUSSenator Bolkus—It is taking you two months to serve it—60 days.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Bolkus, you can pursue this matter at the appropriate time, which is not now.7E4Senator VANSTONE—He wanted to assure me that both he and his lawyers, that is both he and Allens—XE4BOLKUSSenator Bolkus—She continues to lie.7E4Senator VANSTONE—`She continues to lie', is that what you said, Senator Bolkus?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—I ask you to withdraw, Senator Bolkus.XE4BOLKUSSenator Bolkus—I withdraw.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—You should stand up when you are requested to address the Chamber.XE4BOLKUSSenator Bolkus—I withdraw, Madam President.7E4Senator VANSTONE—You see, you keep getting it wrong. What Mr Donnelly said is, `I and my lawyers have been most satisfied with the prompt assistance given by you and officers of Attorney-General's Department which have enabled us'—he goes on to make it perfectly clear—`which have enabled us to maintain our planned timetable.' He goes on to point out that his funding has been sufficient as well. Why would Mr Donnelly give me such a letter if he believed what Senator Bolkus was saying was true? I will table the letter.Senator Bolkus interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Bolkus, you are persistently interjecting.7E4Senator VANSTONE—Senator Bolkus has no credibility whatsoever in the Skase matter. He has leaked Federal Court documents; we have caught him doing that. He alleges the government can reopen the Skase extradition; we have shown that that is not possible and we have shown that he knew it was not possible. He alleges delay of service of documents as a consequence of some failure in my office and we have shown that that is not correct either. Either he has a reckless disregard for the truth or he has been sucked in by someone. In any event, he is either reckless or stupid and should not have his job.Court orders were obtained on 1 December in Australia, on 5 December in the United Kingdom and on 8 December in the Cayman Islands, all of which was well known to a small number of people in the government. Why weren't those documents served? The reason the documents were not served at the time is that we thought it might tip everybody else off, so we would wait. Then, when the Federal Court affidavit was released, we had to serve, but Skase already had notice. That is why you see the unedifying picture of people throwing a summons over a fence—because you tipped them off.XE4BOLKUSSenator Bolkus—Madam President, I raise a point of order. The answer is totally irrelevant to the question because—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Bolkus, what is the point of order?XE4BOLKUSSenator Bolkus—Madam President, the answer is totally irrelevant to the question because the minister knows full well that it is her office that has been investigated for the initial leak to David Luff from the Australian . Government sources were revealed in that article and you should address the fact that you are being investigated yourself.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—There is no point of order.7E4Senator VANSTONE—Senator Bolkus has also made some allegations that some 50—Senator Bolkus interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Bolkus, I have already indicated that I regard you as interjecting persistently. I am considering whether it is wilful.7E4Senator VANSTONE—They are the facts of the matter. A sensible decision was made by Mr Donnelly in consultation with the Insolvency Trustee Service of which I was advised and asked my opinion as to whether it was best to hold off service until the rest of the proceedings had been carried forward, until another opinion had been gained in Spain. My advice on that matter was that, yes, I did agree with that. But once Senator Bolkus went out and said—(Time expired)358Abetz, Sen EricSenator ABETZN26TASLP10—Madam President, because of Senator Bolkus's continual interruptions I did not quite hear all of the minister's answer. I was wondering whether the minister could confirm for me and the Senate that there were no documents to be signed by you and, as a result, the allegations made by Senator Bolkus are completely without foundation.358Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPMinister for Justice10—I can confirm that there were no documents in relation to service of any proceedings that were required to be signed by me. I can also indicate this: Senator Bolkus said that $50 million in assets had been pinpointed. This, of course, gets the ear of the media. Well, Senator Bolkus, I challenge you today to go to Mr Donnelly and tell him where the assets are. You tell him about the company structures that you know about. You tell him about the trusts, the holdings and who has got all this money, because nothing like $50 million has been pinpointed. You were just raving on to get yourself a story. Now you can put up or shut up. Admit to the media that you have lied to them, that you have made up a story; that no such pinpointing of $50 million has been made. In your dreams, you pick a figure out of the air to get yourself some publicity and you should be sacked. If your leader was not so weak, you would have been sacked in January. But he should sack you now.358358West, Sen SueSenator WEST1X4NSWALP00—My question is directed to the Minister for the Environment. Is the minister aware that the Australian Electoral Commission uses a category of electorate called provincial seats, and that the ALP holds eight such seats to the coalition's 10? Can he explain how it is that the eight ALP provincial seats received an average of $50,650 from the Natural Heritage Trust while the 10 coalition seats received an average of $243,680? How could his objective, transparent assessment and selection process have possibly produced such a skewed result?358Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment10—Apart from the slur at the end, it is actually an interesting question and is worth exploring. It is not easy to explore because there were over 6,000 applications. Nevertheless, the Labor Party has requested of us—which we said that we will seek to meet—copies of at least an abbreviation of all 6,000 applications. Just a little job, just a little diversion for the Public Service, just another big expenditure; but we will do it. When we have done it, you and we will be able to make a better comparison and see what the explanation was. I suspect that part of the explanation might be that Labor seats did not put in the same number of applications. One of the reasons for that—4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—They knew it was fixed—that's why.BH4Senator HILL—Is that why? One of the reasons for that is that Labor has no interest in the bush. It is no coincidence that Labor holds three rural seats and the coalition holds 40. They rejected Labor because Labor has no interest in the bush. You are insensitive to the needs in the bush. You do not understand the environmental damage that has been done in the bush. You were never prepared in government to address the issues. You are angry because the coalition has picked up the ball, set in place the Natural Heritage Trust, got it funded, despite your objection, and is now putting unprecedented money onto the ground to make good this environmental damage.You are also angry that it is being done less through state agencies and more through community groups. The Labor Party does not like anything about this trust. The trust supports individuals and community groups to resolve their own problems. It targets the areas of greatest need. It requires efforts to ensure full value for each dollar. It requires a catalytic effect so that you can build upon it to give a better total outcome.Senator, you ought to take some notice of what the conservation groups are saying. They are not our friends but they do recognise that we have made a fair attempt at the start of this massive project to address the major land and water degradation problems facing Australia, which is more than your people ever did.Eventually, when we have all this information to hand, we can trawl through it again, as you have already started to try to do with the information you have—you have actually been provided with more information than I have—and we will get a better picture. I hope the answer is not that Labor seats did not bother to apply for funding, but we will see in due course.Madam President, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.Miscellaneous359359The PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT10000PON/A10—In question time yesterday, Senator Lees asked me about an alleged conflict of interest under standing order 27(5) on the part of Senator Crane in relation to the Natural Heritage Trust fund and inquiries undertaken by the Rural and Regional Affairs Legislation and References Committees, of which Senator Crane is a member. Senator Crane's personal explanation later in the day indicates that he is not an applicant for a grant from the Natural Heritage Trust fund and will not receive any grant from that fund. There is therefore no question of a conflict of interest.Senator Lees also asked what course of action would be taken if a conflict of interest existed contrary to standing order 27(5). It is for senators in the first instance to ensure that a conflict of interest does not arise contrary to the standing order. If the Senate became aware of such a conflict of interest, it would be for the Senate to rectify it by changing the membership of a committee if necessary. There is no precedent of the Senate taking such action.Miscellaneous35935915:02:00359Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—I move:That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for the Environment (Senator Hill) to questions without notice asked today, relating to the allocation of grants from the Natural Heritage Trust.Today, again, we have seen the Minister for the Environment (Senator Hill) either unwilling or unable to answer a series of important questions that have been directed to him. After three days of solid questioning, we still have the Minister for the Environment unable to answer when a direction was issued from his office to the Department of the Environment to reassess unsuccessful applications in Victoria. We want to know who made representations to Senator Hill; he has not answered that either. They are important questions because three projects were approved as a result of that direction, one of which was a grant to the Baillieu family in Victoria, and we all know about that.Senator Hill is not willing or able to explain the fact that Senator Crane's project—the Yallobup Creek Catchment Group project—does not appear on the FOI list of projects in Western Australia that was provided to the Australian newspaper; nor does it appear in the disaggregated material that has been made public to date. The opposition asked Senator Hill questions in relation to a grant that has got a lot of focus in both the parliamentary chamber and the public arena. We wanted to know how much funding he approved. He could not or would not answer it. We wanted to know when he approved it. He could not or would not answer it. We wanted to know why those details were not published. He could not or would not answer it.When it came to the issue of Mr Entsch, we have had no information about the extent of Senator Hill's discussions with Mr Entsch. What we have heard is that Senator Hill had up to 15 hours of discussions with Mr Entsch about grants in Queensland and we wanted to know whether, following those discussions, revisions were made to recommendations of the Queensland state assessment panel, whether the rankings of applications were changed and whether there were any late applications assessed or accepted. What was the reason for the changes if they came about as a result of that process? They are reasonable questions and a competent and responsible minister should be able to answer them.What we heard from Senator Hill in answer to a question from Senator West was this. He said, `You've been provided with more information than I have.' Senator Hill is the minister who took responsibility for approving all these grants. He is the minister who rolled over the regional assessment panel recommendations, who changed the state assessment panel recommendations, who ignored his own department's recommendations. This is the minister who took responsibility himself for making these decisions, and he has got the hide to come in here and say that we had been provided with more information than he had. How on earth could he make the decisions, if that is the case? He has also got the hide not to answer these questions.That is why the Natural Heritage Trust grant approval process stinks. It is not just because Mr Billson flew to South Australia and was in the room when the Victorian grants were dealt with. It is not just because Senator Crane and Senator Eggleston were in the room when the Western Australian grants were determined here in Canberra. It is not just that we have found out that Senator Crane and his family might have some involvement in a project in Western Australia. It is because these clear questions of process go to the administration of Senator Hill's ministerial responsibility and relate to the use or abuse of taxpayers' money in this country. These are important questions that deserve answers.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—Why did you mislead the Senate?5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—This Senate is entitled to an answer on these important issues.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—You couldn't lie straight in bed.5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—What we say is that Senator Hill is covering up. What have you got to hide, Senator Hill? What you have got to hide is a massive shonk, a massive rort that rolled up in the Natural Heritage Trust.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—Why are you a liar? Why are you misleading the Senate?10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator Campbell, would you please withdraw those comments?H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—Which one—that his research officer is as bad as he is, that he is stupid, that he is a liar?10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Withdraw all unparliamentary language.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—Or the one about the dead man voting in left wing ballots of the New South Wales Labor Party?10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator Campbell, would you please withdraw all unparliamentary language?H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—I withdraw all unparliamentary language about Senator Faulkner.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Thank you.5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—The reason is that this is a rort.15:07:00360Eggleston, Sen AlanSenator EGGLESTON4L6WALP10—We have been subjected to the greatest beat-up over this mater that I have seen in the time that I have been in the Senate. Senator Faulkner is misleading the Senate in the most disgraceful way possible. Time and time again he has been shown to be saying things which he knows are not true, beating up information and performing in a disgraceful way.The cold hard facts of this matter are very simple—that is, the money went to where the problems are. The money went to rural areas because that is where the environmental problems are. When you go back to the better cities program of a few years ago—surprise, surprise!—the money went to Labor electorates. They went to Labor electorates in the city because that is where the problems were. The same applies to this issue of the Natural Heritage Trust.In the Senate debate on the Natural Heritage Trust, considerable reference was made to the need to restore and conserve Australia's natural environment and agricultural systems. One might ask: was there support for this thrust to improve the environment and the agricultural areas of Australia from either local communities or the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator Faulkner)? As it happens, the answer is yes on both counts. The preamble to the amendments states:Australia's rural community should have a key role in the ecologically sustainable management of Australia's natural resources.What did Senator Faulkner say? He said:The opposition does not have to be forced to accept these amendments. We are accepting them on merit, even though they could be stronger.In effect, Senator Faulkner was saying, `More money should be spent in rural areas by the Natural Heritage Trust.' These projects were not identified by electorate before the minister approved them, but now they have been analysed on that basis, and it is very interesting to look at some of these figures. These figures relate only to projects which can be identified in one specific electorate. Therefore, they do not count regional or state-wide initiatives.Of the 2,180 projects put up by the states, 86 per cent were in coalition electorates and worth some $96½ million, or 90 per cent of the total pool of applications. It is interesting to note that this national application rate is consistent with the rate put up by the only Labor state, that of New South Wales, where 89 per cent of the dollar value came from coalition seats.LI4PATTERSONSenator Patterson—They never talk about that. They just forget that.4L6Eggleston, Sen AlanSenator EGGLESTON—You are absolutely right. It is very interesting that New South Wales received $10 million more than any other state, and, of course, New South Wales has a Labor government. The minister has approved a total of 1,680 projects, of which 1,461, or 86.8 per cent, were in coalition seats, and they were worth 90 per cent of the total approvals. Correspondingly, 2,180 projects were put up by the states, of which nine per cent were Labor. They were worth $5,763,000, or five per cent of the total pool of applications. As stated, the minister has approved a total of 1,680 projects, of which 147 or nine per cent were in Labor electorates and were five per cent of the total approvals. It needs to be said that Labor, holding only 1.7 per cent of the land area of Australia, had nine per cent of the moneys granted or grants.So one can only conclude from this that the record of the Labor Party on this whole issue is just an incredible beat-up. If one analyses the facts, it is quite clear that the money was spent in rural areas with the support of the Labor Party because that is where the problem is. I might just end with a couple of quotes. Let us see what the Tasmanian Conservation Trust had to say. They supported the government's action. (Time expired)15:13:00361Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAYUI4VICALP00—Senator Eggleston has just had five minutes to explain to us what he was doing in the room when the decision maker was making decisions about Western Australian grants and has failed to do so. In question time today, we saw Senator Hill complain that we are jumping to conclusions about certain matters. We would not have to jump to conclusions if he would address the questions sent to him. If he would tell us who in his office directed the reassessment, particularly in Victoria and Queensland, when they did that and under what circumstances, we might be able to expunge some of these issues, but he does not say so.He has been asked repeatedly at estimates and in this chamber, and he has refused to respond. The interesting thing, as we are getting further into this, is that it seems that the very projects that were reinstated both in Queensland and in Victoria had some other advice behind them.Talk about knocking down straw men—Senator Hill today accused me of bodgying figures. That is knocking down a straw man. I did not say that the Baillieu family and their associates donated money in one sum—in fact, I say the opposite here in Hansard, if you care to read it. I said that, of all the discoverable donations by the Baillieu family, it came to a certain total.Let me go through it again, just so you understand we were not making these figures up. I am taking this out of the AEC archival data. Liberal Victoria, $20,500 in 1996; Liberal Central, $20,000 in 1966; Liberal Victoria, $10,000—and that comes to the exact figure of $50,500, as I said. I said we were puzzled. What happened to the other $2,400? So we had to look back just to make sure we had not overlooked one, and then we find a J.M. Baillieu, $2,400, and that comes exactly to $52,900.Those opposite can shake their heads, but I have the figures here if they want to come and check them later. We did not actually go out to falsifying the figures. These were the figures we found that were available. No doubt the apparatchiks in Senator Hill's office may have only looked at the federal records. I do not know. Maybe they have not looked at the individual donations. It is knocking over a straw man to say that we got the figures wrong. What we have not got wrong is that Senator Hill had extensive meetings with Mr Entsch—anything beyond 10 hours in total—to discuss the North Queensland grants. We have not got that wrong. We do not allege that they had discussions while he was making a decision, but they had long discussions.Senator Calvert interjecting—UI4Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAY—Guess what, Senator Calvert? Three of the ineligible grants suddenly came back on the table. If that is the way grants that miss out are to get up then advertise it—tell us. I am sure the representations from all the electorates will pour in.Senator Hill said a very interesting thing. He said that these four projects were recommended by his department, yet the department did not make recommendations on all the first round approved grants, according to evidence at the estimates committee. They made comments and not recommendations. It was left to ministers to make the decisions. Why suddenly the change in modus operandi to require the department to make recommendations? Maybe it is just to protect everybody else. I want to conclude on this point. We have had Senator Eggleston run all the weasel words through about why the funding is skewed the way it was. He talked about New South Wales. We do not know yet, Senator Eggleston, what the variation rate was. We are still awaiting those answers from Senator Hill from the estimates committee hearing. We want to know whether, as in Western Australia, 22 per cent of the projects got varied for up to 32 per cent of the funding. What was the rate in New South Wales, Senator Eggleston—do you know that? That is the test you have to put on this.We do not necessarily hold a lot of seats, but in Victoria, which is the state I represent, we hold 43 per cent of the federal seats. We got 1.2 per cent of the funding in total. A couple of those grants were to help Liberal mates in Labor electorates. When you look at the grants in Labor electorates, they tend to be skewed where there are state Liberal Party seats.The fix went in all the way down—not by Senator Hill in this case. The way the state assessment panels and the regional assessment panels were constituted they were not varied for balance. The only variations we can find are to help out certain Liberal or National Party members with their favourite projects. Naturally, we ask questions. It is up to Senator Hill to come into this place and not filibuster but actually answer the factual questions and we can expunge some of these questions from the record. (Time expired)15:18:00362Crane, Sen WinstonSenator CRANEUW4WALP10—I rise to speak on this same issue. I particularly want to deal with the question that Senator Bishop asked and the insinuation in it. I have to say at the outset to Senator Bishop, a person I thought I had got to know reasonably well, that I am very disappointed, in view of the personal explanation I gave yesterday, that you should continue that line of questioning.UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—No. It is not at you. It was not at you and you know it. It was not directed at you.UW4Crane, Sen WinstonSenator CRANE—You can rabbit on all you like. Let me read out what I said yesterday. I said:When the applications went out—they were sent out by the local committee—my son, who now runs the property, did not respond. We did not put in any application whatsoever for funding. If you had listened carefully to Senator Hill's explanation, you would have got that. If you can read and you read the letter on the table, you will get it twice. Also, our property will receive no funding whatsoever from the Natural Heritage Trust.That is very clear. In that loaded question he used the Crane something or other application. They were the exact words he used. They were very misleading. The fact that my sister-in-law was the secretary of the committee—she had sold the property—and was doing her community job for the district which she was leaving is very honourable.2L6BISHOPSenator Bishop—How did she sign?UW4Crane, Sen WinstonSenator CRANE—She was the secretary. There was no benefit whatsoever. The insinuation in that question was that there was a benefit for the Cranes. There was no benefit whatsoever. In the other place yesterday, who should continue this, but Duncan Kerr. I have to say a bit about that. No money was received whatsoever. I want to look at one of the reports yesterday in particular.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—How much funding was approved?UW4Crane, Sen WinstonSenator CRANE—I did not approve any money.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—But how much was approved?UW4Crane, Sen WinstonSenator CRANE—I did not approve any money.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—That is what we are asking Hilly, you dope.UW4Crane, Sen WinstonSenator CRANE—I did not approve any money.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—Senator Faulkner, for Christ's sake you are the leader.UW4Crane, Sen WinstonSenator CRANE—I was not involved in approving any money. I reject any insinuation of that whatsoever. I gave a briefing on land care—nothing more; nothing less.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! I have called both sides to order and will continue to call both sides to order. There is language that is flowing that is not particularly parliamentary and edifying. It will be ceased on both sides. Senator Crane please continue.UW4Crane, Sen WinstonSenator CRANE—You people can slur me all you like, but leave my family out of it. It is as simple as that. Leave my sister-in-law and my daughter-in-law out of it.I want to refer to one article in the Daily Telegraph by Emma-Kate Symons. It is headed `MP gained from Lib grant'. It states:Liberal MP benefited directly from a Howard Government environmental grant, it was revealed yesterday during opposition questioning over the "green-barrel" affair.I say now and send to Emma-Kate Symons the message: you got it wrong; please make a correction.I also want to deal with two other issues that came to the fore this morning. It has been alleged in this place that there has been another application for a grant for the Yallobup Creek area. That is false. There has not. That allegation is running hot in this place right now.The other point in this regard that I want to kill while I am on my feet is the claim that we got benefit out of the bushcare grants when you people were in government. That is absolutely false. It is true that the Yallobup Creek Catchment Group got a grant, but none of it was spent anywhere near our property.The other point I want to make is that this year we planted 16 hectares of trees, we fenced them and we drained 100 hectares. That will benefit everybody else in the catchment, but we get no benefit from this grant or anything else because we are at the source of the creek. No water runs into our property from it. The allegations in this place by those opposite that try to denigrate us in terms of what we have done with land care are absolutely and totally ludicrous.UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—What allegations?UW4Crane, Sen WinstonSenator CRANE—They are allegations and you persisted with them. You ought to get your act into gear. Finally, Senator Bishop, I request that you go and read my personal explanation. If there is any other information you need or you want with regard to Yallobup Creek, I would be quite happy to give it to you. 15:23:00364Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—On behalf of the opposition, I would like to take up Senator Crane's offer and ask: could he please ask Senator Hill to provide that information? That is exactly what Senator Bishop asked for in question time. He has given me a copy of the question. He asked: how much funding was approved, when was it approved and what were the reasons for this particular project being approved? The minister, as with all other serious questions asked of him today, ducked the issue. He blustered. He did the shake, rattle and roll, which is not his normal style and it is not working. He normally tries to play the reasonable man and provide an answer to parliament. It is interesting that whenever the Natural Heritage Trust comes up we get the bluster, the shaking and the rage because he is trying to tough it out. He will not provide answers to the very serious, direct questions asked of him today.Senator Crane, if you want to be helpful, go around to Senator Hill's office and ask him to answer the question that Senator Bishop asked because we want to know the details. I do not care about your family. I do not want to bring your family into this. What I want to know is why was the grant made? Who approved it? When was it approved? I also want to know why it was not on the list that was provided under FOI to the Australian and why it was not on the list provided to the opposition. We want to know what is special about it? Why is it different? These are legitimate public policy questions.We know you were in the room. We know that your property was part of the group that the grant was made to. We want to know why it does not hang together. Why is it not on the list? These are legitimate questions. We have serious concerns about the processes. We are not convinced that the processes that were followed in this regard were totally above board. We wonder why the two Liberal senators in the room were there. What role were they playing?When I got the list of Western Australian grants I saw that O'Connor got the most grants. Which electorate does Senator Crane represent? Which electorate is his property in? Where is he most involved? O'Connor. It got 137 grants worth $4.939 million. The electorate which came second in terms of the amount of money expended was Kalgoorlie, the area that Senator Eggleston has been traditionally associated with. It got $1.365 million by way of 29 grants.Geoff Prosser, the member for Forrest, should have been in the room because he also has a rural electorate but it only got $877,000. You can see why Geoff Prosser and Forrest missed out—he was not in the room at the time. He was not helping to pick the projects. But the two senators who were in the room managed to get those two electorates a very good deal. Kim Beazley, the member for Brand, was not in the room. Brand got one project. There were 137 projects in O'Connor and only one project in Brand.I accept part of Senator Eggleston's argument about the nature of the electorates, but it still does not add up. This does not represent a proportional allocation of funds or projects. We have to ask: why? When we asked why we found out that Senator Crane and Senator Eggleston, however low they kept their profile, were actually in the room. We said, `Hang on. Does that sound like proper process?' So we came into the Senate chamber and asked questions about that process. We asked: when were approvals made? Who in Senator Hill's office made the decision? When they did they request the department to review decisions? What did we get? We got the shake, rattle and roll—don't you worry about that; bluster, bluster.Senator Hill, you are not good at it. Give it away. You are much better at providing reasoned explanations when you have answers. But you do not want to give us answers on this occasion and I want to know why you do not. Why do you not adopt your normal method in question time and answer the question? We suspect there is something wrong here. You are not prepared to come into this chamber and answer legitimate questions, not questions about families and dead directors but questions about how you allocated millions of dollars of taxpayers' funds while you had your mates in the room and your mates were benefiting. We want to know why the process was not ridgy-didge and why you will not answer legitimate questions about that process. What have you got to hide? Why will you not come clean and provide accountability to the parliament for the funds that you have allocated?15:28:00365McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURANWH4VICNP10—Even to the most casual observer today, it was quite obvious that the Leader of the Opposition, Senator Faulkner, was humiliated on the subject of the Natural Heritage Trust. His tactics have collapsed into a grubby and brainless attack on dead men. If it were not for Senator Robert Ray propping you up, I think you would be the one toughing it out, doing the shake, rattle and roll over the coming months. Your leadership after today's humiliation, after your attack on dead men, would be in doubt. Let us see what Senator Faulkner and Senator Robert Ray, backing him up, have said. Senator Faulkner said yesterday:Two other persons associated with the Woodhouse Pastoral Co. also list their individual addresses at 360 Collins Street, Melbourne: Mr Maurice Howard Lawrence Baillieu, a previous director, and Mr Richard Percy Clive Baillieu, the current secretary.Senator Ray said:It is not McCarthyism . . . all the links are there.Let us see where those links are. Maurice Howard Lawrence Baillieu, referred to by Senator Faulkner, died 37 years ago. Senator Faulkner, you owe that family an apology. Maurice Howard Lawrence Baillieu died in 1961. So much for your association, your links. They are just not there, Senator Ray. The second accusation you made, Senator Faulkner, was that the current secretary is Mr Richard Percy Clive Baillieu. He died in 1941—57 years ago, Senator Faulkner. What a fool! Who gave you this sort of information? What are you running off, Senator Faulkner, to come up with this sort of slanderous, grubby and brainless attack on the Baillieu family?But it gets worse. There is a third accusation, Senator Faulkner, where you misled the Senate and slandered the Baillieu family when you said Mr John Madden Baillieu is chairman of EL&C Baillieu. You said:A total of $50,500 was donated by the chairman of this company who is one of the four current directors of the Woodhouse Pastoral Co.Well, you are wrong. Mr John Baillieu has not been the chairman of EL&C Baillieu for nearly three years. In fact, he resigned in May 1995. All the so-called donations that were given, Senator Ray, with which you are trying to make this spurious link, were made during the Labor years—before the Liberal government, before the Natural Heritage Trust was even established.Why wouldn't the Baillieu family give money to the Liberal Party? Of course they have links and loyalties to the Liberal Party. Do you think for one moment they would support the Labor Party? This is a well-known Liberal family. Why shouldn't they be? They are to be respected for that, but you owe them an apology for making these spurious smears upon them. You have attacked dead men today. That is the worth of your leadership, Senator Faulkner. It is not worth a crumpet.UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—Poor old geek; Jeffrey's coming after you.WH4McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURAN—Don't bait me on that one, Senator Ray. I think your attack really is starting to peter out now. But the truth of the matter is that you lost the last election and were massacred in the rural and regional areas. We hold 40 rural seats; you hold three. In land mass terms that is two per cent of Australia. You talked about the test. Look at Tasmania. Tasmania is the test. That is in fact where you hold the greatest land mass, the seat of Lyons. The seat of Lyons received 60 per cent of the funding that went to Tasmania—that is, over $1 million, and that happens to be a Labor seat. So that is a test. There is no whiteboard scenario here at all, which, by the way, has gone down in political legend. This is a creditable and audited scheme.Question resolved in the affirmative.36510001CLERK ASSISTANTThe Clerk—Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows:36520DT6Bartlett Sen AndrewTo the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled: The petition of the undersigned shows: That Australian citizens oppose social, legal and economic discrimination against people on the basis of their sexuality or transgender identity and that such discrimination is unacceptable in a democratic society.Your petitioners request that the Senate should: pass the Australian Democrats Bill to make it unlawful to discriminate or vilify on the basis of sexuality or transgender identify so that such discrimination or vilification be open to redress at a national level.Senator BartlettDT6Senator Bartlett(from 20 citizens)36629LI4Patterson Sen KayTo the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate assembled in Parliament:This petition of certain citizens of Australia, draws to the attention of the Senate the fact that members of the Royal Australian Navy who served in Malaya between 1955 and 1960 are still the only Australians, sent overseas on active service, whose service has not been recognised in three important areas:1. R.A.N. casualties are not yet included on the Roll of Honour at the Australian War Memorial alongside Army and R.A.A.F. casualties;2. R.A.N. service has not yet been recognised with the visible signs of service to Australia; the Returned from Active Service Badge and the Naval campaign medal; and3. R.A.N. service is still not acknowledged as eligible service for the Australian Service Pension, while service by Commonwealth and allied veterans from 55 other countries is.Members of the Army and R.A.A.F. who served during the same period in Malaya had their service fully recognised 24 hours after arriving in Malaya.In the 1997 Budget the Government partly recognised that R.A.N. service by providing the same recognition and benefits for that service. The cost will be minuscule, being mainly a transfer of pensions from `age' as paid by the Department of Social Security, to `service' pensions, paid by the Department of Veterans' Affairs.Senator PattersonLI4Senator Patterson(from 29 citizens)Petitions received.Notices366366366O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—I give notice that, on Monday, 9 March, I shall move: That the following matter be referred to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee for inquiry and report by 1 June 1998:The effects of pricing and slot management arrangements at Kingsford Smith Airport on regional airlines and communities.366366Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the Senate notes the Government's inability to work cooperatively with the States, as evidenced by its failure to negotiate agreements with the States to the detriment of service delivery in a number of important policy areas, in particular, the failure to reach a satisfactory agreement on the Medicare agreement, the Commonwealth/State Disability Agreement, Enrolment Benchmarking and Schools Policy, the Australian National Training Authority, Legal Aid and the Commonwealth/State Housing Agreement.366366Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the Senate—(a) notes, with concern: (i) the imprisonment in Romania of a lesbian, Mariana Cetiner, for allegedly attempting to seduce another woman, and (ii) the existence of the notorious Article 200 in Romania's penal code, which makes it an offence to entice or seduce a person to practise same sex acts or to form propaganda associations or engage in other forms of proselytising with the same aim;(b) notes that Amnesty International has announced that Mariana Cetiner is their first ever prisoner of conscience jailed on the basis of sexuality; and(c) calls on the Australian Government to appeal to the Romanian Government to release Mariana Cetiner and others gaoled for consensual homosexual acts, and for the repeal of Article 200.366366Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the Senate—(a) condemns Mr Rupert Murdoch's action in pressuring his publishing company Harper Collins into stopping the publication of Mr Christopher Patten's memoirs, apparently in order to protect his business interests in China;(b) notes the extent of Mr Murdoch's media holdings in Australia and expresses its concern that similar pressure is being or may be applied to suppress freedom of speech here; and(c) calls on the Government to act urgently to reduce the domination of Australia's media by Mr Murdoch and Mr Packer and to increase the diversity of ownership and control.367367Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the Senate—(a) notes that: (i) the Australian Formula One Grand Prix commences on 5 March 1998 in Melbourne, (ii) the Minister for Health and Family Services (Dr Wooldridge) has granted an exemption from the ban on tobacco advertising for the race, (iii) tobacco advertising, in the form of photographs bearing the brand name and logos have been widely reproduced in magazines and newspaper articles well outside the designated 14-day period, (iv) the Quit Campaign announced by the Government in July 1997 will have little effect if tobacco advertising continues to be allowed at major sporting events such as the Grand Prix, the Motorcycle Grand Prix and the Australian Women's Golf Championships, and (v) the decline in tobacco use has reached a standstill in Australia as a result of a drop in spending on anti-smoking campaigns from 70 cents per capita in the 1989-90 financial year to 25 cents per capita in the 1995-96 financial year; and(b) calls on the Government to refuse all future applications for exemptions from the tobacco advertising ban.367367Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:In view of the court decision in Moe on 27 February 1998, the Senate calls for a halt to logging under the auspices of the East Gippsland Forest Management Plan and Regional Forest Agreement until its legality is established.367367Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the Senate calls for an immediate halt to logging at Mother Cummings Peak in the National Estate-listed Great Western Tiers of Tasmania.367367Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the Senate condemns the dangerous change in police procedures when police attend logging demonstrations in Tasmania such that they no longer ensure that protesters are removed from a coupe before logging proceeds.Business367367Motion (by Senator Chris Evans, at the request of Senator Faulkner) agreed to:That general business notice of motion No. 931 standing in the name of Senator Faulkner for today, proposing the establishment of a select committee on certain government accountability matters, be postponed till the next day of sitting.367Motion (by Senator Calvert, at the request of Senator Tierney) agreed to:That business of the Senate notice of motion No. 1 standing in the name of Senator Tierney for today, proposing the reference of a matter to the Employment, Education and Training References Committee, be postponed till 9 March 1998.Leave of Absence367Motion (by Senator Chris Evans)—by leave—agreed to:That leave of absence be granted to Senator Bob Collins for the period Monday, 2 March to 12 March 1998, for family reasons.Miscellaneous367Motion (by Senator Tambling) agreed to:That the Senate notes:(a) the devastation caused by the record flooding in the town of Katherine, in the Northern Territory, which inundated 1 100 private dwellings and every business and government office in the central business district of the town on Australia Day, 26 January 1998;(b) the destruction of the Daly River township and surrounding farmland which was covered by floodwater on 4 February 1998;(c) the exemplary response to the disaster by the Northern Territory Police, Fire and Emergency services, under the command of Commander Maurice Burke, and the Australian Defence Forces under the command of Group Captain Crowhurst and Group Captain Ward;(d) the special efforts of the Member for Katherine (Mr Reed) who not only supervised the relief effort as Emergency Services Minister but personally assisted in the evacuation of residents from their homes, and the contribution of the Member for Victoria River (Mr Baldwin) who is now coordinating the clean up of Daly River;(e) the immediate response of the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) to the disaster in establishing the Commonwealth Emergency Payment scheme to provide cash relief of $1 000 to affected adults and $200 to affected children, which has subsequently paid out $7 930 000, as at 27 February 1998;(f) the Federal Government's involvement in the implementation of a $10 million package to assist the business community, which had paid $5 110 000 to 511 Katherine businesses, as at 27 February 1998;(g) the dedication of Commonwealth agency staff, including those employed by Centrelink, Australia Post and Telstra, in acting beyond the call of duty following the disaster;(h) the continuing effort of the Red Cross in establishing the Flood Appeal Committee as well as in providing emergency supplies to flood victims; and(i) the commendable spirit and energy of the residents of Katherine and flood-affected regions in reconstructing their lives and community. Committees368368368Motion (by Senator Chris Evans, at the request of Senator Jacinta Collins) agreed to:That the time for the presentation of the reports of the Economics References Committee on promoting Australian industry and on whether a new reactor should be built to replace the High Flux Australian Reactor be extended to 29 June 1998.Matters of Urgency36836810000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—I inform the Senate that the President has received the following letter, dated 4 March 1998, from Senator Margetts:Dear Madam PresidentPursuant to standing order number 75, I give notice that today I propose to move:That in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:The failure of the government, in its consideration of the Multilateral Agreement on Investment, to consult widely with the public and Parliament of Australia to ensure that Australia retains the ability to adequately regulate all aspects of international investment in order to protect the people and environment of Australia.Yours SincerelyDee MargettsIs the proposal supported?More than the number of senators required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places—10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—I understand that informal arrangements have been made to allocate specific times to each of the speakers in today's debate. With the concurrence of the Senate, I shall ask the Clerks to set the clocks accordingly.15:40:00368Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I move:That in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:The failure of the Government, in its consideration of the Multilateral Agreement on Investment, to consult widely with the public and Parliament of Australia to ensure that Australia retains the ability to adequately regulate all aspects of international investment in order to protect the people and environment of Australia.I would like to take the opportunity of thanking my colleague Senator Brown from the Australian Greens, and the Australian Democrats, in supporting this motion of urgency.This motion is urgent because the outcome may appear before anyone properly knows the details that are being debated. Sir Anthony Mason, an ex-Chief Justice of the High Court, has been quoted recently as saying the Multilateral Agreement on Investment has been negotiated under a veil of secrecy.While negotiating documents and briefs have been available to those in the know, either directly from the OECD or from their Web pages—if you can get into them—Sir Anthony is not ignorant in making his veil of secrecy comment. He was referring to the process in which Australia's negotiating position is effectively decided by Mr Costello and a handful of economic fundamentalists from Treasury behind closed doors. If we ask, we might get the public face of their position, but we have no idea of their real agenda, what they have said, which points they will push, where they are willing to give way, and what deals and alternative schemes and wordings they are putting up. We have no idea of their guiding principles and values.The issue is huge and likely to dramatically affect our economy and society and the process of world development. As a process, I believe negotiations on a major enforceable agreement should carry responsibility for information sharing to the broad public, canvassing concerns and issues from the public—bodies like unions, social justice groups, small business and consumer associations—and direct input from parliament. Determining negotiating points, concerns and bottom line agreements requirements should be the outcome of broad public and parliamentary debate.MAI is the latest manifestation of the push by global corporations to do whatever they want without restrictions by mere nations. An earlier manifestation was the trade-related investment measures or TRIMS during the GATT rounds. Corporations thought they had won when the Uruguay Round was finalised and the World Trade Organisation was established. The World Trade Organisation can impose major cross-sectoral sanctions against any member country violating its principles, and decisions can be made which are binding on all member nations, regardless of whether they agree. Under GATT, each agreement needed to be signed by each nation as a separate treaty.When the corporations tried pushing their investment agenda into the World Trade Organisation, the developing world rebelled. In 1995 the push for TRIMS was refocused on the OECD, on the principle that if an agreement was reached the poorer nations would be forced to follow. The investment agenda has also appeared as the US push on investment principles during the APEC negotiations in 1994 and more recently through the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency.The OECD argues that the Multilateral Agreement on Investment will not adversely affect any nation's sovereign right to set environmental standards. It says that the clauses in NAFTA will be used as a model for protection. NAFTA clauses have not slowed the problems in the United States with Mexican pollution laws. They have not improved. Some concern is expressed that there should be measures to ensure that no nation lowers its environmental standards to attract investment. But even if MAI included legal constraints against such action—a highly unlikely prospect that would be—all nations would be under intense competitive pressure not to increase their standards of protection.We have already seen health standards fall with the cadmium standards and the standards on herbicide residues that were changed to allow Monsanto to import genetically engineered `roundup-ready' soybeans. Similar assurances were given on sovereignty on quarantine and we have already seen assaults, as Senator Woodley would attest, to regulations regarding salmon, chicken meat and other products.MAI would prevent any imposition of corporate codes of conduct by Australia or other nations, and may render US legislation against corrupt practices illegal because it is a nation imposing standards on corporations investing in another country.Other major objections by developing nations include the non-discrimination measures. These would prevent countries such as China or Vietnam setting minimum wage levels for workers in transnational corporations which are higher than those for indigenous companies. The fact that these wages for transnational corporations may be only $1 a day does not matter since imposing such exorbitant wages on foreign transnationals is patently unfair. Both the MAI and APEC investment measures seek to prevent any nation from imposing any requirement on foreign investment, such as for further investment in downstream processing.Another issue is the free movement of capital and assets. This will allow open slather on speculative investment, and it will allow corporations to maximise their ability to evade or minimise tax. It will also protect corporations from actions like those taken by the government of India when it froze some of Union Carbide's assets in the wake of the Bhopal disaster. It will prevent Australia from attaching assets of Ghana Ashanti, as was mentioned in the news today, to ensure workers are paid what is owed them. It will prevent the closure of a stock market or the freezing of transfers in balance of payment crises. It will effectively prevent any action against the kind of speculative currency raiding that went on when the European Union was trying to unify.MAI would stop any discrimination between foreign and other investments. It could mean no foreign investment level restrictions. It could mean no measures ensuring that even one Australian bank is owned. It could mean no restriction on foreign shareholding of media, the phone system or even one airline.You might say, `Ah, but we are looking for exemptions.' There could effectively be no measures that promote Australian investment that are not equally available to foreign investment. Exceptions, or non-conforming measures, are possible, but we would be subject to both continuing scrutiny and roll- back. The OECD papers explicitly state that the ultimate objective of MAI is the elimination of all such exceptions. Like the World Trade Organisation, under MAI a country agrees to the whole program and seeks exceptions rather than have the ability to sign on to the parts it wishes to. So everything that is not in that list is fair game.The MAI also includes restrictions on expropriation and impairing investment returns through laws, and states that compensation must be paid. It develops mechanisms that allow companies to bring nations within it before a tribunal, while nations have no such right since transnational organisations have no responsibilities.In short, it is a charter of corporate rights without responsibilities. Do you not think, honourable senators, that the people of Australia ought to have had more information from our government about this agreement? (Time expired)15:47:00370Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—I rise to speak on the urgency motion which has been proposed by the Green senators. Let me just tackle a number of the issues which have been raised. Quite a number of people now will understand that a great deal of misinformation is floating around about the Multilateral Agreement on Investment. That is why, of course, a number of senators took the opportunity to attend the last estimates hearings and to ask questions on the treaty.It is very rare for me to stand up and praise Senator George Campbell, but I would have to say there was, in relation to this proposed treaty, at the last Senate estimates hearings, quite extensive questioning of the officers at the table. Senator Campbell was genuinely interested in this issue and was genuinely seeking information.The Green senators did not attend. You have been very vocal on this, Senator Margetts, but here was a chance for parliamentary scrutiny. We had the officer there who had been at the negotiating table in Paris, and there was time available to question that officer on a vast range of issues. It was clear at the end that a number of senators were keen to find out further information, so I offered a further briefing. If senators wish to take up that briefing, it will be provided. I also offered a briefing to any other senator who raises this issue. Senator Bourne has asked for a briefing on this matter, and I think this will take place—TW4BOURNESenator Bourne—Within the hour.WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—Within the hour, provided we can bring this to a conclusion. Senator Margetts, I suspect you can confirm this, but your office has been offered a briefing. I am not sure that we have heard from you on this matter. You raised it as important to you. I would have thought it made sense, when you have concerns, to make use of the facilities available in this parliament. So I am saying that this is not secret—DX5MARGETTSSenator Margetts—It was due to be signed last December.WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—You stand up and allege that this is secret. You allege that the government is not putting out information on it but, when you had the chance to come to Senate estimates hearings where many of the issues you raise were touched upon by the officer concerned, you did not appear. You were not the slightest bit interested, and I doubt you have even read the transcript—QD4BROWNSenator Brown—This devious line does not do you much good.WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—It is not devious. It asks whether you are genuine or not. I am not disputing that people should raise concerns. Of course they should. This is the parliament and, if they have genuine concerns, they should come along to the appropriate forum and raise those concerns. But you chose not to.DX5MARGETTSSenator Margetts—No, I chose to go to my father's funeral instead.WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—Well, Senator Brown was there. But I just put that on the table. If you were not able to attend, have you read the transcript of that hearing? That is the first obvious point. The second point is that other senators, Democrat and Labor Party senators, have approached me and asked for a briefing, but I have not heard from you. I think that is a pity.Now, is this secret? There is a huge amount of information about it on the Internet. You have asked me questions before in this parliament, and I have responded to those questions. You have put some questions on notice, and we have responded to them. We all understand politics. People like to build up issues, and I guess I am as guilty as anybody in this chamber for raising issues. But, at the same time, Senator, you should take real steps to find out the facts.This is not secret. There is a huge amount of information available. In fact, if you go on to the Internet you will find a huge amount. The invitation is available to you. Do you want a briefing? Give my office a call and we will arrange a briefing for you, as we have for other senators who have shown a genuine interest.What are the facts of the case? The truth of the matter is that there have been negotiations in Paris which were started in 1995 under the previous government, and they are continuing. There are very substantial areas on which the 29 nations at the table cannot agree. So the idea that this is going to be signed tomorrow is nonsense; quite a range of matters are still on the table. To the extent that we can, we will assist you so that you know more about the nature of this treaty.The government has not said it will sign the treaty. The government will sign only those treaties which are in the national interest of this country. We are not a government which goes out—as, I regret, the previous government was inclined to do—to sign on far too quickly and speedily to a range of treaties. As you are aware, we have put in place a significant change in the treaty making process, so that before any binding action is taken on a treaty there is proper parliamentary and public scrutiny. The treaties committee have already indicated that they will be holding hearings on this matter before any binding action is taken.I heard you speaking about Australia's interests. From where I sit, there is a great irony in this. One is that I well remember your attitude over Kyoto. What you wanted Australia to do at Kyoto was to sign on, at the very minimum, to the European position. This would have meant that industry in Australia would have borne an unfair burden compared with other countries. That is how much you were worried about the national interest of this country. That is how much you were prepared to sacrifice Australian jobs. We were to bear the heaviest burden by adopting the EU position at Kyoto on greenhouse.Your approach to treaties is extremely selective; mine, on the other hand, has been entirely consistent. I have always felt that there should be proper parliamentary scrutiny before binding action is taken. There are a number of senators who have been enlightened by my many speeches on this topic.This is what is happening. Let me assure you: we will not be signing any treaty which is not in the national interest of this country. Get that absolutely clear. We are, of course, negotiating in Paris in good faith as you would expect. But I have indicated to you—despite the many claims which are being bandied around that this will happen and that will happen—that there is a great range of issues which are still to be settled. Other senators have raised the many differences between countries. Someone raised the French position. They have particular concerns, and they are riding hard on those issues.So to put the facts on the table: the negotiations were started under the previous government in 1995; there is a great deal of information already available; this government is a vigorous proponent of Australia's national interest and we will not sign a treaty which is not in the national interest of this country.In guarding our national interests we can protect our current policy positions on a range of issues—including of course foreign investment, immigration, the environment and labour standards. Despite what you said, we can protect those positions. You have got up and made a big fuss about it. Pauline Hanson has got up and made a big fuss about it. But I will say this for Ms Hanson: her office wants a briefing. I am waiting to hear whether your office wants one.DX5MARGETTSSenator Margetts—We rang your office yesterday and asked to meet you.WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—It has finally come. I am pleased to hear it.DX5MARGETTSSenator Margetts—And it was pathetic what you gave us; it was pathetic.WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—You have been running on this issue for quite a while, and I would have thought that before you held forth it would have made sense for you to come and get fully briefed. Rest assured, unlike your position at Kyoto, we will sign only those treaties which are in the national interest of this country, and there will be proper parliamentary and public scrutiny before any binding action is taken.(Time expired)15:57:00372Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—The Labor Party supports the inherent nature of this proposition. We will be voting for it when the vote is put. I just note that the Assistant Treasurer has indicated that there will be proper parliamentary scrutiny and that the government will not sign if it is not in the national interest. I think it is the duty of this parliament to hold the government to those words.I therefore note the Democrat notice of motion on referring this matter to a joint treaties committee. There are some minor changes we would like to see in that motion but the essence of it is supported by the Labor Party. I am sure we can sort out those minor drafting differences. It seems to me that there is a unity of view on this side of the chamber—albeit from different perspectives—among the Labor Party and the minor parties on this matter.I commence my contribution to this debate by quoting from a document:The Speaker of the House hereby grants permission to reproduce this document, in whole or in part, for use in schools and for other purposes such as private study, research, criticism or newspaper summary.That is a resolution carried by the House of Commons in Canada in December 1997—just a few months ago. That is a resolution which refers to the Multilateral Agreement on Investment. That is a resolution that commits the Canadian government and the parliament to releasing all of the material—after an exhaustive set of hearings around Canada by the Canadian Minister for International Trade with concerned citizens—about the content of the draft MAI and about the process of the negotiations. In Canada, we have an example of openness in government: where the government has consulted with the people; where 17 recommendations have arisen from that consultation; and where the process of openness continues. Would that it were the same in Australia. From the Australian perspective, we do not have anything like that commitment to open government. For two reasons, this is quite a serious matter.The first reason is that the Prime Minister committed Australia in a pledge he made before the last election. In the document A confident Australia, he stated:. . . the Joint Committee would `provide a detailed analysis of the implications of—and I put emphasis on these words—any prospective signing or ratification of an international treaty by Australia'.That is from paragraph 15.2 on page 27 of the document A confident Australia . This has so far not been done. If the resolution foreshadowed by the Democrats is carried, at least this chamber will try to hold the Prime Minister to his election promise that thus far he has failed to obey.The second reason that this is a serious issue concerns the nature of the treaty itself under consideration. This is an important international treaty. It has far-reaching implications for Australia. Thus far, none of those implications have been canvassed widely, and thus far most Australians are unaware that in Paris there are negotiations that could reach right into every Australian household if the potential of this agreement is finally resolved in the terms that now stand. The concerns that I think are now getting widespread voice in the Australian community are concerns as to whether Australia's national sovereignty will be respected if we affirm this treaty: its national sovereignty in respect of international labour standards, ordinary standards of proper labour conduct, environmental standards in Australia, indigenous rights, questions of Australia's cultural identity and other matters of national interest.I will say a few words about why I think this treaty is important. I do not for one minute occupy the position that no treaty on international investment is necessary. In fact, I occupy the position that such a treaty is of considerable international importance. But it is not the fact of a treaty; it is the contents of a treaty that ought to come under scrutiny. That treaty, from the point of view of the Labor Party, should be a document that is: open and understood by all nations that commit to it; transparent, so we can see how the mechanisms that bind nations in that treaty work; fair, so that the treaty is not a mechanism by which one nation takes advantage of another nation; enforceable, so that if the treaty is broken there are peaceful means by which the treaty can be enforced; and recognised and obeyed by nations. It should also be a document which sets transparent rules governing global investment.It is particularly important for Australia. We are in the world, in an economic sense, a medium power; we are not a major power. We do not have the might of the United States or of the European Community or of vibrant economies like Japan. We are a medium-term power. International rules based commitments that provide fairness and provide a redress for medium-term powers are important for a nation like Australia. They are important so that might is not right, so that fairness does prevail. That is why it is vital that there be a fair set of rules and that those rules be, as I say, enforceable.It is also particularly important for Australia because, if you look at the nature of the Australian economy, we are a net borrower from the world; we are not a net lender to the world. That is to say, we in Australia do not generate sufficient capital to invest in our own growth. That has been an historic issue for our economy since Federation. We have always been a borrowing nation. There are good reasons that is the case. We attract more inward investment than we make outward investment in the world. It is important for Australian living standards that we have a situation where that can continue. Australian living standards would plummet if it did not continue. If there is to be an international treaty on investment, affirmed by most nations in the world, it is important that Australia be part of it in order to maintain the living standards of Australian citizens.This is a slight divergence from my main text, but in explanation let me give you some reasons why we are a net borrower and not a net exporter of capital. We are a geographically huge country with a small population, clinging in remote areas around Australia. The cost per capita of investing in infrastructure in this nation is about 60 times higher than it is for a citizen of Singapore or a resident of Holland. The burden we carry as a small nation with a large land mass wanting world-class infrastructure and world-class resources means that we are unable to generate the per capita investment necessary to bring that through. So we borrow or we seek investment.This is a situation recognised, I might say, by the Labor Party when we were in government. One of the things that we did that put Australia on the course to lift the level of national savings, and which remains as an historic and fundamental reform of the nature of the Australian economy, was to extend the right of superannuation coverage to all Australian citizens and not just the lucky one-third who happen to be in highly paid private sector jobs or who work in the Public Service. By extending superannuation we created the biggest investment pool of national savings that this nation has ever seen. That will continue to grow to provide comfort for Australians in their retirement, but it is also an opportunity for those Australians to invest in the development of this nation. Despite the growth of that huge pool of investment—which the government has now started to tax, I notice—it will still be necessary, in the foreseeable future at least, for Australia to attract foreign investment.The third point I make on the justification for there being some sort of regulation in this area is that there is regulation now. There are 1,300 bilateral agreements on direct foreign investment which affect different nations—all impose different standards. It would be useful to get a fair, open, transparent, enforceable single document that governs all. That should be our aim here.The fourth point is that the fastest growing element of world trade and investment is foreign direct investment. It is growing in volume, it is growing in velocity—that is to say, it moves more rapidly than ever before—and Australia needs, as I said earlier, to be able to attract this in order to fuel the needs of our own growth.In balancing those issues, one also has to have regard for our sovereignty and national interests. Australia has a high living standard compared with most nations in the world. One of the reasons for that is that we have an industrial relations system that enables employees a fair redress—or it did until the last set of so-called reforms from the government—to an impartial umpire in the arbitration commission, in order that their wages and salaries can be set at a fair level to support their welfare and to remunerate them for their physical or mental efforts, and that that is balanced against the interests of the particular company that they are employed by.In other words, we have a high standard of living because we have a fair system of wage fixation—or we did have until the government fiddled with it earlier last year. The point about that is that, if this international treaty interferes with even the now watered down system, it threatens Australian living standards. That treaty should be reviewed from the perspective of whether International Labour Organisation standards are to be brought into question here, or whether the actual means by which the Australian community can get fair incomes are going to be somehow undermined. That needs to be an important consideration.We also have a high quality of life in this nation. One of the reasons why we have that, compared with other nations, is that over the years we have imposed fair environmental standards on ourselves, with popular approval. If an international agreement to which we affirm becomes a treaty with the force of law in this nation, which therefore causes, as some proponents say, a race to the bottom—that is, a race to the lowest standards in the world for environmental protection—then the quality of life and the quality of the environment, both physical and built, will be reduced in Australia.That is a matter of concern for all Australian citizens, and it is a matter that ought to be looked at publicly in a fair and unbiased way before any treaty that has any implications for the environment is to be effected. In Australia, we have developed our own unique culture. Some of the elements of that culture which are universally approved are the directness and openness with which Australians approach others, the concept of a fair go, and a whole range of other issues which identify the Australian personality as unique in the world.One of the elements which gives expression to that is the rise of the Australian film industry. In its portrayal of Australian life in various forms, historic and current, Australia has a bigger place in the world and is admired, not only for its cultural standards but also for its excellent filmmakers and in the arts. Some hold that this treaty will undermine the ability of the Australian media and the arts to express Australian culture. That issue needs to be pursued. If it is true, safeguards need to be put in place; if it is not true, it still needs to be dealt with.There is considerable concern that our cultural identity will be undermined by this international agreement, so it ought, therefore, not be conducted behind closed doors in a salon in Paris; it should be put on the table where all Australians can see it and can express a view about it.Critics of this treaty say that many other elements will fundamentally affect our way of life. I do not know that all of them are true. I think that many of them are exaggerated, but enough of them raise concerns about the process here. The process was that, at the last election, the Prime Minister promised that there would be an open system, that there would be a fair review and that a joint committee of both houses of this parliament would look at the document.The truth is that it has not been referred to a committee. The truth is that promises that it will be referred some time after it is signed or before it comes into effect are not good enough. It ought to go there now, because the promise of the Prime Minister was that it would go there before any prospective signing or ratification. This proposed document is in prospect for signing or ratification and has not been referred to the committee. It should be. (Time expired)16:12:00375Bourne, Sen VickiSenator BOURNETW4NSWAD00—I thank the opposition for its prospective support for the Democrats motion tomorrow to refer this treaty to the treaties committee before it is signed. I am sure we can come to an agreement on wording. I hope that we can come to a similar agreement with others in this chamber, especially considering what the minister said about the openness that he sees in this whole treaties process. In particular, in relation to the MAI, I hope that he will also agree that this is something that should be referred to the treaties committee before it is signed.Over the past three decades, the nature and scale of international trade and investment have undergone quite staggering transformations. Global capital flows have gone all over the place, but far too little attention has been paid to the huge implications of so-called liberalised investment flows. We are very well aware of the part that unregulated foreign investment flow has played in the recent Asian currency crisis. Just yesterday, Australia realised the largest foreign debt result we have ever experienced. Nations cannot sustain ceding the majority of their domestic business to foreign ownership.Globalisation is promoted as providing unrivalled economic opportunities. The Multilateral Agreement on Investment is yet one more step in cementing the power of transnational corporations to own and to control investment flows without individual countries having the domestic legislative protections that those countries themselves deem necessary.The MAI, a treaty under negotiation since 1995, will accelerate globalisation while greatly restricting the powers of governments to control investment policy. The MAI will also hinder the ability of governments to combat the worst consequences of globalisa tion, including the increased disparity of wealth and income, the growth of transnational global monopolies, and the loss of democratic control of a wide range of policies, from human rights to the environment, from labour protection to welfare policy. The proposed MAI as it stands now would legally limit how and when nations, states and communities can set investment policy.The MAI would require `national treatment' for all member countries, meaning that foreign investors must be treated equally to domestic investors in all instances. The Secretary- General of the OECD, Mr Donald Johnston, has stated that the MAI is meant to encourage small and medium sized businesses, enabling them to invest in previously impenetrable markets, but if large corporations are to be treated equally to them in all instances, then what possible chance will domestic small and medium businesses have for success? Small businesses are always being taken over by their larger cousins.I would like to turn to the impact that the MAI is likely to have on the goals and objectives of international human rights law. I recently read a paper from the Harvard Law School which I found very useful on this. A couple of points that it made are worth repeating. It said:International human rights law recognises the fundamental rights of all individuals and obligates State action to protect individuals from violations of these rights.The MAI however, recognises investors' rights—predominantly those of transnational corporations—with no corresponding obligations. It restricts a State's ability to protect and promote the rights of groups and individuals.International human rights law recognises the right of people to dispose freely of their natural resources and it obligates States to adopt policies distributing those resources for the benefit of general welfare.The MAI limits the ability of States to independently formulate policy and impairs the rights of peoples to enjoy the benefits of their natural resources.The MAI impairs the right of individuals to participate in decisions impacting in the implementation of social, cultural and economic rights, and it excludes individuals from the adjudication of disputes regarding the disposition of resources— their resources—and investment.Further, the MAI contains no provisions recognising the special needs of regional populations or socially disadvantaged groups in order to ensure equality amongst individuals. The MAI does not recognise the needs of special groups or regions. Through its measures barring performance requirements the MAI precludes a State from effectively promoting the rights of these groups.The National Treatment provisions of the MAI require a State to grant foreign investors no less favourable treatment than it accords to its own investors. Thus, the MAI prohibits State protection and promotion of local enterprises or economic sectors.The MAI prohibits any restrictions on foreign investment in areas which might be essential for home country development. For example, under the MAI, States are not allowed to require foreign investors to hire any given level of local personnel, assure a certain level of domestic content, share technology, or achieve any given level or value of production, employment, or research and development spending. States are also prohibited from encouraging any of the above behaviours through investment incentives. Such limits on State regulatory power will inhibit a State's ability to conform to important human rights obligations.I was pleased to hear the minister say that this government will not sign this treaty if it is against the national interest. I can tell you right now that, as it stands, the treaty is not in favour of the national interest. Therefore I expect, first of all, for everybody in this chamber—it is all I have heard here so far today—to agree to the Democrats motion to send this treaty off to the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties before it is signed. I expect them to agree to the Democrats motion to table both the treaty—I know you can get it on the Internet, but it would be nice to see the Australian government giving it out as well—and all the reservations, and to table what it thinks are the reasons why the standstill provisions and the roll-back provisions do not apply in this case.16:18:00376Watson, Sen JohnSenator WATSONVJ4TASLP10—From the outset, let me state that the Liberal-National Party coalition will not be taking any binding action on this treaty, or on any other treaty, without careful consideration and without full parliamentary scrutiny. I think that puts an end to the reckless allegations that were raised earlier by Senator Cook.One of the unintended benefits which will undoubtedly arise from this MAI measure is that it will significantly lower the cost of investment capital to Australia. Nobody has mentioned that, but that is a consequence. Traditionally Australia has paid a premium on its investment capital. Under our government, that premium has been significantly reduced due to the sound economic policies of Mr Costello and the government. So the cost of capital will come down and that will be a big benefit in balance of payments issues.For the past decade, developed nations have been determining international trade agreements focused on liberalisation of all aspects of trade and trade related issues. The most significant of those measures—as all citizens would know—has been the Uruguay Round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade which was signed in 1994. What was important in this agreement, as opposed to previous GATT rounds, was that rather than simply focusing on questions of tariffs and anti-dumping clauses, countries were asked to look at questions of the relationship between trade and investment, intellectual property rights and services.However, at the same time as consideration of investment is taking place at the WTO, the OECD has initiated a process to draft another international investment agreement, the Multilateral Agreement on Investment, which is the topic of today's debate. Globalisation calls for enhanced international cooperation, for the world economy to be more efficient, and for the equity of markets to be protected. The strong performance of GATT is now recognised and it is the appropriate time for a multilateral agreement on investment.While most bilateral treaties are limited to the protection of investments after they are made, the MAI will provide legal guarantees for both the investment itself and for the making of an investment. Investment under this MAI will cover direct investment, portfolio investment, real estate investment and rights under contract. It will cover measures taken at all levels of government, not only federal and state governments but also local government. The measures will include laws, regulations and administrative practices.The core of the MAI is non-discrimination. MAI parties will commit themselves to treat foreign investors and foreign investments no less favourably than they would treat their own investors. The big thing is not to discriminate amongst investors or investments of different MAI parties. Further investment and investor protections include provisions for transparency, transfer of funds, entry and stay of key personnel, performance requirements, expropriation and dispute resolution. Everybody around this parliament surely believes in these vital issues of transparency. It will bind countries to a set of rules governing the treatment of foreign investments and investors leading to a better investment environment. This will improve living conditions, raise standards, and so on.The development of the MAI by the OECD complements the work of other major rule-making bodies for international trade and finance, namely the World Trade Organisation and the International Monetary Fund. So it will be a freestanding treaty, open and accessible by non-OECD economies, with the same rights and obligations as for OECD members.Membership will provide greater attractiveness for potential investors; better market access opportunities and legal protection for their foreign investments; full partnership in implementing the agreement; and access to dispute settlement procedures. Governments actually welcome foreign direct investment. Together with international trade in goods and services, FDI promotes economic growth, jobs and rising living standards throughout the world.A World Trade Organisation study reports that `low levels of trade and inflows of FDI are symptoms rather than causes of the plight of many of the poorer countries'. Unless the flow of FDI is increased in these countries and increased trade occurs, it is almost impossible for any major economic improvement to occur. Asia is a case in point. Asia would have been in a much worse condition today had foreign investment not underpinned the local economies.Investors need long-term stability of rules and procedures. Investors need open markets and equal competitive opportunities with domestic investors. Investors need protection of existing investments. Indeed, they may need international mechanisms for settling disputes with host governments.Economists, political leaders and advocates on both sides of this debate are recognising the need for a thorough and reasoned examination of where globalisation is taking the country. It is perceived that the gains for increasing competition and the more efficient allocation of resources are far greater than contemplated losses.I put it to you, Madam Acting Deputy President, that a great deal of misinformation has been circulated—and we have heard a lot of it this afternoon—about the proposed MAI. Proper public discussion, therefore, becomes distorted. The MAI is a very important matter and the government will and is considering it properly and fully. There has been an extensive, ongoing consultation process on the MAI. Treasury has consulted—DX5MARGETTSSenator Margetts—Who with?VJ4Watson, Sen JohnSenator WATSON—With the states, the territories, Commonwealth departments and agencies, the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, the ACTU and—listen to this, Senator Margetts—the Australian Conservation Foundation. So that is not a bad coalition. We believe in open and transparent treaty making. This government introduced a rigorous treaty making process in 1996. This process ensures that binding action is not taken on any treaty until it has been subject to proper public and parliamentary scrutiny. (Time expired)16:25:00378Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT4J4SAALP00—I rise to support this motion. However, I indicate that the opposition supports the MAI, but not unconditionally. We support the negotiations; we support the openness and the need for transparency. We acknowledge that we started the discussion. Although there are certain aspects of this proposed resolution that, overall, we would support—Senator Margetts' proposed resolution and Senator Bourne's proposal to refer the matter promptly to the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties—we do acknowledge that we started the discussion. I say to Senator Margetts that the Labor Party in government understands the need for foreign investment in this country; we understand the need for foreign investment in other countries; but, above all else, we understand the need for transparent rules when people are investing in each other's country. We do not take your view that you can have an isolated view, or a 15th or 16th century mercantilist view about the world economy.VJ4WATSONSenator Watson—I am not taking that view.4J4Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT—No, I am not saying you are. I am saying to Senator Margetts that you can have a mercantilist view that led to endless wars through several hundred years, when every country tried to exploit another country to their own advantage economically. People woke up in the 20th century to the fact that you must have a give-and-take, sensible approach, that if everyone agreed to trade with each other under reasonable rules, there was less likely to be war and a fight over the allocation of the world's resources. That is an internationalist view which the Labor Party, in the last several decades, has developed, and I am very proud of the fact that we have.As a former Chairman of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, and the Human Rights Subcommittee, whenever I talked to people in the Third World about the need to improve living standards, the first thing they said was, `We would rather have open trade than rely on aid handouts from the First World.' I have been to countries as diverse as Fiji, China, Burma and Africa. They say, `Give us access to your markets. That will improve the living standard of our people.'DX5MARGETTSSenator Margetts—Sometimes they need both.4J4Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT—Sometimes they need both, but the biggest increase in standards of living will come from the First World not being selfish about access to its markets. If you go to any Third World country where there is any attempt at sensible leadership, you will find they will argue that. I accept that view but I also want to say to the Third World: we want to see some transparency about how you conduct your arrangements for trade and the rules you put on trade.For example, as a former customs minister, I want to see Third World countries with transparent customs rules that can be challenged independently in the court of that country or internationally.DX5MARGETTSSenator Margetts—They won't be able to—4J4Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT—They will be able to. That is not what this proposal is about. However, I want to turn to a point that, I must say to the government, I am a bit bemused about. When we were in government, Senator Kemp, who is now the Assistant Treasurer, made great play of the fact that we were signing treaties that were not getting proper parliamentary scrutiny. He proposed that the joint treaties committee of the Australian parliament have the right to reject the treaties. He proposed, when we were in government, that a joint committee of the parliament would have the power to stop the treaty being acceded to. Once they got into government, wiser heads prevailed. There is certainly a review, but the committee—unlike the American Senate—does not have the power to stop the treaty. It can give advice and make recommendations. But, in the end, the elected government will decide that issue and take its chances in convincing the Australian people. That, I think, is in tune with the Westminster system, which we all support.Senator Kemp made great play that we were into secret business about this treaty. We had Senator Kemp at the estimates committee last week, as the minister at the table, defending some of the secrecy in these arrangements. I want to pay tribute here to Senator George Campbell from the Labor Party, who asked a number of very relevant questions to the officer at the table from Treasury eliciting information about where we were at with the negotiation over the MAI and about the exemptions.The most extraordinary thing which the government ought to take on notice right now and fix is that we were not told what the 28 exemptions were that Australia is now looking at for the MAI. We were told, `You can't publish the exemptions. You can publish the draft treaty, but you can't publish the exemptions because you can't have the exemptions known until the treaty is agreed to.' That is obfuscation. What should happen at the treaties committee—if not right now—is that the government should indicate generally what those 28 areas are. I have to say that I find it strange that Senator Kemp, who made such an issue of this when he was in opposition, will now as Assistant Treasurer not allow us to see the 28 exemptions. It is a hypocritical attitude.Nevertheless, we hope the treaties committee can get hold of these exemptions as part of the public process because, as we said, we do not unconditionally support the MAI. We will support it once we know what those exemptions are and if those exemptions show that Australia's national interest and sovereignty are properly protected. But we cannot have a debate about it if those exemptions are kept secret. That is a weakness in the government's position and that is one of the reasons why we support Senator Bourne's motion—to raise the issue of the treaty being dealt with by the treaties committee now, not once it is signed by the government and a treaty emerges that they all agree on.I just want to make some points to Senator Margetts on the issue of foreign investment and some of the remarks she has often made. I have to say that she is extremely consistent in her view in this area. I respect her for her consistency, though I think she is wrong. Senator Margetts, you are worried about foreign investment, but you have to understand that restricting foreign investment will have an impact. In my own state of South Australia, if it had not been for the Mitsubishi Motor Corporation taking over the Chrysler Corporation in the late 1970s, we would not have 6,000 people employed in South Australia. At the moment, there is a bipartisan approach from Labor and Liberal in South Australia to convince Mitsubishi to invest another $600 million to put out the next generation of the Magna and Verada cars both for Australia and export. That is foreign investment that is needed and where 5,000 to 6,000 South Australian jobs are at stake.So it is not an esoteric issue to start talking about restricting foreign investment. It is a very central issue to the daily lives of ordinary Australians. This country exports. We are one of the world's big exporters. We need to have a transparent system. The MAI may not be the most perfect document. It may need to be improved, but we always should enter into negotiations worldwide to aim to improve the transparency of the world trade system, because in the end it will advantage Australian jobs. (Time expired)16:33:00380Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—In the three minutes I have got, I want to make a couple of very salient points. The first is that this multilateral agreement on investment is being driven not by governments or the OECD, but by the multinational corporations themselves. The process began in the late 1950s but it became reality in 1995, when the 20 or so OECD nations—and at that time Australia was represented by the then Labor government, the Keating government—went into a secret convocation in Europe, which has proceeded ever since. That secret convocation was to give strength and international law to the interests of the multinational corporations and their shareholders, as against the interests of sovereign nations and the people of those nations. It is nothing short of a transfer of power from the parliament and the government—which, in the case of Australia, is elected by the people of Australia—to multinational corporations. That has been done in secret under, first, the Labor government and now a Liberal government.Senator Kemp had the audacity to come in here and say that he had not heard from me. I asked him a series of questions on this very issue in May last year, and the answers he gave were—to use a word from Senator Schacht who has just left—obfuscation. He did say that the Australian government endorsed an MAI and it would strengthen the framework for international investment flows. He has changed his tune now because, suddenly, there is a public debate. Suddenly, he says that it is going to be up to the national interest. He is adding a few caveats to it, but there were none of those in May last year.Moreover, in that answer in May last year, Senator Kemp indicated that, if it were not signed in May—that is, with no public debate—a new date would be set soon after that. As Senator Margetts said, that new date was to have been December. No public debate. No flagging of this issue by either Labor, which began it, or the coalition, which carried it through. It took a small program on the ABC late last year called Background Briefing to make this a national story. It was pushed along by community groups concerned about this issue in this country and elsewhere—not by the multinationals, the big parties or this government, but by community groups and a small, investigative and community minded ABC program.Suddenly, this has become an issue. One of the reasons it is getting a bigger run from the press gallery is that the Labor Party is having second thoughts. It is not an issue when the two parties agree. It is an issue when they disagree. I believe that is not good enough and the media has lost the ball on this as well. The public ought to have been informed earlier. The questions being asked a year ago ought to have been followed up in the media, but they were not. That says something about the way the government treats the people of this country. (Time expired)16:36:00380O'Chee, Sen BillSenator O'CHEEEU4QLDNP10—I am very pleased to have the opportunity to address this debate because this planned multilateral agreement on investment has been the subject of much speculation in my home state of Queensland, as Senator Boswell will know. There have been all sorts of outrageous allegations going around about this particular planned agreement.QD4BROWNSenator Brown—What do your constituents say?EU4O'Chee, Sen BillSenator O'CHEE—Now I know where they came from. Senator Brown has been in league with the League of Rights, because the information which I have received from the League of Rights is almost identical to the three-minute tirade we have just had to endure from Senator Brown. Now we know where the misinformation is coming from.QD4BROWNSenator Brown—On a point of order, Madam Acting Deputy President, I am sure that, if he looks at his riding instructions or whatever they are from the League of Rights, he will find that they do not acknowledge Background Briefing .10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Reynolds)—There is no point of order.EU4O'Chee, Sen BillSenator O'CHEE—Senator Brown yet again proves his irrelevance to the parliamentary process. That was just another irrelevance from Senator Brown.Let me address some of the more spurious allegations. Senator Brown came into this chamber just this afternoon and said that if Australia acceded to this treaty it would undermine the sovereignty of this country. That is an outrageously untrue statement. Senator Brown knows it is untrue because it is an established constitutional fact in this country that the mere signing of a treaty does not have any impact in domestic law unless the parliament of the day chooses to enact those provisions in legislation.Senator Margetts interjecting—EU4O'Chee, Sen BillSenator O'CHEE—Senator Margetts may not know much about legislation because she has always ignored the legislative process of this chamber. Senator Margetts and Senator Brown are usually too busy getting arrested at demonstrations to bother paying much attention to what is really going on. But, if they had paid any attention to the report of the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee, a three-year report entitled Trick or Treaty , they would know that just because Australia signs a treaty does not mean the provisions of that treaty have any effect in Australian law unless the parliament chooses so to enact.Of course, that is something that they have neglected to tell the people when they have been running around scaring people out there in rural Australia. They have neglected that because they just do not like the facts which do not suit their political expediency, and more is the shame on them.But there are a number of other points that need to be made. This government has been party to the negotiations because they were commenced during the life of the previous government—and I am very glad to see that Senator Schacht acknowledged the reason why we have been party to the negotiations. We do not have any problem with that, but it has already been made very clear by the Assistant Treasurer, Senator Kemp, that, if we were to sign the document—and it is not possible, for Senator Bourne's benefit, to table the text of the agreement because the agreement has not been finalised—we would make a number of exceptions.Senator Schacht asked us for the exceptions and said there was some sort of secret conspiracy about these. The reason why the exceptions cannot be put down verbatim is the exact text of the agreement has not been agreed. But it is a matter of fact that the Assistant Treasurer has publicly stated that the areas in which we will be seeking to have exceptions would include foreign investment policy, acquisitions under the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Act, the role of the Foreign Investment Review Board, fisheries, telecommunications, aviation, immigration policies, government procurement policies, privatisations, monopolies, foreign aid contracts, performance contracts, government grants and subsidies, social services, professional and industry standards, audio visual and indigenous persons.That is a massive list of exceptions, and I would have thought that any sensible senator in this place would accept that that is not Australia surrendering its sovereignty. Rather, it is this government maintaining the policy framework which currently exists in this country. That is what this government is committed to doing but, of course, the people opposite just ignore that because it does not suit their political expediency.As to the question of whether this treaty, if it is to be signed, will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny, let me just say that I find it quite extraordinary that this government should be berated because the treaty has not been sent to the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties prior to signing. Before this government was elected, there was no treaties committee. There was no parliamentary scrutiny and honourable senators will recall Senator Evans telling this chamber when he was the Leader of the Government in the Senate that frequently these treaties were signed by a minister, never went to cabinet and were then whipped off to the Governor-General in Council without even cabinet consideration. So we are meeting our obligations to the people of this country. (Time expired)10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired.Question resolved in the affirmative.Committees382382382Denman, Sen KaySenator DENMANFY5TASALP00—On behalf of Senator Cooney, I present the first report of 1998 of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills. I also lay on the table Scrutiny of Bills Alert Digest No. 1 of 1998, dated 4 March 1998.Ordered that the report be printed.382382Watson, Sen JohnSenator WATSONVJ4TASLP10—I table the report of the Senate Select Committee on Superannuation, Super Taxing—an information paper on the taxation of superannuation and related matters . I seek leave to make a short statement and to move a motion in relation to the matter.Leave granted.382Watson, Sen JohnSenator WATSONVJ4TASLP10—I move:That the Senate take note of the report.I table an information paper prepared by the Senate Select Committee on Superannuation entitled Super Taxing. This paper provides a factual overview of the historical and present taxation aspects of superannuation funds and benefits. It is intended as a guide for parliamentarians and other lay people to assist them to understand how superannuation contributions, earnings and benefits are taxed.The paper does not claim to be definitive, and it does not address some of the finer and more subtle points associated with the payment of benefits. However, it does pull together into one place information that the reader would otherwise have to research from a range of other sources. As such, I think that it is a very useful document.Readers of this paper are likely to agree that taxation provisions applied to superannuation are complex and difficult to comprehend. The taxation of lump sums is particularly complicated and bears the marks of policy changes over a number of years. Both my government and its predecessor have made many changes. To a large extent, this is inevitable as circumstances and political priorities change. The pace of change has been rapid and shows no sign of abating. Indeed, I suspect that this little book will soon be out of date.Nonetheless, I believe this is a timely publication. My government is focusing closely on tax reform, and superannuation taxes need to be part of that review. Indeed, the tax reform task force, headed by my colleague from Tasmania Senator Brian Gibson, has received a number of submissions that have focused on superannuation and retirement related tax matters. For example, I understand that Professor David Knox, head of the Actuarial Studies Unit at the University of Melbourne, has submitted a detailed plan. His plan, if adopted, would see a shift away from taxes on contributions towards higher taxes on investment income, earnings and retirement.The paper I table today also includes a section that describes a proposal for superannuation taxation reform that was put forward by Access Economics in December 1996. The Access Economics proposals were contained in a paper commissioned by the former Life Investment and Superannuation Association of Australia and the Investment Funds Association of Australia. Like the Knox proposals, the Access Economics proposals include a shift away from taxes on contributions and a greater emphasis on the taxation of benefits. I make no comment on either the Knox or the Access Economics proposals. I am sure the tax reform task force will give them serious consideration.In closing, I would like to thank the committee's former research officer, Mr Rod Adams, who unfortunately is no longer with us, for the work that he did on this paper. I would like to thank my colleagues on the committee and the staff members for their work. I would also like to acknowledge the contribution of Mr Emery Feyzeny, a partner in KPMG, whom the committee commissioned to review its technical accuracy.Question resolved in the affirmative.Ministerial Statements38338316:46:00383Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—I table a statement on trade outcomes by the Minister for Trade (Mr Tim Fischer) and the government's second annual Trade Outcomes and Objectives Statement . I seek leave to move a motion in relation to the statement and to incorporate the statement in Hansard .Leave granted.The statement read as follows—I seek leave of the House to make a statement on Trade Policy and to table the Government's second annual Trade Outcomes and Objectives Statement .The first Trade Outcomes and Objectives Statement, which I tabled at the beginning of last year's Parliament, was a landmark document in the history of Australian trade policy.It was a clear demonstration of this Government's commitment to enhancing Australia's trade and investment performance through well focused trade policy objectives, strategies and actions.The 1998 Trade Outcomes and Objectives Statement has the same practical and forward-looking focus on advancing Australia's economic interests.It delivers to the Australian people and Australian business a results-oriented and frank assessment of Australia's trading performance, and sets out how we will achieve practical trade wins in the future.It honours the strong commitment the Coalition made in 1996—and again in 1997—to maintain a process of open and constructive dialogue with the Australian people on how best to advance our prosperity and security.And it gives detailed expression to the broad, long-term trade policy framework identified in Australia's first ever White Paper on Foreign Affairs and Trade released in August last year.Mr SpeakerAustralia's jobs and living standards depend on a competitive domestic economy and open international markets. Since coming to office two years ago, the Coalition Government has given its highest priority to securing jobs for Australians through practical and effective domestic and international policies.The Government's trade policies seek to complement our domestic economic and industry policies.With better market access and more opportunities for export, the benefits will be directly felt here at home through growth and more jobs in export industries. And there will be positive flow-on benefits to those domestic businesses that support export activity.The 1998 Trade Outcomes and Objectives Statement reviews the trade and investment achievements of the past twelve months.Importantly it considers the implications of recent events in the Asia Pacific, including the overriding imperative to maintain momentum for economic reform and trade liberalisation—at home and abroad.The Government is committed to Asia for the long haul.The Government is pursuing active strategies in response to the Asia economic instability through its involvement in IMF reform packages and our expanded trade credit insurance for exporters. We are talking to Australian businesses and putting in place practical measures to assist Australian companies over coming months.And as we promised to do on being elected to Government in 1996, we are continuing to expand our market development and market access efforts across the globe.It is interesting to note that Australian exporters are picking up on these opportunities. Exporters are seeing the benefits in diversifying their efforts and are not relying on traditional markets as much as in the past.This is reflected in the decrease in the proportion of Australia's exports going to Japan. In 1995, 23.1 percent of our exports went to Japan. In 1997, this declined to 19.8 percent as business capitalised on the range of opportunities in Asia and throughout the world.For example, in 1996-97, our fastest growing markets included Iran (71% increase in exports), Egypt (51% increase), South Africa (31% increase) and Mexico (24% increase).Mr SpeakerThe 1998 Trade Outcomes and Objectives Statement highlights some notable trade successes.Last financial year, Australian businesses chalked up record overseas sales of goods and services, with exports exceeding $100 billion for the first time. The merchandise trade balance showed a $1.4 billion surplus, while the services trade deficit all but disappeared.These impressive results point to the success of the Government's integrated bilateral, regional and multilateral trade policy efforts aimed at securing the best possible market access environment for Australian business.The Market Development Task Force reinvigorated Australia's bilateral trade diplomacy in 1997, and will continue to be a key element of our bilateral strategy in 1998. Wins included better access for Australian sugar, rice and citrus in Japan, and financial services licences in China and Thailand.Regionally, Australia will continue to advocate economic reform and trade liberalisation which is even more important against the background of the Asian turmoil.It is encouraging to note that at the APEC meetings last November, APEC members re-affirmed their commitment to achieving the Bogor goals of free and open trade and investment by 2010 / 2020.And the Government will continue to play its leading role in APEC in pushing hard to accelerate the early liberalisation of 15 priority sectors in which we have vital trade interests.We also have important multilateral trade objectives for 1998 which reflect the extent to which Australia's economic interests are directly engaged in a strong, comprehensive, rules-based international trading system.These include a successful Cairns Group Meeting in Sydney next month to advance multilateral agricultural reforms and to build momentum for a new, comprehensive round of trade negotiations by 2000.This year's Trade Outcomes and Objectives Statement also features a new sectoral focus which covers food products, information technology and telecommunications, automotive products, professional services, and the textile, clothing and footwear sectors. This reflects the priority we are giving to sectoral market access efforts through the appointment of special negotiators in my Department.A series of special reports examine the key trade issues likely to shape Australia's trading environment over the next decade—including environment and competition policy, electronic commerce, intellectual property, and standards and conformance matters.The Statement concludes a two-year cycle by examining economies not covered in last year's statement.These include important markets such as the European Union and a number of Asia Pacific economies, as well as a number of emerging markets. I believe that Australian companies that are looking to diversify their export base will find these assessments particularly useful.Mr SpeakerIn this rapidly globalising world, Australia cannot afford to be complacent.Globalisation offers real advantages to those economies and societies that are genuinely open to innovation and quick to adapt more practical ways of doing things.It can be a punishing process for those that don't get their houses in order—as we have witnessed recently in the region. As we head into the 21st Century, Australia's trade policy will need to incorporate a broader and more complex agenda, hand in hand with overall economic policy.The increasing intensity of worldwide competition means that Australia must push ahead on microeconomic reform, including measures to make our taxation system more competitive and to improve labour productivity.This—in turn—will require a robust and effective flow of information among Federal, State and Territory governments and the private sector.In that respect, I cannot emphasise too much the importance of Government and business joining forces and talents to take advantage of new opportunities and meet the challenges that lie ahead.The Government's trade policy is flexible and pragmatic.It seeks to build Australia into a truly competitive nation, engaged with the world arena from a position of strength.It is results-oriented and centres on providing tangible outcomes for Australian business and jobs for Australians.The 1998 Trade Outcomes and Objectives Statement is a sharply focused, clear and comprehensive document that informs the Australian people about what we have achieved over the past year, defines the challenges and obstacles that still need to be overcome, and charts the way ahead for Australia in the regional and international economy.I commend the Statement to the House.BE4Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMAN—I move:That the Senate take note of the statement.16:47:00384Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—While the Trade Outcomes and Objectives Statement for 1998 presents a very glowing report of our attainments and prospects, the news on the balance of payments is far less good. In fact, consumption has risen and with it imports. This primarily reflects our lack of material self-reliance and heavy dependence on imports for basic non-food necessities. Whenever the economy picks up people virtually have to buy imports. In many cases with food it is processed food.Moreover, we face a problem with capital flows. Our businesses and real estate are increasingly owned by foreign interests. This means that while we get the wages, the profit goes overseas. When we spend those wages, the money goes overseas. When we export, aside from the wages we make here, the profits made from those exports are liable to go overseas. When we pay rent for commercial or domestic property, more and more often that rent goes overseas. Either that or it is used up to buy more Australian property and businesses—more foreign investment, more speculation. In his speech, the Minister for Trade, Mr Fischer, stated:In this rapidly globalising world, Australia cannot afford to be complacent.I doubt he meant it the way I would have. Australia embraced globalisation in the GATT and World Trade Organisation debate. GATT was going to do wonders for our beef trade. I think prices per annum will have dropped by about half, mainly through manipulation of markets by foreign investors who now dominate our beef processing and are increasingly moving into production. Mr Fischer also stated:Wins included better access for Australian sugar, rice and citrus in Japan, and financial services licences in China and Thailand.I note he did not mention the impact on Australia of citrus imports. I also note that he did not define exactly how financial services to Thailand will constitute a win in the context of the Asian currency melt down.That reminds us that we are also discussing trade in the context which includes negotiations on the multilateral agreement on investment, or the MAI. The MAI, as we have heard, seeks to free up investment. Our international investment figures yesterday showed that our debt continues to rise as a proportion of our gross domestic product. That figure is a result of cross-border, short-term, inter-bank debt discussed recently by Alan Greenspan from the United States. Ten years ago, overseas bank borrowing consti tuted 18 per cent of our debt. In June 1996, it was 31.7 per cent. This is part and parcel of international investment, the liberalising of investment and capital flows and the financial services Mr Fischer referred to.I would like to note that while Mr Fischer praises as a win in his report figures on our increase in financial service exports to Thailand, the financial service industry and capital investment resulted, according to an article today in the Sydney Morning Herald by Max Walsh, in commercial banks advancing $US56 billion in 1996 to the five ASEAN countries most affected by the recent financial crisis. In 1997, they withdrew $US21 billion from those economies. This is the primary cause of the crisis. It is these financial services and this sort of capital flow roulette, based on the nerve, paranoia, greed and fears of financial services given free rein under agreements like the multilateral agreement on investment, that Mr Fischer promotes as a win.Of course the current situation with ASEAN offers opportunities. Again, to use Mr Fischer's words:The Government is pursuing active strategies in response to the Asia economic instability through its involvement in IMF reform packages—that is, structural adjustment programs—and our expanded trade credit insurance for exporters.As with the citrus industry or the beef industry, free trade cuts both ways and generally it is the people of nations who bleed and the transnational corporations' interests that grow fat. This equally applies to financial services. Banks are increasingly owned by overseas interests. If the so-called Australian banks now have so many investments overseas, they are clearly transnational or global enterprises whose interests have little relation to the interests of Australia.We should find out from the banks just how much of their real business now is through domestic consumers and how much of their real interest is in keeping those domestic consumers happy. We have only just seen in the last couple of weeks the increasing pressure to put machines into banks instead of people. Those people who are frightened of the computer age will have very little choice.Our currency is currently running at slightly more than 60c to the United States dollar. What happened in ASEAN, Italy, France, Germany or England can happen here. Our embrace of the multilateral agreement on investment, the World Trade Organisation after GATT and other global corporate trade agendas ensure it. We feel the trade position gives cause for congratulations. In fact, we are simply more vulnerable to pressures beyond our control.We have to look at the actual outcomes of our trade. We heard the statements made in 1993 by the then Labor ministers. We heard the promises about what would happen with our trade outcomes. We know these did not occur. We saw the pressures that were put on the ASEAN countries to open up their finances. We saw the pressures to open up their borders to investment. We saw the increased desire to get exports out of and get imports into those countries. Guess what? Those countries, through opening their economy more and more at other people's request, and their own request as well, basically are seeing situations out of control now through speculative global greed, through unsecured loans and so on.The irony is this: when things go wrong in free trade, guess what the answer is according to the free traders? If free trade is not working, let us do more of it. Let us not sit back and think what we are doing and whether or not we are actually moving in a direction which is economically, socially or environmentally sustainable. I think those questions must be asked. They must be asked in Australia. They must be asked within industries in Australia, and they must be asked within the community in Australia. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted; debate adjourned.Committees38638610000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Reynolds)—The President has received letters from party leaders seeking variations to the membership of committees.Motion (by Senator Newman)—by leave—agreed to:That senators be appointed to committees as follows:Community Affairs References Committee—Participating member: Senator Gibbs.Environment, Recreation, Communications and the Arts Legislation Committee—Substitute member: Senator Tierney to replace Senator Lightfoot for matters relating to communications and the arts.Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee—Substitute member: Senator Bartlett to replace Senator Stott Despoja for the consideration of the Migration Legislation Amendment (Strengthening of Provisions relating to Character and Conduct) Bill 1997.Bills386r346386Consideration resumed.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—The committee is considering the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Youth Allowance) Bill 1997 and amendment No. 3 on sheet 858 moved by Senator Stott Despoja. The question is that the amendment be agreed to.16:55:00386Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—I thank the government for agreeing to accept this amendment in relation to satisfactory progress. As I said earlier in the debate, I note there is concern from the Greens WA as to the definition of `satisfactory progress', the idea of that being left up to the secretary's opinion. We are moving to assert a definition that will be set by ministerial guidelines and that will be a disallowable instrument.As I acknowledged earlier, I think this alleviates some of the concerns that Greens WA might have. In fact, we acknowledge that, while there is a degree of flexibility through the government's drafting of this particular legislation, we also want to ensure that this system is not open to abuse, so there is no punitive element to satisfactory progress or defining satisfactory progress. We think this is one way of ensuring that it is transparent, reasonable and accountable and making it a disallowable instrument as well.16:56:00387Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—As Senator Stott Despoja has mentioned, I expressed concern about the whole issue of the secretary having free rein on deciding who, what or how satisfactory progress is determined. Although obviously the situation is far from satisfactory as far as the Greens WA are concerned, I accept that the Democrats amendment is moving us a little closer. It is unfortunate that a whole lot of issues that we are dealing with here are going to be by way of regulations. Of course we have not seen those regulations. It is also going to be unfortunate if the only thing we end up having is a take it or leave it situation in terms of a disallowable instrument, but it is better than nothing. Unfortunately, in some instances, it will be a lot worse than nothing in the way this whole thing is going to pan out. Certainly I will be prepared to support the Democrats amendment.16:57:00387Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEALB36NSWALP00—I indicate that the opposition will not be opposing the amendment in light of the government's position.Amendment agreed to.16:58:00387Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—I move:(4) Schedule 1, item 6, page 12 (line 9), after "person" (first occurring), insert "in writing".This is a simple amendment which I think the government is accepting in relation to the secretary giving notification and we seek to ensure that notification is in writing.16:58:00387Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEALB36NSWALP00—Bearing in mind the amendments already moved and anticipated by the opposition, is that a restatement of those provisions already carried?16:58:00387Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—I might have to check that. I was not sure whether your amendment included that one. Perhaps it does. Perhaps we could seek clarification from the minister's advisers. Does this duplicate amendments already passed in this place today in relation to ensuring notification is in writing? I think this relates specifically to the amendments brought up earlier by the opposition where it insisted that not only should notice be given in writing but the person should be informed as to the effect of non-compliance. Does it already apply to this section, in which case I will withdraw the amendment?16:59:00387Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—It does appear to be different. The advisers are looking at it, but it does appear to be different from what transpired earlier.17:00:00387Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—In response to Senator Neal's concerns, I should add that I have not been able to find where you have amended that section in particular in this fashion. That is why I would seek to go ahead with the amendment as it stands. If there is some confusion and we have perhaps duplicated an amendment that ensures that notification is in writing, I am sure we can fix that up on advice. But my understanding is that you have not amended this particular section in this way.17:00:00387Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEALB36NSWALP00—The notice provisions that contained our amendments were moved in two lots—one is 1 and 2, which we have already dealt with; the second lot is amendments 3 to 6, which we have not yet dealt with. It may be that the overlap is in those. If that occurs, I suppose we can rely on the general statutory principle that the later amendment overrides the earlier one. That will solve any problem anyway. We will meanwhile support your amendment.Amendment agreed to.17:01:00387Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—by leave—I move:(5) Schedule 1, item 6, page 12 (line 12), at the end of subsection (1), add ", being a period of not less than 14 days". (10) Schedule 1, item 6, page 18 (line 24), after "notice", insert ", being a period of not less than 14 days".(17) Schedule 1, item 6, page 60 (line 22), omit "informs the person that the person is required", substitute "gives the person a written notice stating that the person is required, within a period stated in the notice, being a period of not less than 14 days".(19) Schedule 1, item 6, page 61 (line 22), after "notice,", insert "being a period of not less than 14 days,".(22) Schedule 1, item 6, page 97 (line 26), omit "7 days", substitute "14 days".These amendments are similarly basic technical amendments. We seek to ensure that not only are we concerned that notification be given in writing but also in certain cases that be done within a certain time frame. These amendments relates to things such as applying for job vacancies, failure to attend interviews, satisfying the activity test arrangements and change of circumstances. We have merely suggested that there be a 14-day period in which that notification is given. I think it is quite a simple and reasonable amendment. From my understanding from the minister's comments before we adjourned earlier, this is perhaps one of the three that was being accepted by the government.17:02:00388Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEALB36NSWALP00—Our position in relation to these amendments is much the same as the previous ones. They relate to giving proper written notice of all sorts of items in the legislation. Again, if there is duplication, the latter will prevail. So I am happy to, in the meanwhile, support this amendment.17:02:00388Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I rise to indicate that the Greens (WA) will be supporting Democrats amendments Nos 5, 10, 17, 19 and 22.Amendments agreed to.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Ferguson)—We move on to Senator Stott Despoja's amendments 6 to 8 and 16 on sheet 858. You need leave to move them together, Senator.17:03:00388Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—Mr Temporary Chairman, I seem to have left some of my notes behind in relation to those particular amendments. Is it at all possible to move on to reasonable steps? I was wondering if I could just have a few minutes to prepare for the Democrats amendments Nos 6 to 8 and 16 on sheet 858 and move on to the issue of reasonable steps and to inform the chamber that I do not seek to pursue Democrat amendments in relation to reasonable steps in favour of the Greens (WA) amendments in relation to the reasonable steps provisions, that is, amendments 9, 11, 13 and 20 on sheet 858 standing in my name.17:04:00388Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—It may assist Senator Stott Despoja to dispose of her amendments 6 to 8 and 16 on sheet 858 if I indicate that the government will not oppose them.17:04:00388Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—by leave—In that case, I will dispose of them very quickly. I move:(6) Schedule 1, item 6, page 13 (after line 27), after paragraph (g), insert:(ga) the place of work is not accessible by public transport services and the person does not have access to alternative transport facilities and could not reasonably be expected to travel to the place of work; or(7) Schedule 1, item 6, page 13 (after line 29), after paragraph (h), insert:(ha) the work requires the person to move from a home in one place to a home in another place; or(8) Schedule 1, item 6, page 15 (line 9), at the end of subsection (1), add:; or (e) the program of work requires the person to move from a home in one place to a home in another place.(16) Schedule 1, item 6, page 32 (line 21), at the end of subsection (7), add:; or (e) the program of work requires the person to move from a home in one place to a home in another place.Briefly, I was going to prepare for a debate on this one, but the government is accepting them. They relate to suitable or unsuitable work. Also, I was very much concerned with the definitions of what was appropriate travel requirements as well as workplace requirements. So they are contained within my amendments, but I am happy that the government will be accepting them. I am glad that the government is prepared to incorporate in its concept of flexibility some of the more specific descriptive terms as to how things should be defined. Thank you. I am very happy.Amendments agreed to.17:06:00389Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—by leave—I move:(4) Schedule 1, item 6, page 16 (lines 10 to 15), omit all words in section 541F after "(as the case requires)", substitute "unless the Secretary is satisfied that the person has not attempted in good faith and to the best of their ability to comply with the requirement.".(5) Schedule 1, item 6, page 19 (lines 7 to 14), omit subsection (3), substitute:What are reasonable steps(3) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(f), a person takes reasonable steps to comply with a requirement under subsection (1) unless the Secretary is satisfied that the person has not attempted in good faith and to the best of their ability to comply with the requirement.(6) Schedule 1, item 6, page 28 (line 27), to page 29 (line 4), omit subsection (2), substitute:What are reasonable steps(3) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(b), a person is taking reasonable steps to comply with the terms of a Youth Allowance Activity Agreement unless the Secretary is satisfied that the person has not attempted in good faith and to the best of their ability to comply with the requirement.(11) Schedule 1, item 6, page 62 (lines 7 to 14), omit subsection (3), substitute:What are reasonable steps(3) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(f), a person takes reasonable steps to comply with a requirement under subsection (1) unless the Secretary is satisfied that the person has not attempted in good faith and to the best of their ability to comply with the requirement.The current provisions of the act are such that a person has not reasonably complied if:(a) the main reason for failing to comply involved a matter that was within the person's control; or (b) the circumstances that prevented the person from complying were reasonably foreseeable by the person.This test has a number of problems. It is unclear and difficult to interpret and has been acknowledged as such in at least one Federal Court case. That was the case of Ferguson, which attempted to grapple with the definition. In that case, the judge could do nothing else but relegate clauses (a) and (b) as they appear in this legislation to indicators and apply a general substantial compliance reasonableness test. In other words, the compliance clauses which appear at section 544(2) (a) and (b) and in other parts of this bill are next to useless.This is another situation of the government having little knowledge of what is happening on the ground. Under the existing provisions, we have the ludicrous situation that, if somebody discovers they cannot comply with something and then they do the right thing and tell their case manager, they are then liable to fail the test or be considered to have failed the test because they have reasonably foreseen the circumstances that prevented them from complying.So let us change the test to reflect the real world. I suggest we can change the rest to make it fair and sensible. Let us change it to reflect the substance of the court's ruling on the definition of reasonable steps. Our amendment does just that: it requires that a person attempts in good faith to comply with the requirement. It requires a genuine effort on the part of the young person to comply with the requirements of the legislation and the associated regulations and guidelines. On the point of making changes to clauses which already exist in the same or similar form in other social security legislation, that is, test of reasonable steps, industrial action exclusion and migrant waiting period, it seems that the government has no problem with different definitions of a marriage-like relationship between different pieces of legislation. It seems the government has no problems with different definitions of the age of independence within this legislation and when compared with dependency for the purpose of taxation laws.Furthermore, the government has attempted to sell this legislation as changing social security arrangements for the better. If that is really the case, then let us do it for all the unjust or unfair clauses of this legislation, not just for those which serve the cost-cutting agenda of the government. But, in relation to amendments 4, 5, 6 and 11 on sheet 867, I do believe it is reasonable that the court ruling is listened to. I do believe that we ought to make this clear, if what we are really asking for is something that is going to be easier and fairer for young people in Australia.17:09:00390Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—The Democrats, as I said, drafted an amendment comparable to this, but I do not think it was quite as well worded and I withdrew my amendments in favour of the Greens (WA) amendments because I think that they are better worded to ensure that some of the problems with foreseeable reasons for non-compliance are dealt with. The language used in this particular section of the bill is, I understand, a repeat of the Employment Services Act and the references to the employment assistance activity agreement included in that act.The Democrats support this amendment because of our concerns regarding reports from advocacy and community groups, the Welfare Rights Centre, for example, about the problems that come with the interpretation of the reasonableness of failure to comply. Specifically, the bill contains the words:(d) the main reason for failing to comply involved a matter that was within the person's control; or(e) the circumstances that prevented the person from complying were reasonablyforeseeable by the person.A person can reasonably foresee an event, but that does not mean that, despite their very best intentions, they can necessarily change that event. So we have noted that this wording has resulted at time in rather absurd situations where a person in one instance was breached because they were required by the department to be at two different meetings at the same time. When this particular person failed to attend one of the meetings, he was breached. The dispute had to be dealt with by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal because the terminology in item 45(6) required a legalistic interpretation as opposed to, say, a commonsense interpretation of whether or not a person was attempting with the spirit of the agreement.The legal interpretations by DEETYA and by various tribunals have resulted in hair splitting about what was reasonably foreseeable and what was the definition or the meaning of what was in a person's control. The job seeker in the instance that I described was clearly attempting to comply with the spirit of the agreement. This amendment, which allows for those attempting to comply to be given some leeway, will ensure that such an absurd situation is not repeated. I note that the Greens (WA) amendment simply removes the preceding paragraphs and replaces them with:. . . unless the Secretary is satisfied that the person has not attempted in good faith to comply with this requirement.We believe that this is preferable to the case being dealt with at a case manager level. Of course, a problem can be foreseeable but it does not mean that, once the case has been identified, the person can stop the problem from occurring. The point of both the Democrat and Greens (WA) amendments is to provide a safety valve in the current process that will ensure that unnecessary appeals to the tribunal are not commonplace. We are very happy to support the Greens (WA) amendment before us.17:12:00390Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEALB36NSWALP00—It does appear to the opposition that there is some difficulty with the interpretation of `reasonable steps' and that some action should be taken to clarify it. It seems that this amendment is a reasonable step to do so and I understand that in a recent discussion, Ferguson in the Federal Court, the court itself highlighted the difficulties with the interpretation of that definition. Certainly it would seem an appropriate time for us to attempt to clarify it. That being the case, the opposition will be supporting the amendment.17:13:00390Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—I have listened carefully to my colleagues on this matter, but for the government I would say the proposed amendments seem unnecessary to us, given that the Social Security Act is administered in a beneficial legislative environment—it always has been under any government. It is not a punitive act, it is a beneficial act, and therefore is administered accordingly. That has been so under all governments. There are also protections for people who believe that an unfair decision has been made against them, both within Centrelink and also in the tribunals and the courts, quite apart from the Ombudsman as well.So I think the people that you are concerned about, as I would be, really do have very adequate protections in cases of unfair decisions. I draw your attention to the fact that the current legislation, the Social Security Act, presumes the `reasonable man' test of what is reasonable to expect of customers. I do not think these amendments add any more. The Centrelink officers are required to act, as I say, in a beneficial way. They are accountable through the various review mechanisms that are available to the customers and I really do not think these amendments add anything.17:14:00391Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I am concerned that the Minister for Social Security (Senator Newman) appears, on behalf of her government, to be very out of touch with what is punitive in a situation where people have no other means of support. If you are unfairly penalised for not appearing to have taken reasonable steps—as this court decision under Ferguson indicates may well be the case—then not getting payment for several weeks is, of course, a punitive occasion.How many times have we had this same minister coming into the chamber and boasting about how many people she has thrown off social security during the last three months? We are told by those who know that something like 0.5 per cent of people who have made some errors, according to Social Security, are actually convicted of social security fraud. So we have something like 0.5 per cent of people convicted of social security fraud in relation to these payments, and the minister says it is not a punitive act.It can be used, and is used, punitively by this government when they basically use it to belt people over the head and take their only means of support off them. We are going to see particular examples of it later on in the bill when we talk about how much people will be allowed to have in their bank account to be able to survive the kind of punitive actions or even threats that may exist as a result of these kinds of legislation. Social security should not be a punitive act, but we actually see clauses later on where the government is intending to imprison people for what they consider to be faults in the system. Of course, prison terms have been imposed many times through the social security system.So the act can be used, and is used, as a punitive act. People's compliance, people's ability to prove they have taken reasonable steps, is used in terms of a punitive measure to remove people's only means of support. If that does not seem to be punitive in terms of the government, I am very much afraid that they are out of touch with the real world.Amendments agreed to.17:17:00391Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—I move:(12) Schedule 1, item 6, page 26 (after line 3), after subsection (1), insert:Meaning of special circumstances(1A) In making a decision under subsection (1), the Secretary is to have regard to the guidelines.(1B) The Minister, by determination in writing: (a) is to set guidelines for the exercise of the Secretary's discretion under subsection (1A); and (b) may revoke or vary those guidelines.(1C) Guidelines made for the purpose of subsection (1A) are a disallowable instrument.This amendment intends to make some additions to the section dealing with special circumstances exemption. It is merely to ensure that the secretary has regard to guidelines and that those guidelines are disallowable instruments, obviously ensuring a degree of accountability and transparency in the system. 17:17:00392Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—I would advise the committee that the government is prepared to accept this amendment.Amendment agreed to.17:18:00392Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—I believe we are coming to a section which deals with a crunch issue: the minimum age for the youth allowance. I want to address that subject up-front fairly and squarely, if the committee does not mind. The government's proposal, the new youth allowance, will penalise parents of young adults, and that is to be deplored. The government is proposing to transfer the cost of its social security responsibility for young adults from its own budget to that of the parents, without recognising that transfer in the tax system.If the government wishes to tighten the means test on family dependants to save money, then it should start treating families fairly in the income tax system. The government cannot have it both ways. It is trying to have it both ways, but it really cannot, in fairness, have it both ways. It cannot assume that adult siblings are sharing in their parents' income and then turn around and ignore that sharing when it comes to taxing the parents. If the government wants to save money in the social security budget by recognising income transfers within families, then it should give due credit to those parents who are saving it the money.I believe the government has an obligation in the context of this legislation to give an absolute commitment that the taxation system will be reformed so that the tax law recognises the number of young people—in this case young adults—in the family that an income has to support. At the very least, for each adult child deemed to be dependent upon the parents, the poverty level threshold of $5,400 should be excluded from the income of the parents for tax purposes and treated as the income of the young adult to reflect the income transfer that is assumed to have taken place, and that has, in fact, taken place.The government was on notice from me last year about this. In fact, I raised the issue in a question on notice at an estimates commit tee. The Treasurer indicated that the government would not consider change. He said:The government does not have a policy of introducing concessional tax treatment to the taxable income of those who may lose entitlements to benefits. This would seriously undermine the effectiveness of the changes intended to those outlays programs. That is a bit rich, isn't it? Because the government is taking the money away from certain young adults and, without compensation, requiring the parents of these adults to pay the bill—and there will be a large number of young people in this position. This is done in the context of a debate on whether or not there is going to be a GST—a consumption tax.BE4NEWMANSenator Newman—No, that's not right.6H4Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE—The minister shakes her head, but she will not deny, surely, that there have been some suggestions around the traps that the government is seriously considering the question of the GST again. A consumption tax treats spending on children—our future taxpayers—as purely consumption expenditure when, in reality, spending on children is really an investment in human capital. A consumption tax can hit families very hard indeed. This measure is not only unfair and unjust; it is inconsistent with the treatment of other forms of investment.I can go into these questions in detail. Perhaps I should have done that at the second reading stage of this piece of legislation—I acknowledge that and I apologise—but I was not in the chamber at that time. But I thought that since we are starting off this area I should state clearly to the committee that the government would have been aware of my attitude on this matter and, I believe, of the attitude of hundreds of thousands of families and parents. I have expressed my attitude before. Indeed, I expressed it at the time of the increase in age dependency for full-time students. I will, of course, deal with the particular propositions that are coming forward from the Greens (WA) and the opposition's Senator Neal on their merits, but I thought I should alert the committee to my views on the subject.17:25:00393Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—I do take very seriously Senator Harradine's concerns, because I know that the wellbeing of the family has long been a concern of his, as it is for this government. I would hope he would acknowledge that one of the first actions of this government was to introduce the family tax initiatives which have particularly helped low to middle income earners with children. They have been of particular benefit to deserted wives and to widows, for example—people who are trying to raise their children on their own—but also to two-parent families, especially those with several children. So I think our bona fides in that area are already on the table, Senator.May I respond immediately to your claims about saving moneys out of the social security system—out of the pockets of parents—because this is not a savings measure. There will be an additional $125 million in expenditure—that figure is from memory; I can correct it if it is wrong. This is meant to be a beneficial measure which will actually encourage young people to be in study and in training for as long as they need to get the skills. It is also designed to prevent them falling between the gaps in moving from one payment to another. It is also designed to remove the disincentives to study which currently exist in the system, whereby those who are unemployed are financially substantially better off than those who are studying. I am sure that parents of adolescents around this country would say that it is a disgrace to have a social security system which pays more to young people to be unemployed than to be in study. Senator Harradine, I am sure that you must agree with that yourself.Senator Harradine asks for a commitment from the government here and now on the tax system—that it will be reformed so that it will recognise each adult child who is financially dependent upon their parents. He recommends a method of allowing an additional $5,400 threshold for each—I think I quote him right. He also quotes the estimates last year at which he was told that the government does not have a policy—I may not have copied it exactly, Senator—on what he was proposing. But you would understand full well that this government has embarked upon major tax reform. And I am not in a position to say to you here today what form it is going to take.But you would know very well that the Prime Minister and this government are determined to see that we protect Australian families. It is not empty rhetoric. We started off that way coming into government two years ago when the financial situation in Australia was such that we could have been expected to have welshed on that deal when we saw the colour of the books we inherited. But we did not. We spent $1 billion on the family tax initiative to try to ease the situation for families with children. We are not about taking money away from parents with children. There are not large numbers of young people who lose out.There are over 500,000 young people in these age cohorts. There are something like 112,000 unemployed young people aged 18 to 20. About 22,000 of those 112,000 independent young people will not be subject to a parental means test. Some 43,500 young people from the most financially disadvantaged families will continue to receive the maximum youth allowance of $265.50 per fortnight if they live away from home, or $174.80 per fortnight if they live at home. Some 33,600 young people who receive a lesser amount because of parental means testing will have some or all of their loss offset—offset, Senator—by an average gain of $588 from the abolition of the education leaver waiting period, depending on how long they remain on payment.Some 12,800 young people will lose their payment entirely but, Senator Harradine, you are talking about young people who are in a one-child family with an income of over $41,000. If they are living away from home they are losing out because they are from a one-child family with an income of over $58,000. Are you aware that that is what we are talking about? I think it puts an entirely different cast on what you are saying. People on Austudy will be better off. Young people who are unemployed will stay as they are.DX5MARGETTSSenator Margetts—How do you work that out? BE4Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMAN—I have handed Senator Harradine a table which shows, for example, a one-child family with an 18-year-old at home. If the family income is $23,400 a year, there will be a payment of $174.80 a fortnight to that young person. If the family income is $27,000 a year, that family will get $140.20 a fortnight. If the family income is $30,000 a year, $111.30 a fortnight will go in if the young person is at home.If that 18-year-old in a one-child family is living away from home and the family income is $23,400, $340.30 a fortnight will go to that young person. If the family income is $27,000 a year, $305.70 a fortnight will go to that young person. If the family income is $30,000 a year, $276.80 a fortnight will go to that young person.So, Senator Harradine, the taxpayer is funding those families with low to middle incomes who most need our help. There is assistance through the tax system, there is assistance through the social security system, but that is money which is going to support the adolescent and young adult children of low to middle income earners. Only 12,800 young people will not be better off—they will be worse off than they currently are. In other words, unemployed young people coming from a one-child family with a family income of over $41,000, or a family income of over $58,000 if it is a one-child family and the child is living away from home.I think that puts a totally different cast on the youth allowance from the way you described it earlier. I think it is a pity if we are not prepared to acknowledge that this is a very important measure to benefit young people. I have said that to this committee before, but I believe that it is an extremely important social policy reform.This government is moving to substantial reform of the tax system. The Prime Minister has set down the principles on which it will be based, including compensation for those deserving of special consideration. Lower personal income tax is another of the principles. In light of the fact that major work on taxation reform is going on at the moment, I cannot at this stage go beyond the Prime Minister's principles which have been clearly enunciated. It is clear that the work that must be done must take into account the relationship between tax and social security.It is on the public record that those matters are being examined, but in debating this legislation today I cannot talk about further tax reform, about what it will actually comprise. But, Senator Harradine, you would know that we are committed to tax reform. We have made it very clear that it will be on the record for people to consider before we go to the next election. But, quite apart from that, standing alone, the youth allowance we are proposing is beneficial to Australia's families. It is beneficial to the nation. It is beneficial to the young people concerned.The table that I sent around to you earlier, Senator Harradine, and which I read out for the benefit of other senators, demonstrates, I think, that students will be substantially better off. It will mean that their families will not be asked to do more than is currently being asked of them. Except for those young people in families with quite high incomes, the only young people who will not be eligible for youth allowance will be those on unemployment benefits. You are a Tasmanian senator; you know very well those quite high incomes are higher than in our state. I think that is a very clear statement of why this is a very important and significant reform proposal. I would be disappointed if you could not see your way clear to support it.17:36:00394Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—I have a query of the minister. You mentioned an additional amount of money. I believe you said $125 million; I presume you meant $25 million—is that correct?17:36:00394Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—In the first two years, the extra expenditure amounts to $125 million.17:37:00394Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEALB36NSWALP00—The way you framed that answer could lead to the conclusion that an extra $125 million was being spent on families with children between the ages of 18 and 21. You mean for the entire package, don't you?BE4NEWMANSenator Newman—For the total youth allowance package; yes.17:37:00395Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—Perhaps we could round out this information session a little. If it is an extra $125 million for the first two years, Minister, what about the outyears? What savings are you expecting in your budget in the forward estimates as a result of this proposal?BE4NEWMANSenator Newman—I will have to come back to you in a few minutes on that.17:38:00395Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I move:(7) Schedule 1, item 6, page 27 (after line 8), after paragraph (2)(b), insert:(ba) the person has agreed to enter into a Youth Allowance activity agreement; orThis is an amendment to ensure that those under 18 are given an alternative to formal education and training. It allows for a young person to participate in any development activity outlined under the youth allowance activity agreement. In effect, it reinstates unemployment benefits for 16- and 17-year-olds. The ALP's amendments incorporate some elements of our amendment, but they only allow young people to receive youth allowance for up to 13 weeks if they are not in education or training.In the course of this debate, the minister has spent much time talking about the need to provide flexibility. The minister has espoused the benevolent intentions of the government to improve the lot of young Australians. If the minister truly believes in flexibility in providing as many options as possible for young Australians, then surely she will wholeheartedly support our amendment. We are proposing to allow young people under 18 who do not fit into education or training to have the option to enter into a youth allowance activity agreement and, by so doing, be given appropriate case management or other employment related activities.What sort of research has the minister's department carried out on the potential impact on schools, their communities and on young people themselves of requiring at-risk youth to return to full-time study at school? As an ex-schoolteacher, I can tell you that, if 16- and 17-year-olds who do not want to study are forced back to school or TAFE, the potential impact on the learning environment could be disastrous. I wonder how many students will participate in activities to try to get themselves thrown out of schools so they can get some other form of support.While you appear to be slashing funding to vocational education and training, at the same time you are expecting schools and other places of learning to cope with an influx of young people with very special needs. From the draft guidelines that have been released by the minister's department, it appears that those who are expelled or suspended from school will be exempt from the requirement to take part in full-time study. There are also a number of other exemptions.What happens to at-risk youths who have been kicked out of school? Where is the flexibility to channel these young people into employment programs when formalised schooling or training is not a viable option? The only solution is to provide an option. The real flexibility is for young people under 18 to be case managed with a view to gaining employment, in a similar way to the, albeit limited, opportunities provided to those under 18.As I mentioned, the concern about ALP amendment 864(4) is that it only provides for young people whom it would be better to provide with case management to be eligible for youth allowance for a maximum of 13 weeks. They would then again be at the mercy of the secretary in regard to their entitlement to youth allowance. I applaud the opposition for placing a substantive amount of the content of the draft guidelines into legislation, but I am still a bit worried about why it has limited the option for case management to 13 weeks.I would, therefore, be very interested to hear what the chamber has to say in relation to this option, but I urge the Labor Party to consider that a fairer way would be to allow for case management in general for people who do not fit into the square holes that the government may be trying to force them into.17:42:00395Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—I have received further information about the funding. I told senators that it was $125 million of extra expenditure. To help, I will give the precise details. Extra expenditure is as follows: in 1998-99, $76.29 million; in 1999-2000, $48.77 million; in 2000-01, $44.82 million; and in 2001-02, $44.41 million.6H4HARRADINESenator Harradine—Minister, what is the current rate for an unemployed adult?BE4Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMAN—Over 18 or over 21?6H4HARRADINESenator Harradine—Over 18.BE4Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMAN—There are some variations, so I will get them all put on paper to read out to you.17:44:00396Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEALB36NSWALP00—In relation to those figures, I suppose it is always very attractive to think that, because we are spending more money, more people must be benefiting.BE4NEWMANSenator Newman—I was answering Senator Harradine's claim that it was a savings measure.B36Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEAL—I understand that, but if there are more unemployed young people then the amount of money that is spent on an allowance will go up, irrespective of their type of entitlement. In terms of making calculations as to those expenditures, what assumptions about the number of students or unemployed young people are being made for each of those years? You may want to do it in table form.BE4NEWMANSenator Newman—It is the same thing; it's just which way is the mixture.B36Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEAL—It is not the same.BE4NEWMANSenator Newman—We can't change the number of young people.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Ferguson)—Order! Rather than cross-fire, perhaps we will have a response after Senator Neal is finished.B36Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEAL—What I am asking for is: what are the underlying assumptions in those figures as to the number of unemployed young people and the number of students who are accessing the allowance in each of those years? 17:46:00396Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—I was trying to interject before, I am sorry. Senator, what I was trying to say to you was that, because youth allowance is going to be the same whether you are unemployed or you are a student, you do not make assumptions about what they are going to be because the expenditure is the same. They are on youth allowance.B36NEALSenator Neal—That's not my point; you have missed it.BE4Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMAN—Would you like to explain it again?17:46:00396Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEALB36NSWALP00—I want the figures of what numbers of unemployed young people and students, in each of those years, the department believes will be accessing youth allowance. I am not saying the figures are different for those two types of people. Obviously, I would assume, if you have worked out how much you are going to spend in each of these years with this new bill, you have made assumptions about numbers. I would like to know what they are.17:47:00396Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—We will get them for you, but it will take a few minutes. I now also have some answers for Senator Harradine. A single person aged 18 or over, living at home, under Austudy is receiving $174.90, under youth training or newstart allowance is receiving $174.80 and under youth allowance will be receiving $174.80. If they are living away from home, they are getting $265.39 under Austudy, $265.50 under youth training or newstart, and $265.50 under youth allowance, but rent assistance will be available of up to $75 a fortnight.If you want the figures for partnered without children or partnered with children, I can give you more, Senator, because, of course, they are extra figures. Alternatively, I might get it photocopied for you to save you having to copy them down. Would that help you?17:48:00396Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—I have them, but I asked you because I wanted you to say it to the committee.BE4NEWMANSenator Newman—I will get it run off, if you like.6H4Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE—Thank you, very much. That would be useful. I wanted to go to the question that you raised when you said that you have given us the effect of the parental income test. You see, the parental income-free area for a one-child family is $23,400 and, at the present moment, that amount of money is paid to the young adult.BE4NEWMANSenator Newman—Are you talking about those over 18?6H4Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE—That is right. What you are saying is that the parents of the child, if their income is over a certain limit, will be responsible because the amount will be reduced by $1 in $4 over the particular parental income-free area. That young person's allowance will actually be reduced by $1 in every $4 that their parents' income is over the level of $23,400.BE4NEWMANSenator Newman—If there's one child.6H4Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE—Yes. Minister, you launched out into a barrage where you appeared to be saying that this is only going to attack the rich. I have heard all that before. That has always been the tactic used by some people who do not want to see justice done. If you say that a family with an income of $23,400 is rich, then you are not living in the world that I am living in.BE4NEWMANSenator Newman—But I did not say that.6H4Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE—You are saying it. You are saying that there will, in effect, be no problem if the rate is $23,400.BE4NEWMANSenator Newman—I didn't say that, so I would be grateful if you would not put words in my mouth.6H4Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE—I have it here. You gave me this document.BE4NEWMANSenator Newman—I didn't say there would be no problem.6H4Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE—You said the at-home rate for youth allowance where the parental income is $23,400 will be $174.80 a fortnight, which, to my calculation, is the same as it is now.BE4NEWMANSenator Newman—Yes.6H4Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE—That is what I said. Then for every $4 that the parent or parents earn above $23,400, the youth allowance is reduced by $1.BE4NEWMANSenator Newman—That's right.6H4Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE—How can you say that that is not a saving to the budget? The impression gained—and I suggest that this might be borne out by colleagues around the chamber—is that, `No, there's no savings to the budget. It's all give, give, give.' In fact, it is not. That is the point that I am making, Minister: you are not acknowledging that income transfer from parent to adult—we are talking about adult siblings—in the tax system in any shape or form. I feel that this is something that will influence substantially my attitude to this matter.I understand what you say about the question of government policy on tax. I had hoped that the government—any government—would recognise that its most important function is to assist families in the exercise of their functions, because the fundamental group unit of society is the family. If, therefore, society's governors—that is, elected parliaments and elected governments—do not see that their responsibility is to assist those families to exercise their functions, then that government is going down the wrong path.I did not think that was the situation, but again, I believe that we must have a good look at what is happening. I believe that the government should indicate to the chamber and to the parliament before these provisions are adopted that they are prepared to accept the consistent principle, as I explained a moment ago, that where expenditure is incurred by the families, particularly in areas which were previously directly paid out of the Social Security budget, that transfer of income from the parents to the adult child should be recognised in the taxation system.17:55:00397Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I have a question that I would like to ask the minister. I do not think it is too hypothetical. Let us put the case of an unemployed adult, aged 19, at home with their family, with a family income of $36,000, which is the AWOTE average income. So you have got an average income of $36,000 and a 19-year-old adult at home; will that 19-year-old adult be better off or worse off, and by how much?17:56:00398Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—Senator Margetts, while we are getting the answer for you, because it will take a minute or so, I go back to Senator Harradine and his problem with what I was saying, when I said that it is not a savings measure. It is not a savings measure; it is a spend measure across the whole package. One of the reasons for that, and I do ask you to listen carefully—6H4HARRADINESenator Harradine—I'm listening.BE4Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMAN—This is social security legislation and I am sure, as a general principle, you would agree that social security must go on a means tested basis to those who need it most. Most goes to those who need it most. So that is not a new principle here. What is new is that the parents are involved. I understand that but I want to move on.I ask you to think about your constituents on the north-west coast of Tasmania who are parents, because I remember very well a few years ago, when I first came into the Senate, a police sergeant's wife from the north-west coast came to see me. She had four bright children and she was so upset that they could only afford to send one child to Hobart to university, and what would that mean for the future of their other three children? She stayed in my mind. It was very moving.For me, the youth allowance is so important because that is where the money is going, largely—to bring students up to a level, by means of the pharmaceutical allowance, the rent assistance and, for some people, the remote area allowance, so that a police sergeant can send his children away for further education, which they could not have aspired to before. The extra cash from the taxpayer is going to help those families. I think it is absolutely appropriate and I am amazed that you would not say, `That's a very, very good use of money.'Yes, the means test is new, where they are adults over the age of 18—adults under the law. If they are not in work, whether they are students or unemployed, they are inevitably financially dependent upon their parents, unless they have satisfied the independence criteria, which are quite clear here.The other thing that needs to be taken into account is that where a family is trying to support a student through tertiary education of one kind or another, they can be up for the support of that young person. They will be financially dependent to some extent or other for up to five years, usually—three, four or five years.The statistics from the Department of Social Security indicate that, on average, the 18- to 20-year-olds who are unemployed and looking for work are on unemployment benefits at the moment for five months. That is on average. Sure, there will be some for whom the figure will be higher. But is it too much to ask of parents who have at least a moderate income—and certainly those on higher incomes—to support their children to some extent or other while they are asking the taxpayer for support? I do not think that is unreasonable.Certainly, when I was talking about it not being unreasonable, I was particularly referring to those 12,800 young people who will not get benefits because they are over those high income levels. The ones who will not get any help from the taxpayer are the one child family, living at home with a family income over $41,000, and the one child family, living away from home with a family income of $58,000. Yes, there is a phase-out of $1 for every $4 of family income, but that is what happens now with Austudy. That is not new. The $23,400 threshold, where it just starts to phase out, is also the same as Austudy. In fact, the means testing is more generous for youth allowance because it cuts out further up. It is another $3,700, I think, for every additional child in the family.I do not believe we have been ungenerous or unconcerned about the needs of families. We recognise that families, in reality, do support their adult children when they are not yet able to support themselves for one reason or another. I would urge you to think again about this. I cannot give you the sort of commitment today that you want about the tax system because it is not yet determined. I am not in any way hiding anything from you. You know that we are very concerned about families and, obviously, anything we do in tax reform will have families very much to the fore. Beyond that, I cannot go further for you, but I do urge you to consider those things that I have tried to put on the table now.18:01:00399Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—Of course I fully support now and have over the years the types of measures that you mentioned in regard to the police sergeant and his family at Burnie. What I am trying to point out to the committee is this: the government is adopting measures in this legislation which are contrary to the principles of taxation equity and contrary to the principles that are normally applied in respect of social security, because the means test in respect of social security is normally applied to the income of the recipient of the social security measures.BE4NEWMANSenator Newman—Not for Austudy, though.6H4Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE—Oh, no. You might read my speech on that occasion, too. But in this particular case, we are talking about unemployed adults. The unemployed adults are going to have their income taxed when it reaches a certain level and the parents are going to have their income means tested. Can't you see that you are introducing here a further problem? It is a very real problem for lower and also middle income families. I repeat that, if you consider a family on $23,400 is on a good wicket, then you are not in the real world. Having said that, I would like to hear now your response to the question that was asked of you by Senator Margetts, to see in fact whether there is a loss or whether there is not. Of course there is, and it is effective at a very low income level.18:05:00399Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—The answer to Senator Margetts's question is that the amount of youth allowance payable to a 19-year-old unemployed person living at home in a family with an income of $36,000 a year depends on the number of other children in the family, their ages and whether the other children receive income support payments. In order to help the committee, I will table a table, which can be copied, which shows the amount of youth allowance that would be paid to this family, the net loss to the young unemployed person, if any, and the net loss to the family for a range of families with one unemployed 19-year-old. The rates quoted are as at 1 July last year and, for those families with children under 16, family payment may be paid. While the young unemployed person's payments may reduce by up to $121.60 a fortnight, the total assistance received by the family may increase under youth allowance depending on the number of children in the family, their ages and activities. I table this table.18:06:00399Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—That certainly accords with the estimates that our office came up with as well. As I said, the figure I have chosen of $36,000 is the AWOTE figure—that is, the average weekly ordinary time earnings—so we are not talking about high income. We are talking about what is considered and calculated as the average weekly ordinary time earnings in Australia. The minister says the payments may reduce by $121; we estimate it as $120, but what is in a dollar when it is so bad? Yes, there might be other things with other kids, but we are talking about the impact of this one unemployed person. So what Senator Harradine has been saying is absolutely correct. The whole issue of whether you treat young unemployed people in the same way as you treat people in education must also take into consideration whether or not there is any choice.If, as we know, the government is suggesting that education is a benefit to the individual, the Greens (WA) have a different viewpoint on that. Given that the government has consistently said that education—tertiary education and so on—is a benefit, maybe it is considering that unemployment is a benefit, that somehow or other being unemployed is a benefit and is optional in our society. That is exactly what the minister seems to be saying.If we treat the assistance for education for a 19-year-old as a benefit which gets reduced according to the parental income, then we are going to treat unemployment as if it is a benefit—as if somebody gets a benefit from being unemployed—and we are going to punish people who happen to be in a situation where there is a total family income of $36,000—the average weekly ordinary time earnings in Australia. That really is atrocious.The minister is saying that, under the government's education budget, they are now doing something about rental assistance. Everybody has said that the rental assistance component is well overdue but, basically, if they are saying that that excuses them, as part of the package, for reducing their assistance to unemployed people, that is not acceptable. I totally agree with what Senator Harradine has been saying.18:09:00400Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—Let me correct that. We are in no way taking from young unemployed people to give to students. We are spending more money in order to make sure that students do get rent assistance, and it is not from the education budget either. It is increased expenditure under the youth allowance legislation in the social security portfolio. It puts young people of the same age still financially not independent on the same basis, so that parents and their children are treated in the same way.The Austudy system has been in place for a number of years. We have not reduced the benefits in any way. We have not made it tougher on the families of children who are students, and we are saying that that same family may have a young adult who is not yet financially independent because they are looking for work. We are simply treating that family in a similar manner. I just had to correct the inference you were making, Senator.18:10:00400Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—I will address the amendment but, firstly, I would just like to acknowledge comments made by the minister earlier in this debate when she talked about concern for families. I do not think that anyone in this chamber does not share a similar concern.My problem with aspects of this legislation is that I do not think it necessarily frees up or benefits a number of families in perhaps the way that the minister would suggest. In fact, I do agree with Senator Harradine's earlier comments in this debate in relation to the additional burden that this will place on many families. We have just heard an example of a particular case study being something like $121 a fortnight worse off, which I find quite extraordinary. I find that an exorbitant amount, given the nature of the amounts we are talking about.I think there are aspects of this legislation that will unfairly burden families. In this legislation there is an increased expectation that families are going to be looking after, certainly financially, not just children but young adults—in the case of students and with the age of independence criteria, we are talking about until the age of 25. To me that is quite extraordinary. I acknowledge Senator Harradine's comments that these changes or these expectations are not necessarily reflected in taxation law, but they are not reflected in a number of other vital pieces of legislation that affect the family. I would include in that the child support legislation and even the minister's own example of the family tax initiative under this government.I note in your own opening remarks to this particular amendment, Minister, that you said you were anxious to see that there was flexibility so people did not fall through the gaps. Because of the anomalies in pieces of legislation, there are gaps. The tax initiative and child support cut out at 16 and 18 respectively I believe, yet ages of independence, to satisfy the criteria for getting the common youth allowance, do not kick in until 21 or 25. There are gaps—we are going to see families additionally and unfairly burdened in that regard.In relation to this particular amendment—and I know that we will have a number of discussions relating to the age of independence—clearly, the Democrats put on record in the second reading stage on this piece of legislation how appalled we are of the definition of the age of independence for a student being 25. I hope that the age of independence in relation to young unemployed people will be successfully amended. Certainly there seems to be a consensus among some of the opposition parties to lower that to 18. I look pleadingly at Senator Neal that the ALP, the opposition, will apply that same logic to a reduction in the age of independence when it comes to students, so that we do not entrench the idea of 25 as the age at which we define a student as being independent for the purposes of CYA.We do support the specific amendment in front of us moved by the Greens (WA) which introduces the ability for under-18-year-olds to enter into a youth allowance activity agreement. We believe that great concern has been expressed not only in this place but also by the community generally—and by the youth sector specifically—regarding the future of a number of young people. If I use the minister's figures, I believe that at least 1,600 young people under the age of 18 will lose all benefits. That is the minister's predictions. So I am going to take the government's predictions in all good faith and use those figures, although I do think that it is incredibly difficult to determine the numbers we are talking about—and certainly this relates to a point that Senator Neal made in relation to the government's anticipation of expenditure.We are looking at at least 1,600 young people, I believe, who will lose benefits. Those young people will be eligible for no benefits whatsoever as a result of the introduction of the government's common youth allowance. I fear that that figure is higher. Of course, I hope that it is not, but even 1,600 is unacceptable.These 1,600 young people have not completed year 12 or, for whatever reason, do not wish to return or are unable to return to school. I think they will fall through the welfare safety net; they are going to fall through the gap. The amendment that is proposed by the Greens (WA) satisfies the government's requirement for mutual obligation by enabling young people to enter into an activity agreement. I do not see why the government would not support the amendment before us. I think it is quite fair. I do not see how the government could possibly oppose provisions which enable the very flexibility, the very fairness that it claims it is striving for.18:15:00401Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I have another question for the minister. Can you tell me what would happen if you have a young person—and I have heard of an Aboriginal young person who is in this circumstance—who has no legal guardian as a result of the death of both parents? What will be the impact on them if you cannot calculate a parental income because there are no parents?18:16:00401Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—They are not parentally means tested; they are tested on their own income.18:16:00401Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEALB36NSWALP00—Minister, I asked you about the assumptions. Have we got those yet?18:16:00401Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—I cannot help you just now, but I will give you some answer.18:16:00401Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEALB36NSWALP00—It looks like this debate may well go into tomorrow, but I would appreciate it if we could get those assumptions as soon as possible. I would very much appreciate, while you are doing that, if you could give the comparative figures of the number of students receiving benefits and the number of unemployed young people receiving benefits for 1997-98 so that I can compare them to the following four years.18:17:00401Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—I am happy to do that. I understand that it is not possible to answer your question this afternoon, but the assumptions used to calculate the number of unemployed and students accessing the youth include: trends in young people in the age group 16 to 24—that is, the total population; trends in employment; trends in earnings, and the calculation of the effect of the youth allowance. Part of the difficulty in getting that for you now is that it involves Treasury, Social Security and the Department of Finance. All of those departments have an involvement in putting that together. We will get it for you as soon as we can.18:17:00402Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEALB36NSWALP00—I appreciate those difficulties. Now that you have mentioned those varying factors, it would be appreciated if, in that document, you could also indicate what those assumptions are as well—that is, the four or so things you just mentioned.18:18:00402Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—We will provide what we are able to for you. I will address some of the issues relating to young people under 18 and I make it quite clear—I do not know whether or not there was a misconception—that, regardless of whether a young person is getting income support, young people under 18 will be able to access a number of training and employment assistance programs. They can access the new employment services market, which is starting on 1 May and comprises FLEX—the flexible labour exchange services—the community support program and entry level training support services.They will also be able to access: new apprenticeships which provide young people with training options which involve paid job opportunities and the achievement of new competencies; the new apprenticeship access program which provides pre-apprenticeship and pre-traineeship training to young people who are disadvantaged in the labour market; job placement; employment and training projects which help homeless or at risk young people find housing and employment; the jobs pathway program, which is a vocational education and training program which contracts brokers to facilitate school students transition to work; and the green corps program, which provides full-time training for six months on community based environmental projects in rural areas.Young people under 18 have access to those regardless of whether they are in receipt of income support. So the 1,600 young people that we are assuming will drop out and not go back into vocational education at school or into TAFE do have these other opportunities as well.Request agreed to.18:20:00402Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—I have a question of the minister regarding what she said previously. Will the AMT, the actual means test, that now applies to Austudy also apply to the youth allowance?BE4NEWMANSenator Newman—Yes, Senator Harradine.6H4Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE—So what you are saying about the extremely wealthy is nonsense?BE4NEWMANSenator Newman—Why?6H4Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE—You know what the actual means test does. It is a test on actual expenditure for very wealthy people who minimise their incomes. The problem when we are dealing with this whole area is that you come in here and really say that this is aimed only at the young adults of rich families. I deliberately asked you that question about the AMT. I ask you and others to reflect on that at some stage.I want to remind the committee of what you have said and this document that comes through here. I again come back to the $23,400, the parental income. We are really talking about a rate of youth allowance of $174.80 a fortnight; so we are talking about $86 a week.BE4NEWMANSenator Newman—At home.6H4Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE—Yes, we are talking about adults 20 years of age who are unemployed.BE4NEWMANSenator Newman—But if you look at away from home it is quite different.6H4Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE—No, I am talking about people at home—$85, right? For every $4 that the parents' income increases over $23,400, they lose $1, and so it goes down. That is what I am saying when you are talking about this not being a savings measure. It might not be meant to be a savings measure, but it will save money as far as the government is concerned because you are imposing it on those families, not wealthy families. It was very interesting to hear you respond, as you did, to my question about the AMT.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Reynolds)—Senator Neal, we now turn to your amendments.18:24:00403Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEALB36NSWALP00—Our requests 1 and 2 relate to at what time the requirement that a person who is under 18 and needs to be in full-time education to qualify for youth allowance comes into effect. I do understand that the government has announced that it will not put this into effect until January 1999. But the purpose of our request is to include this within the legislation to provide absolute certainty to those people affected.I will not go on at length. I think the fact that the government has made that announcement indicates they understand the difficulty of people who have started off the year not in education getting back in again. I suspect there will be fairly overwhelming support for these proposals.I need to explain the changes that need to made to request 4. In proposed subsection (2A) paragraph (p) I need to add some words—that is, after `is in case management' insert the words `approved by the secretary'. The balance of that section contained in our amendment, as written, we will not proceed with at this time. We will then deal with it after the main portion of the request is dealt with. Does the chamber understand that?18:27:00403Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—I think I understand that. Let us see if we are in agreement. I understand that in request 4, which is the only part we have a problem with, if you narrow your proposal to a person `in case management approved by the secretary' then we would not oppose it.18:28:00403Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEALB36NSWALP00—That is the essence of how I have amended it. But I reserve the opportunity to have a try with the other half of it once we have dealt with the first half. There is one other change to that request that I should advise the chamber of—that is, in proposed subsection (2B) paragraph (d) after `in any other case, for' insert the words `up to'.BE4NEWMANSenator Newman—We accept that.6H4HARRADINESenator Harradine—Before `13 weeks'?B36NEALSenator Neal—That is correct, Senator Harradine. 18:28:00403Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—It would not make any sense at all to have `for up to 13 weeks or such longer period'. It cancels itself out.18:29:00403Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEALB36NSWALP00—No, it does not actually. The whole idea is that there is provision for up to 13 weeks and then the secretary can extend it even beyond that 13 weeks. That is the way this particular provision is drafted. That was always the intended thrust of the guidelines. The intention that we adopted in drafting it is that you have an initial period of up to 13 weeks and then, if the secretary in their discretion thinks fit, it can be extended further. So in fact it is really unlimited with the intervention of the secretary.18:30:00403Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—The government is happy to accept it because that is in our guidelines.Requests (by Senator Neal) proposed:That the House of Representatives be requested to make the following amendments:(1) Clause 2, page 1 (line 16), omit "subsection (2)", substitute "subsections (2) and (3)".(2) Clause 2, page 2 (after line 2), at the end of the clause, add: (3) Subsections 543A(2A) and (2B) in item 6 of Schedule 1 commence on 1 January 1999.(4) Schedule 1, item 6, page 27 (after line 10), after subsection (2), insert: (2A) Notwithstanding subsection (2) but subject to section (2B), a person who is not yet 18 years old is taken to have attained the minimum age for youth allowance if the person does not have the capacity to undertake full-time study or training because the person: (a) is ill or has had an accident and the incapacity is, or is likely to be, of a temporary nature; or (b) has a physical, psychiatric or intellectual disability, or a learning difficulty such as attention deficit disorder; or (c) is pregnant and the expected date of confinement is within 6 weeks; or (d) has given birth within the previous 6 weeks; or (e) has been in full-time employment for 6 weeks or more within the last 13 weeks; or (f) has been refused enrolment and no other education or training place is available within a reasonable distance; or (g) is required to provide full-time care for a family member who is incapacitated due to illness or accident and the incapacity is, or is likely to be, of a temporary nature; or (h) has suffered a personal crisis such as the death of an immediate family member, a marriage breakup, family dislocation or physical, emotional or sexual abuse; or (i) is homeless and unable to obtain stable accommodation; or (j) has suffered a major disruption of their home such as fire damage, flooding, earthquake damage, vandalism or burglary; or (k) suffers from alcohol or drug abuse sufficient to cause intermittent or temporary absences from full-time study or training; or (l) is engaged in part-time work, education, training or a combination of these for not less than 20 hours per week; or (m) is a refugee whose capacity to undertake full-time education is reduced because: (i) the person has suffered torture, imprisonment or other traumatic circumstances; or (ii) lacks sufficient English skills; or (iii) is recently arrived and lacks stable accommodation; or (n) is the subject of a community service or juvenile justice order which reduces the person's capacity to engage in full-time education; or (o) will become 18 years old within three months; or (p) is in case management approved by the secretary; or (q) is in other circumstances which, in the opinion of the Secretary, make it unreasonable for the person to be in full-time education or training. (2B) A person who is taken to have attained the minimum age for youth allowance on any of the grounds mentioned in subsection (2A) is eligible to receive youth allowance: (a) in respect of grounds mentioned in paragraphs (2B)(c) or (d)—for 6 weeks; (b) in respect of grounds mentioned in paragraphs (2B)(h) or (j)—for 2 weeks; (c) in respect of grounds mentioned in paragraph (2B)(l)—for as long as the work, education or training lasts; or (d) in any other case, for 13 weeks or such longer period as the Secretary approves.18:30:00404Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—The Democrats also support the opposition amendments in relation to commencement. As the minister pointed out, this echoes the draft guidelines in relation to temporary exemptions. Again, this applies to those young people under the age of the youth allowance and not in full-time study or training. We believe they should be incorporated in this way. We are happy to support them. We note the insertion of case management into the temporary exemption category as well.18:30:00404Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—The Greens (WA) will support the ALP amendments of requests 1 and 2 on sheet 864.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Reynolds)—The question now is that the request for amendments 1 and 2 and 4 in the agreed form be agreed to.18:30:00404Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—That may have gone past quickly, but I assumed that it was going to be taken separately. I would prefer it if 1 and 2 could be taken separately from 4.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—I am advised that unless they are taken together they do not make sense. Is that right, Senator Neal?18:31:00404Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEALB36NSWALP00—Having taken the advice from the clerks on this, we really cannot put them separately. I was hoping to be able to put them separately in order to allow your feelings to be expressed, but I am advised in very strong terms that we cannot really have 4 without 1 and 2. They are interrelated in the way they amend the legislation. So that is not really possible.18:31:00405Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I guess the numbers are against me anyway here. I have expressed my opinion.Requests agreed to.18:32:00405Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEALB36NSWALP00—I move:That the House of Representatives be requested to make the following amendment: Schedule 1, item 6, section 543A, at the end of paragraph (2A)(p), add "or where no case management place is available to the person, is suitable for and agrees to undertake case management".Just going back to subsection (p) within the inserted 2A section, you might recall that I deleted that when moving it at the request of the government. The latter part of that particular sentence reads `where no case management place is available to the person, is suitable for and agrees to undertake case management'. The reason the opposition is proposing the latter part of this section is that there may be circumstances where a young person is quite willing and suitable for case management but in the particular area where they reside no case management is available.It seems to us that it would be unfair for a young person who was quite willing to participate in case management to lose their entitlement to the youth allowance because that service is not provided where they are, I suppose usually because they are in isolated areas or rural areas. This is due to the failure of the department to be able to provide a service to young people throughout Australia. So that was the purpose of our amendment. It is a slight variation from the original guidelines proposed by the government.18:34:00405Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—The Democrats support in principle these changes to ensure that the maximum age of youth allowance recipients is 18 for the unemployed. We of course oppose the ALP's move to enshrine what we consider an out of touch student age of independence at 25 years.18:34:00405Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEALB36NSWALP00—That is not necessarily our position and I do not want any assumptions to be made. This just relates to a particular exemption for the requirement that you be in education. It is just an extension of part of our request No. 4. I took out the latter part of (p) because the government was opposing it, but it does not actually relate to the issue you just raised in any way.18:35:00405Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—Could I get clear in my own mind what is being put. I thought that we had dealt with amendments Nos 1, 2 and 4.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Yes, we have, Senator, but there is a further amendment to the request for the amendment No. 4—that is what we are considering now—which relates to adding the words in relation to (p) `is in case management'.18:36:00405Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEALB36NSWALP00—Senator Harradine, I understand your confusion because the way it was required to be put is quite complicated, but it is largely because of the variation of who would support what within the chamber. Essentially, we have dealt with 4, but the second half of subsection (p) was not acceptable to the government. In an attempt to achieve as much as the opposition could, I moved it all with the exception of the second half of (p), which reads `where no case management place is available to the person, is suitable for and agrees to undertake case management'.Just to explain the distinction from what was moved before, what we just adopted was that if a person was in case management they were still entitled to the youth allowance. What I am now attempting to add with this further amendment is to say even when there is no case management available, if the young person is suitable for case management and is prepared to enter it, then they should still be eligible for that youth allowance despite the fact that there is not a place that they can utilise.18:37:00405Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—As I indicated in my earlier remarks, of course the Democrats will support the insertion and inclusion of case management in the list of temporary exemptions.Request agreed to.18:38:00406Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I move:That the House of Representatives be requested to make the following amendment(1) Schedule 1, item 6, page 27 (lines 3 to 17), omit subsections (2) and (3).This amendment removes the restrictions that government had placed on the common youth allowance for youngsters, which meant that unless they had completed a final year of secondary school, or were undertaking full-time study, they did not qualify. That means that quite a lot of 16- and 17-year-olds, who do not have access to educational training at all, let alone relevant other forms for their career choice, would fall between the boards—and we are talking about a lot of people here. With this government construction, we are also looking at a clear pressure being put on such young people to enrol in senior secondary colleges or TAFEs, whether or not they feel that is going to enhance the future for them, and if they do not, by and large, it will not.BE4NEWMANSenator Newman—Or part-time traineeships.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—Or part-time traineeships. It is a very complicated matter but the government is simplifying it. When the government does that and gives advantage to those who are able to access, to their long-term benefit, senior secondary studies, it leaves out those who are not able to access, totheir long-term benefit, senior secondary studies.I know we do not have the numbers on this. I know Labor has, through that past amendment, expanded section 543A(2) to help catch some of those people who would otherwise be left without access to the common youth allowance. It still worries me. The amendment, as put in by Labor, is still going to leave some people outside access to the common youth allowance—some youngsters who will need it and who are going to find themselves in enormously difficult social circumstances without it. As I say, I recognise that we are not going to get the numbers on this, but that is the reason why we have moved this amendment.18:40:00406Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—I do not know whether Senator Brown did not have a good look at this, but there are exemptions for under 18-year-olds who are homeless, who are sick, who have had a job and are temporarily unemployed, who cannot immediately access an educational training place, or who have other exceptional circumstances. I think that is perfectly reasonable and allows for the sort of young people you were talking about. It could well be that if you are in a fairly isolated area and there is no educational training place immediately accessible to you, then you will have an exemption. I would have thought that you would not need to change it.But if you were to succeed in what you are doing, it would effectively remove all requirement for a 16- or 17-year-old to be in full-time study or training. That is the purpose of this section of the youth allowance package: to see that those young people acquire skills; it is not necessarily to stay in school. Although if the vocational education packages which are being introduced into school are as good as I expect them to be, that will be a much more appropriate place for many young people than it currently is.I interjected on you and said part-time training places will be an option for some of the young people that you are talking about that would be doing some jobsearch and a part-time training place. They could well fit into this category. I think your amendment will open the door too wide. I believe that our exemptions in this area for the under 18-year-olds will help those young people you are worried about.18:42:00406Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—Open the door too wide to whom?BE4NEWMANSenator Newman—To those outside study and training.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—Yes, to people outside study who are in difficulties, and that is the problem. We have different definitions, Minister, of what is a young person in difficulty, what is a young person who needs the common youth allowance, what is a young person who needs assistance.By the way, I notice that there were some 60,000 people unable to get TAFE placements last year. And this is another problem I foresee: the squeeze between government cuts which mean a lack of availability of education to people who are wanting it, and on the other hand, here we have a government disincentive to refrain from applying for a TAFE place, simply because you are going to get the Commonwealth youth allowance. People have been caught in this squeeze between a government which says,`Get some education if you want some allowance, but we will not provide the places in education because we are simply not providing it through budgetary measures.'That is where the young people get caught. That is where young people find themselves the least able to access advice. The least skilled, because they have not been lucky enough to have the support at home or elsewhere in their earlier years, are going to get caught out, and when they get caught out they are not going to have support. That is my problem with this legislation that we are dealing with and that is why I would prefer it that we had access to the common youth allowance for those most in need. But you have codified it and you are codifying it in a different way to that which the Australian Greens would codify it. That is the difficulty. I do not want to extend this debate because we are going to lose, but I just wanted to make that point. That is why I put the proposal that we oppose this particular item.18:44:00407Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—I certainly take on board the concerns raised by Senator Brown, but I am looking for clarification. Minister, in light of the Greens (WA) amendment, which allows for youth allowance activity agreements to be entered into for people under 18, and the amendment we have just passed in relation to which exemptions can be extended, which was moved by Senator Neal, I wondered where this amendment fits in. To be safe, obviously I would prefer to double up if that were the case, but I am just worried that this may be somewhat redundant, given the amendments that we have just dealt with.I certainly take on board the concerns expressed by Senator Brown. I would be the first to argue that this legislation, this government policy and this government have failed to take into account and examine the impact that the introduction of this common youth allowance will have on our education and training institutions. I mentioned during the second reading debate that I was very concerned that a Senate standing committee was not able to proceed with an inquiry into what the impact, negative or otherwise, that this kind of so-called incentive to participate—more like a financial imperative to participate—in education and training would have on those sectors, given that many of them are already struggling to provide places, be it at a secondary or higher education or vocational education level. Certainly 60,000 people missing out on places and unmet demand in a range of other education institutions means that some young people will be missing out.So what happens to those young people? What if they are unemployed because they cannot obtain an education or training position? Returning to the Australian Greens amendment, I seek clarification as to whether or not we perhaps have covered this with the previous amendments.18:47:00407Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—It is also getting a little confusing for me, Senator, so I share your concern. The advice I have is that this is not covering the same ground and that it would further open up the arrangements. I think in this context it is important that I put on the record the fact that on 28 January the government announced a $42.6 million package of measures to provide extra assistance over the next three years to meet the special needs of those who are remaining in full-time education or training. It is estimated that 27,000 will remain in school by the year 2000, which includes the 12,000 students returning on 1 January next year.Broken up, the full service schools for the students at risk initiative amounts to $22.6 million over that time. It provides funding for the schools to develop innovative programs and services to address the specific needs of young people returning to school, current students at risk of not completing year 12 and people making the successful transition from school to work. Funds will be available to schools for a variety of activities, which I will not go into now.There will be an additional $13.5 million for the jobs pathway program over the three years to help school leavers make that successful transition from school to work by assisting them to find jobs and by providing them with mentoring support for up to 12 months. People are not taking any note of that, but I think it is a very important measure. The new apprenticeship access program is another $6.2 million, which provides pre-apprenticeship and pre-traineeship training to an extra 1,900 young people who are disadvantaged in the labour market and need preliminary training before they can successfully participate in an apprenticeship or traineeship. Also, $300,000 has been allocated for an evaluation of those measures.So you can see we are trying to address the concerns that some senators have raised in this last debate for a relative handful of young people, but an important handful that we want to see are not disadvantaged by the proposals. After all, the majority of young people will be substantially benefited by the requirement and the encouragement that it gives to them and their families to stay in some form of skills acquisition. It is not necessarily school, but it may be school. It has to be some form of skills acquisition if these young people are not going to be long-term disadvantaged, not merely short-term disadvantaged.Request not agreed to.Progress reported.Adjournment40810000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! It being 6.50 p.m. and there being no discussion on government documents, I propose the question:That the Senate do now adjourn. 40818:51:00408Watson, Sen JohnSenator WATSONVJ4TASLP10—Tonight I want to talk about the proposed quarantine changes in Tasmania. The Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service, AQIS, and the Tasmanian state quarantine program are delivered as an integrated service by the quarantine officers employed by the Tasmanian Department of Primary Industry and Fisheries. This integrated program is efficient, highly effective and avoids having two separate quarantine systems in Tasmania. The state is reimbursed by the Commonwealth for the costs associated with their delivery of the program. The combined quarantine program of both imports and exports includes plant and animal products and produce, both to and from interstate and overseas.Barrier checks are located at Currie sea and air ports on King Island, Whitemark sea and air ports on Flinders Island, Smithton airport, Wynyard airport, Devonport airport, Launceston airport and Hobart airport. Quarantine centres are located at Burnie, Devonport, Launceston and Hobart, with a post entry quarantine station located at Kingston, south of Hobart.The Tasmanian quarantine program provides a high level of quarantine security at all these major points of entry into the state. A team of highly trained, multiskilled, efficient quarantine staff and quarantine detector dogs control the entry points. The current arrangement supports and helps to extend Tasmania's clean, fresh and pure image as well as maintain the state's disease-free status.To maintain Tasmania's disease-free status, the quarantine systems and procedures are subject to both national and international audits. During the past two years, the state's quarantine systems have been audited by AQIS and by Japanese, Chinese and Korean quarantine officials. Additionally, over the past two years, a number of quality assurance programs for interstate imports have been implemented. It takes a considerable time to get a quality assurance system up and running but, in the long term, it is a means of freeing up resources without lowering the level of quarantine security.The state quarantine legislation is controlled by the state Plant Quarantine Act of 1997. A total of 20 pest and disease surveys are conducted to show that certain pests and diseases just do not occur in Tasmania or, if they do, to indicate at what level they do occur. This is a requirement under the World Trade Organisation—WTO—guidelines. Surveys are undertaken for the existence of fruit fly, codling moth, potato cyst nematode, tobacco blue mould, bacterial wilt and fire blight, among other pests and diseases.Tasmania has national and international recognition for area freedom status. Currently, there are 12 countries to which Tasmania exports fresh produce under this status. They include the important markets of Japan, Taiwan, China, Philippines and Indonesia. The benefits to Tasmanian producers as a result of area freedom status are currently in excess of $40 million per annum. Products exported under this arrangement include apples, pears, tomatoes, stone fruit, berry fruit, squash, peas and cut flowers.The area freedom status from fruit fly is also a good example. Once the fruit fly free area freedom status is gained, however, an ongoing program in addition to the barrier control systems is necessary to maintain it, and Tasmania instigated a fruit fly trapping program in order to ensure this status can be maintained.One of the more recent and successful activities has been the introduction of the quarantine detector dog program for domestic and international arrival of both air and sea passengers. The two teams, located in Hobart and Burnie, have been very well received by the public, and their level of detection has proven to be very good, with approximately 2.5 tonnes of prohibited products detected at the barrier last year. A third detector dog team is scheduled to be introduced during this financial year and will be based at the Launceston airport. The quaint sniffer dogs, which attract so much favourable attention at airports and the Spirit of Tasmania ferry terminal, really are very efficient resources in the fight to enforce quarantine rules.The level of quarantine activity undertaken at the barrier during 1996-97 included: 1,444 vessels inspected; 8,501 flights inspected; 86.105 tonnes of barrier seizures; 31.795 tonnes of barrier treatments; 118 insect or disease detections; 95,092 containers inspected; 2,234 containers treated; 57,869 postal articles inspected; and 6,262 quarantine entries lodged. And so the list goes on.I have some concerns that there is currently a move to split the service in two on the misunderstanding that AQIS can carry out the service more cheaply than the combined service currently in operation. Tasmania has a lot and too much to lose. That is the point. A move away from the existing arrangement would have serious ramifications for the Tasmanian quarantine system.Under the present arrangement, each system, that of AQIS and that of the Tasmanian Department of Primary Industry and Fisheries, support each other. To run a stand-alone service would be very expensive, and the level of quarantine security would fall. Tasmanian exporters are understandably extremely concerned and very keen that the quarantine system be kept in Tasmanian hands. Exporters believe that any diversion from the present arrangement could have a negative impact on the state's current and continued development of its disease-free status.Owing to the state's decentralised shipping system and the decreased volume of throughput traffic in comparison to the mainland states, it would be very difficult for the state of Tasmania to maintain a quarantine and export system of international standard without Commonwealth support. To operate two separate systems in a state the size of Tasmania would be a duplication of activities and result in false economy.I believe that revised Commonwealth cost estimates may be erroneously based on the high throughputs of mainland states. Any reduction in control and surveillance could result in the highest cost of all: the introduction of new pests and diseases into Tasmania. The risk to Tasmania is too great. The current integrated program must be maintained to ensure the highest level of quarantine security for Australia's best natural asset—the state of Tasmania. 41018:58:00410Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—Four weeks ago, the federal health minister again granted the Australian Formula One Grand Prix an exemption from the federal government's ban on tobacco advertising. There was no announcement, no fanfare and—I suggest—there was no concern for the health of young people in this country. Let me refer tonight to some statistics on tobacco advertising.The Medical Journal of Australia published the results of its national survey which showed that 27 per cent of men and 23 per cent of women smoked in 1995. That is hardly any change since 1992. These figures compare with places like California where smoking rates have fallen from 25 per cent in 1988 to just 16 per cent in 1992. That was as a result of large-scale advertising campaigns. I think it is fair to say that we have the Labor government to thank for our failure to reduce smoking levels. Spending on educational campaigns dropped from 70 cents per head of population in 1989-1990 to just 25 cents per person in 1995-1996.Just a few days ago, Professor Simon Chapman pointed out that when the program of legislative action taps began to turn off, the 20-year fall in smoking also levelled off. He said that one year from today about 18,700 Australians who smoke will be dead because of their smoking. That is about 25 per cent more deaths in one year than from breast cancer, melanoma, diabetes, suicide, road deaths, leukemia, cirrhosis of the liver, falls, AIDS, murder, narcotics, drowning and maternal deaths during childbirth combined.The federal government launched its $7 million campaign, the national Quit campaign, in July last year in recognition that cigarette smoking is still the most important preventable cause of premature death in Australia. It said that it should have a very high priority. In his letter to me, the Minister for Health and Family Services said:We have long known about the risks associated with tobacco use but recent scientific research has now provided unequivocal proof that every cigarette smoked contributes to health damage and that damage can start very early in a smoker's career. The minister went on:Through previous efforts at state and federal levels, smoking rates among adults have been reduced to around 25%—Not really much to crow about when you compare it with other places—and the encouraging news is that four out of every five smokers have already tried to do so.That is, give up smoking. Each sheet accompanying the letter has the slogan `Every cigarette is doing you damage'—as indeed it does. I have concerns that there is evidence that state governments—and this is certainly the case in New South Wales and Victoria—have already backed off on their spending on anti-smoking campaigns. However, today I want to raise the matter of the federal government's continued insistence that it must grant exemptions from the ban on tobacco advertising for the formula one Grand Prix, the motor cycling grand prix and the local Australian women's golf tournament.Professor Chapman points out that even though $7 million is going into a Quit campaign, it cannot possibly combat the effects of tobacco advertising in this country. Even though the minister ordered last week that no women in swimsuits be allowed to promote tobacco at the Grand Prix and said that advertising would be reduced from 17 to 14 days, Professor Chapman says that such gestures towards harm reduction are:. . . the equivalent of removing splinters from the Titanic's handrails: what has been given the green light is an international orgy of tobacco advertising.He points to the recent advertisements in a tobacco industry trade journal which boasted:This Formula 1 car is the most powerful advertising space in the world. It will carry your brand to 18 billion TV viewers in 102 countries.This advertising is, of course, not just confined to television, and I want to talk today about where else this kind of advertising goes. I have a number of documents, the first of which is a copy of a promotional sheet put out by the Australian Grand Prix Corporation some months ago offering corporate packages. Prominent on the front page is a photograph of a formula one car with the unmistakable and clear Marlboro sign in a central position on the page. Overleaf is a portrait of a driver with his hands resting on a helmet where the Rothmans lettering is large and again prominent. In another photograph on the same page there is a car, again with the Rothmans lettering very clear.On 22 November last year, the Age newspaper featured photographs of cars at the Grand Prix, and again the Rothmans and Marlboro cars enjoy a very central and prominent place where the lettering is remarkably clear. On 29 December, the Age in its Monday motor sports section featured a large photograph of Jacques Villeneuve and his helmet, again with Rothmans lettering, this time measuring some 12 centimetres in width on the page. I picked up a copy of the F1 racing magazine which has no less than 52 separate photographs—that is one in every three pages—featuring advertising for tobacco companies, all made possible through advertising at grand prix. Qantas, one of the sponsors of the Grand Prix, featured a three-page article in its Qantas Club magazine in February and, predictably, Marlboro and Rothmans lettering is very prominent in both photographs used in that article.I would very much like to know how much Marlboro and Rothmans paid for this kind of advertising. It is very hard to believe that it is a coincidence that the cars used featured tobacco advertising rather than featuring other sponsors such as CSR, Mobil or Canon, to name just a few. I have chosen a very small sample of the way in which tobacco companies are not just advertising on the track—as if that was not bad enough. But advertising is now reaching a very wide audience and exploiting to the hilt that very small window of opportunity which the federal government has given it.The Grand Prix is a very attractive event to young people—it is glamorous, it is about risk taking. The patrons at the Grand Prix are predominantly male and they are predominantly young. Tobacco advertising at one of our most prominent sporting events is happening because this government, like others before it, has buckled under pressure from tobacco companies. I have to say that we can only presume this is because they are contri butors to both the Liberal and the ALP coffers.As I understand it, the minister is required to assure him- or herself that failure to exempt the Grand Prix would lose the race for Australia. There are plenty of Melburnians who would not be too worried about that prospect, and there are many more who, like me, believe it has absolutely no place in a park. However, I think there is increasing evidence to show that Australia would not lose the race. I think we need to ask some very hard questions about why it is that even higher profile events are not targeted by tobacco companies for sponsorship. International cricket, rugby league and the Australian Open tennis are all pretty obvious examples. Belgium recently indicated that it will not allow tobacco advertising. In the UK, alternative sponsors are being found for their formula one teams.I look forward to the minister's response to questions that I have put on notice which actually go to that question. I look forward to understanding why the government is so willing to put at risk young lives and to take one step forward and two steps back, as it were, in the fight against tobacco use in this country. I look forward to the government again justifying its sell-out of the future health of our young people.411NaN:00:00411Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—I rise to say a few words about one of Australia's leading young, brilliant poets, John Forbes. John Forbes passed away in January. In a short period of only 47 years, John stamped himself as one of Australia's great poets. An obituary in the Sunday Age of 1 February said:The death at 47 of John Forbes has taken from the Australian literary world one of its most brilliant, accomplished and well-regarded poets. John came to prominence at an early age as part of the generation of `68, those writers who opened up Australian poetry to international currents of post-modern poetics, and from then on had a central position despite his relatively small output.It is a poetry of wit and intellectual rigor in which a Pop Art sensibility strikes sparks off philosophical themes and where an overarching concern with form and ideas never collapses in on itself but breathes with everydayness, with politics and humour, colloquial language and colloquial subject matter.It was my great privilege to have attended school with John Forbes at Cronulla De La Salle College in the late 1960s, and also to have studied English literature with him at the University of Sydney. John was a year ahead of me at school. I, and many of my friends and colleagues, both at school and subsequently at university, owe a great debt of gratitude to him.I recall that, when I was at school, John was already stamping himself as a person of incredible intellect, a person who could argue about the issues of the Vietnam War—which was a matter of great concern to young people of my generation—and at the same time quote Latin poets and philosophers. He had an incredible intellectual range and capacity. He was a passionate student of English, history—including military history—the classics and the fine arts.One of his former schoolteachers, Brother Quentin, in an obituary in the Sydney Morning Herald, also remembered John as a brilliant and passionate student in English and history, who was sensitive, creative and articulate, with a great love of literature. Brother Quentin said:He was very forthright, and challenged me on the churches stand on the Vietnam War when other boys would talk to you about the football or the races.John's reputation as one of Australia's leading poets has been referred to in many of the articles written since his sudden and untimely death on 23 January. People such as David Malouf, John Tranter, Carl Harrison Ford and Don Anderson from the University of Sydney, and other notable people in Australian literary circles have praised John for his brilliance as a poet, his innovativeness and his warmth. He was a great human being. He was a person who lived life to the full but who, unfortunately, was taken much earlier than we would have wished, when he certainly had years of promise and writing before him.John wrote to me when I was appointed to this parliament in May 1994. I had not seen him for 15 years as he had moved to Mel bourne and our paths had not crossed. In his letter he said:Dear Mick,Though our paths haven't crossed for 15 years or so, I thought I'd send you the enclosed by way of congratulations on your elevation to the Senate. I hope you enjoy it.He had sent me a copy of his latest publication of poems, New and Selected Poems by John Forbes , which was in the Angus & Robertson series, Modern Poets. He went on in the letter to say:Some of these poems are directly political—"The Numbers" (self-explanatory), "Watching the Treasurer" (a portrait of the PM, circa 1987) and "Afternoon Papers" (my idea of how a right wing social democrat sees things on a good day—I was thinking of Wran when I wrote it). But I hope you enjoy the rest of them as well.Yours,John ForbesOn the inside of the collection that he sent to me he inscribed the words:Mick, didn't our school produce left-wingers? Cheers, John Forbes.I read the poems and then I wrote back to him, telling him that I had spent many years after my honours degree in English literature at Sydney University—which I did along with John, although I was a year behind him—in the union movement and reading law reports, and I had not had much time for literature. I hoped that I would get some respite in the Senate and be able to return to what was a great love of my life, just as it was John's. Sadly, I have not done as much reading as I had hoped and the opportunity did not arise to meet up with John again. I am saddened by not having had the opportunity to meet him before his untimely passing.I take this opportunity to put on the record not only my good fortune in having been a friend of John's, but also to recognise the contribution of somebody whose work will live on in Australian literature; someone who made a difference. I would like to quote some words from his poem Watching the Treasurer. I will not quote the whole poem, because I do not think Paul Keating, whom I also count as a friend, would necesarily appreciate it. When describing watching Paul Keating, who was then Treasurer, on television, John wrote `Paul Keating's bottom lip trembles then recovers, like the exchange rate under pressure'. John had a remarkable vision; he could see things that many of us perhaps do not often see.To his parents, Leonard and Phyllis, to his brothers Michael, Chris and Greg, I say that it was a sad time when I heard about the passing of John. I extend to them my sympathies. As I said earlier, Australia and Australian literature is all the greater for having had John Forbes as one of our poets. He left his mark on our society.41319:16:00413Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALDYW4QLDLP10—Honourable senators will have heard about the measures that have been introduced by Senator Hill and the Commonwealth and Queensland governments to protect the endangered animal sea cow, the dugong. Senators will know that Senator Hill has done a lot of work in putting together a plan to protect this species. Most senators will probably be aware that the threats to the dugong in the southern Great Barrier Reef region have been identified as incidental capture in commercial fishing nets, boat strikes, bather safety shark nets, coastal impact and indigenous hunting.Madam Deputy President, you may be aware that for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people dugong are not only harvested as a food source but are an important species for cultural ceremonies and events. The species is an integral part of their culture. It was for this reason that I was very pleased, on Thursday, 19 February, to be able to launch the Kuku Yalanji conservation and management plan for the green sea turtle and the dugong. The Kuku Yalanji community are traditional inhabitants of the Mossman and Daintree area of Far North Queensland. The launch of the management plan took place at their community centre located at the Mossman Gorge.The launch of the plan was a quite historic step in the development of community based initiatives for the protection of endangered species within the Great Barrier Reef region. The initiative contributes to the global protection of these species for future generations. The results of surveys commissioned by the Commonwealth government through the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority since the middle of 1996 show that a significant decline of between 50 and 80 per cent has occurred in dugong numbers in that southern Great Barrier Reef region. These animals are now considered critically endangered within that area.It is recognised by the Commonwealth and the Queensland governments that the dugong and turtle are under threat, particularly dugong. As I mentioned, through the vehicle of the Great Barrier Reef Ministerial Council, a number of measures have been implemented to protect the remaining dugong numbers from threat. One of the most difficult of these has been the setting up of particular dugong protection zones where commercial net fishing is not possible. It was interesting that the Aboriginal communities of North Queensland had got together to do their own management plan and, by their own laws and their own efforts, to ensure that no dugong were taken in the sea areas in which the Kuku Yalanji people have traditional ownership.The Kuku Yalanji people were encouraged by the two governments, through the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, to set up their plan. They have developed this community based conservation plan and have demonstrated that the will of a few people can become the actions of the whole community. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority and the Queensland Department of Environment helped those people to develop their management plan for dugong and turtle. It has really been a great example of how indigenous people can empower themselves and their community.Their plan arose from the Aboriginal marine ranger training program which was established in response to a need identified by indigenous communities for training of indigenous and non-indigenous marine and coastal management techniques. The program was established by staff of the Queensland Department of Environment. The establishment of this training plan was closely linked to a project funded by GRBMPA. It was a community based Low Isles preservation society which was participating in the management of Low Isles, a site of a recently decommissioned lighthouse.Funds were provided to employ two rangers, which was an ideal opportunity to involve traditional custodians in marine park management. However, the traditional custodians felt they lacked the necessary skills and experience to work as rangers. Therefore, this ranger training program was developed. It was first done in the Port Douglas and Mossman area. It was really out of this training program that this conservation and management plan arose.The launch which I attended was a very happy and successful affair. We were treated to some traditional dance performances by members of the Kuku Yalanji community and the dances were very colourful. They told the story of the traditional hunting of the crocodile and the turtle.Following that, we had a quite spectacular lunch prepared by the Kuku Yalanji people. It was only after I had finished eating and inquired what the type of stew was that I had partaken of that I found that it included some green sea turtle meat. Whilst the management plan and the Kuku Yalanji people themselves have imposed a moratorium on dugong hunting, with the green sea turtle, which is not quite as endangered, they have put in place a very strict permit system whereby community people can, once each year, get a permit to take a green sea turtle.The ceremony, as I say, was quite a colourful one. After that, I was taken by some of the Kuku Yalanji people into the rainforest where they were able to explain the importance of that area and of the various plants and flora to their community.Following lunch, we were taken by the community on a tour of some of the offshore areas where the management plan will be implemented. The plan, from its development to its operation, has led to an increase in employment and training opportunities and, as I mentioned, Kuku Yalanji people are now being employed by the Queensland Department of Environment as community rangers.Other outcomes from this process have been the identification of additional projects such as seagrass monitoring and the development of cultural heritage management programs with the Queensland Department of Environment.The government is very keen to use this project as an example in a pilot to show what other indigenous communities can do along the Queensland coast. We are very confident that, with the assistance of ATSIC, all of the Aboriginal communities along the southern Great Barrier Reef will put in place these management plans so that the dugong will be saved from being taken by indigenous people doing their traditional hunting. That is good news for the dugong, of course, and very good news for the Queensland and Commonwealth governments in their campaign to protect this species.The Kuku Yalanji people put a lot of effort into their plan. They are to be congratulated on this very significant event, on the work they have done on it and on the way they have honoured it and put it together. It is really a great credit to that community that they have put this plan together. On behalf of the government, I thank them very much for what they have done and for the tremendous work they are doing in the conservation of this very rare species.19:26:00414Senate adjourned at 7.26 p.m.Documents414414The following government documents were tabled:Fisheries Management Act—Northern Territory Fisheries Joint Authority— Report for 1995-96. Report for the period 1 January to 30 June 1995.414The following documents were tabled by the Clerk:Acts Interpretation Act—Statement pursuant to subsection 34C(7) relating to the delay in presentation of a report—Northern Territory Fisheries Joint Authority— Report for the period 1 January 1995 to 30 June 1995. Report for 1995-96.National Health Act—Determination under Schedule 1—HIG/1/1998.Public Service Act— Foreign Affairs and Trade Determination— 1997/6, 1997/8 and 1997/9. 1998/1. Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 23.Answers to Questions on Notice416The following answers to questions were circulated:416(Question No. 816)816416Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator Faulkner5K4NSWALP00 asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 3 September 1997:(1) What contracts for public relations services has the department, or its agencies, signed since3 March 1996.(2) What was the value of each contract.(3) Did the value of any contract vary from the original cost; if so, what was the reason for the price variation.(4) How many of the contracts in (1) were awarded following an open tender process.(5) Where there was no tender process, what assessment criteria were followed in selecting the contractor and why was the normal practice of calling tenders not followed.(6) Did the department seek guidance from the Office of Government Information and Advertising before signing the above contracts; if not, why not.(7) How many journalists were employed by the department as at 3 March 1996.(8) How many journalists are currently employed by the department.416Kemp, Sen RodSenator KempWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:The information sought is provided for each agency in the portfolio.Treasury DepartmentNo contracts have been signed by the Department of the Treasury for public relations services since 3 March 1996, nor has the Department employed any journalists at, or since, that date.Industry CommissionNo contracts have been signed by the Industry Commission for public relations services since 3 March 1996, nor has the Commission employed any journalists at, or since, that date.Insurance and Superannuation CommissionNo contracts have been signed by the Insurance and Superannuation Commission for public relations services since 3 March 1996, nor has the Commission employed any journalists at, or since, that date.Royal Australian MintNo contracts have been signed by the Royal Australian Mint for public relations services since 3 March 1996, nor has the Mint employed any journalists at, or since, that date.National Competition CouncilNo contracts have been signed by the National Competition Council for public relations services since 3 March 1996, nor has the Council employed any journalists at, or since, that date.Australian Securities CommissionSince 3 March 1996 the Australian Securities Commission has signed one contract for public relations services. The contract is with Hill & Knowlton Australia Pty Ltd at a cost of $250 per hour, with the cost-to-date being $6,000. The work performed under the contract has not varied from the original cost. A limited tender process was undertaken and potential contractors were approached within DoFA procurement guidelines. Based on internal knowledge of the industry and the market three potential contractors were invited to provide quotes for the service required. As there was a tight timeframe, OGIA was not consulted. At 3 March 1996 two journalists were employed by the ASC, one as a Media Adviser and one as a Public Affairs Officer. The ASC currently employs one journalist as a Media Adviser.Australian Competition & Consumer CommissionNo contracts for public relations services have been signed since 3 March 1996. At 3 March 1996 one journalist was employed by the ACCC as a Public Affairs Officers. The ACCC currently employs one journalist as a Public Affairs Officers.Australian Bureau of StatisticsSince 3 March 1996 the ABS has signed two contracts for public relations services. One contract was with SG Communications with a value of $34,000; and the other was with Professional Public Relations with a value of $28,900. The value of the latter contract was less than the original cost as the ABS did not use all of the options covered by the contract. A limited tender process was undertaken in both cases and potential contractors were approached within DOFA procurement guidelines. The low costs involved and the purpose of the services did not require OGIA involvement. At 3 March 1996 three journalists were employed by ABS as Public Affairs Officers. The ABS currently employs three journalists as Public Affairs Officers.Reserve Bank of AustraliaSince 3 March 1996 the Reserve Bank has signed one contract for public relations services. The contract was with Javelin Public Relations Ltd with a value of $1,800. The final value of the contract was higher than the original cost as additional services were requested under the contract. A limited tender process was undertaken. Based on internal knowledge of the industry and the market only two potential contractors were invited to provide quotes for the service required. OGIA was not consulted, as the value of the contract was very low and there was a tight timeframe. The Bank did not have any journalists employed at 3 March 1996, nor are any journalists currently employed by the Bank.Australian Taxation OfficeSince 3 March 1996 the ATO has signed two contracts for public relations services. One contract was with Cosway Creative Communication with a value of $60,000; and the other was with Burson-Marstellar with a final value of $93,753. The value of the latter contract was less than the original cost as the ATO did not use all of the services covered by the contract. The Cosway contract was awarded following an open tender process. Because of short timeframes a limited tender process was undertaken for the Burson-Marstellar. OGIA provided guidance for both processes. The ATO did not have any journalists employed at 3 March 1996, nor are any journalists currently employed by the ATO.417(Question No. 836)836417Evans, Sen ChrisSenator Chris EvansAX5WAALP00 asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 4 September 1997:(1) Has the department negotiated or indicated a willingness to negotiate salary packaging for its employees.(2) Has the department informed any staff of its intention to offer salary packaging schemes to its employees.(3) Can a copy be provided of the communication in (2), as well as information regarding: (a) when it took place; and (b) what developments have occurred regarding implementation of salary packaging.(4) Can details be provided of any salary packaging arrangements which have been made available to employees of the department. (5) Can details be provided of the number of salary packaging arrangements which have been entered into by employees.(6) (a) Are salary packaging arrangements being offered to all employees or only selected employees; (b) if selected employees, what class of employee is being offered salary packaging; and (c) what are the salary ranges applicable to these employees.(7) What percentage of an employee's total salary is allowed to be taken as non-salary benefits.(8) Please list the options or items that are allowed to be salary packaged under any department arrangement.(9) Do any of the arrangements offered benefit from an employer exemption from fringe benefits tax.417Kemp, Sen RodSenator KempWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) The department has indicated a willingness to negotiate salary packaging for its employees.(2) Yes.(3) At a departmental seminar on 20 June 1997, the Secretary to the Treasury said:". . . .. salary packaging will be generally available, within the parameters determined by the Government and within a policy to be developed by management that will not allow packaging with tax aggressive elements".On 6 November 1997, the Secretary to the Treasury distributed to Treasury staff a draft Certified Agreement and explanatory information. The following paragraph is the section of the Treasury draft Certified Agreement that deals with proposed salary repackaging arrangements:3.4 Flexible Remuneration PackagingAll Treasury employees will have access to flexible remuneration packaging, in accordance with policies approved by the Secretary, and as varied from time to time, provided that any additional costs incurred by the Treasury are met by the employee.The following paragraph is the section of the explanatory notes to the Treasury draft Certified Agreement that deals with proposed salary repackaging arrangements:Flexible remuneration packagingTreasury employees will be able to sacrifice part of their salary in return for non-cash benefits. It is currently envisaged that the `menu' of options will include fees and subscriptions to professional associations, payment of home office expenses, payment of self-education expenses, financial counselling fees, contributions to a private superan nuation fund, motor vehicles (under a novated lease), computer software used in an officer's employment, notebook and laptop computers, some other work-related items and payment of health and disability income protection insurance premiums. Other benefits that are fully subject to Fringe Benefits Tax will not be available.A consultant will be engaged to help develop a Departmental policy on remuneration packaging and possibly to administer the arrangements. In line with Government policy on this issue, employees who choose to sacrifice salary will bear the cost of its administration (currently, approximately $300 per person annually)In early December 1997, a summary document `Main Points of Policy on Remuneration Packaging' was distributed to Treasury staff as part of the negotiation process over the draft Certified Agreement—a copy of that document is attached.On 11 February 1998, the Secretary to the Treasury formally proposed a Certified Agreement to Treasury staff. The following paragraph is the section of the Treasury Certified Agreement that deals with proposed salary repackaging arrangements:3.4 Flexible Remuneration PackagingAll Treasury employees will have access to flexible remuneration packaging, in accordance with Government policies, provided that any additional costs incurred by the Treasury are met by the employee. Guidelines for remuneration packaging will be prepared and finalised as soon as possible during the life of this Agreement.The following is the section of the explanatory notes on the Treasury Certified Agreement that deals with proposed salary repackaging arrangements:Flexible remuneration packagingTreasury employees will be able to sacrifice part of their salary in return for non-cash benefits. It is currently envisaged that the `menu' of options will include fees and subscriptions to professional associations, payment of home office expenses, payment of self-education expenses, financial counselling fees, contributions to a private superannuation fund, motor vehicles (under a novated lease), computer software used in an officer's employment, notebook and laptop computers, some other work-related items and payment of health and disability income protection insurance premiums. Other benefits that are fully subject to Fringe Benefits Tax will not be available.A consultant has been engaged to help develop a Departmental policy on remuneration packaging as soon as possible after certification of the Agreement. A consultant will also administer the arrangements. In line with Government policy on this issue, employees who choose to sacrifice salary will bear the cost of its administration (currently, approximately $300 per person annually).Implementation of salary packaging is at an early stage. As noted above, a consultant has been engaged to help develop a Departmental policy on remuneration packaging, but there have been no other developments.(4) No salary packaging arrangements have been made available to employees of the department at this stage, other than those already made available to staff under, for example, the Executive Vehicle Scheme.(5) N/A.(6) (a) As noted above, the Secretary to the Treasury has indicated that salary packaging arrangements will be generally available.(b) N/A.(c) N/A.(7) Access to salary packaging by Treasury employees is to be limited to a range of packaging options rather than by imposing a limit on the percentage of an employee's total salary that can be taken as non-salary benefits.(8) Please see the attached document `Main Points of Policy on Remuneration Packaging'.(9) No. In general, Australian Public Service employers are required to pay fringe benefits tax on benefits provided to employees due to the operation of the Fringe Benefits Tax (Application to the Commonwealth) Act 1986.MAIN POINTS OF POLICY ON REMUNERATION PACKAGING. Remuneration packaging is to be available to all Treasury staff.. Treasury will engage a consultant to administer remuneration packaging for Treasury employees.. Remuneration packaging must occur at no direct cost to the employer—this is a government requirement for APS agencies. - All administrative fees must therefore be borne by the employee—the consultant currently charges $275 per year per employee. - If Treasury is liable to pay increased fringe benefits tax or other taxes as a result of these arrangements, those costs will also be passed onto the employee.. Salary available for packaging will be defined as the employee's base salary specified in the relevant Certified Agreement or Australian Workplace Agreement. It does not include variable or occasional payments, such as allowances. - If a bonus is paid, the employee will be able to elect to take all of the bonus in the form of one or more package items or all in cash. - Salary for superannuation purposes will continue to be that prescribed in the relevant Certified Agreement or Australian Workplace Agreement.. Remuneration packaging will only be available to employees who have produced evidence that they have received independent financial advice. - If this condition is not imposed, the consultant's administration fee would be considerably higher. - The consultant will train and accredit a panel of consultants who can provide such advice.. Other than in exceptional circumstances, an employee's remuneration package can only be reviewed once every twelve months.. Remuneration packaging arrangements will not necessarily be portable to any other employer.. The following items will be available to employees for inclusion in their remuneration package: - FBT not payable (if substantiated via otherwise deductible rule): : membership fees and subscriptions to professional associations; : work-related home office expenses; : financial counselling fees and remuneration packaging administration charge; : disability/income protection insurance premiums; : self education expenses (work related, excludes HECS payments); : work related travel expenses not met by Treasury;- concessionally taxed or not subject to FBT/not classified as a fringe benefit: : motor vehicle for private use, by way of a novated lease—the vehicle must be new or up to three years old, have a purchase price/lease value not exceeding $55,000 and be manufactured or assembled in Australia; operating costs of a vehicle under a novated lease can also be packaged; under Department of Workplace Relations and Small Business guidelines, this item will not be available to SES officers who have received cash in lieu of a Commonwealth vehicle; : mobile phones for predominantly business use; : personal computers (notebook and laptop only, limit of one per year); : computer software used in the employee's employment; : contributions to a private superannuation fund;- subject to FBT: : health insurance premiums.419(Question No. 894)894419Bourne, Sen VickiSenator BourneTW4NSWAD00 asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 30 September 1997:(1) Can the Minister explain why: (a) foreign economic aid spending is down $335.9 million from 1995-96 to 1996-97; and (b) there is a $129.5 million difference between the amount spent to 30 June 1997 and the budget estimate.(2) What are the `underspends' in the Foreign Affairs and Trade portfolio referred to in the Final Budget Outcome.(3) Is the Government going to increase its actual commitment to funding foreign economic aid in the 1998-99 budget estimates.(4) Does the Government acknowledge Australia is being criticised because of the lowering of Australia's commitment in providing foreign economic aid.(5) Does the Government believe Australia's bilateral or multilateral relations will be negatively affected as a result of Australia's lowered spending in foreign overseas aid.419Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4SALPEnvironment10—The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) The Foreign Economic Aid function as reported in Final Budget Outcome 1996-97 is a classification used by the Department of Finance and Administration and based on the International Monetary Fund's A Manual on Government Finance Statistics and the United Nations' System of National Accounts. This function includes Official Development Assistance (ODA) as well as other international outlays including contributions to the activities of international organisations and United Nations peacekeeping operations.(a) ODA declined by $160 million from 1995-96 to 1996-97, largely due to the termination of the Development Import Finance Facility (DIFF) ($114.9 million) and reductions in contributions to some international organisations and program assistance. The reduction in Australia's overseas aid program in 1996-97 reflected Australia's reduced capacity to provide assistance due to the need to address the budget deficit. In addition, non-ODA outlays declined by $175.9 million which included underspending in planned contributions to UN peacekeeping operations and declining general non-aid administration costs, largely due to $96.2 million of miscellaneous receipts to the Overseas Property Group (DAS). A one-off, non-ODA, loan payment was also provided to Papua New Guinea in 1995-96.(b) ODA outlays in 1996-97 were $2.947 million lower than the 1996-97 budget estimate including $2.1 million under expenditure in running costs. Non-ODA outlays were $126.55 million lower than the 1996-97 budget estimate largely due to underspending in planned contributions to UN peacekeeping operations and declines in general non-aid administration.(2) `Underspends' in the Foreign Affairs and Trade Portfolio for 1996-97 included running costs ($21.5 million), Capital Works and Services ($2.4 million), PNG Australian Staffing Assistance Group ($0.6 million), DIFF ($0.27 million), Australia-Japan Foundation ($0.26 million) and International Organisations ($0.07 million).(3) The level of funding for Australia's ODA in 1998-99 will be determined in the budget process.(4) Some partner governments have expressed regret at the reduction in Australia's development assistance. At the same time, most foreign governments accept the Australian Government's sovereign right to determine its own economic priorities and understand the fiscal imperatives which led to the reduced aid budget. In volume terms, Australia remains above the average of OECD aid donor nations.(5) Naturally there has been some disappointment and concern expressed by partner governments and multilateral development agencies affected by the reductions. Nonetheless, Australia's relationships with aid partners are strong and extend across a broad front—covering a wide range of political, security and economic issues in the global, regional and bilateral arenas. In the multilateral sphere, Australia continues to contribute significantly to a wide range of multilateral efforts.420(Question No. 1004)1004420Allison, Sen LynSenator Allison1M6VICAD00 asked the Minister for Communications, the Information Economy and the Arts, upon notice, on 26 November 1997:(1) In what condition is the phone line to Warburton, Western Australia, and surrounds.(2) Is it a fact that at times the phone line does not work at all. (3) Is it a fact that the phone line does not allow for data transmission.(4) Is Telstra of the view that the phone line needs to be upgraded.(5) Is the Minister of the view that services need to be upgraded.(6) Was the coordinator of the Nganyatjarra Council, Mr Peter Rapkins, promised in July 1997 that the digital radio concentrator system was to be replaced by optical fibre cable; if so: (a) were any conditions placed on this promise; and (b) what were the conditions.(7) Why was Mr Rapkins told in August 1997 that this was not going to occur.(8) Does Telstra currently have plans to upgrade services to Warburton; if so, when is this due to occur.420Alston, Sen RichardSenator AlstonLD4VICLPCommunications, the Information Economy and the Arts10—The answer to the honourable senator's question, based on advice provided by Telstra, is as follows:(1 and 2) Telstra advises that Warburton is one of the most remote communities in Australia serviced by Telstra. Whilst the service is maintained to standards consistent with requirements under Telstra's Universal Service Obligation (USO), there are occasional breakdowns on the Digital Radio Concentrator Service (DRCS) serving the community which take time to restore due to the remoteness of the area.An increase in the number of calls being made by customers has led to the capacity of the system to handle calls being exceeded from time to time. Telstra advises that it has acted to relieve congestion by the provision of a satellite based service to Warburton on 12 December 1997. Telstra will transfer customers from the DRCS to the satellite service, which Telstra expects will result in greatly improved performance to Warburton and surrounding areas.(3) Telstra advises that the system in place prior to 12 December 1997 allows data transmission at 2400 bps modulated using the standard telephone service.(4) Refer to the answer to questions 1 & 2 above.(5) Telstra has a universal service obligation (USO) to provide all Australians with reasonable access to standard telephone services, payphones and prescribed carriage services on an equitable basis. The precise manner in which it complies with this obligation is a matter for Telstra to determine, subject to oversight from the Australian Communications Authority. As a Government business enterprise, Telstra provides services on a commercial basis, and must make its own commercial and management decisions within the context of legislative requirements and Government policies.Telstra has advised that it has acted to relieve congestion of the Digital Radio Concentrator Service (DRCS) serving the Warburton community by the provision of a satellite based service to Warburton on 12 December 1997. Telstra will transfer customers from the DRCS to the satellite service, which is expected to result in greatly improved performance to Warburton and surrounding areas. Also, refer to the answers to questions 1 & 2 above.(6) Telstra advises that it wrote to Mr Rapkins in November 1996 indicating that a solution to the degraded service being experience by Warburton and other Aboriginal Communities was to replace the DRCS by providing an optical fibre backbone system from Amata to Blackstone and replacing the DRCS from Blackstone with a Very High Capacity Radio Concentrator (VHCRC) service. Project timing was given as 1998/99. Short term relief was to be provided by an ITERRA satellite solution at Warburton. The letter contained the following conditions: "Assuming that funding is available, it should be noted that undertaking upgrading using cable will be dependent on Telstra being given clearance to plough cable on the Amata to Blackstone route".(7) Telstra advises that, in meeting its Universal Service Obligation, it must have regard to provisioning costs, and the reliability of equipment. The choice of technology to meet these requirements is under continuous review, and in a rapidly changing technological environment, the solution to any requirement can change before implementation. An in-depth review of the options for the Warburton area is currently being carried out; options include the use of optic fibre, radio and satellite technologies. Early indications are that solutions other than fibre will be more cost effective and will meet the appropriate operational criteria.(8) Telstra advises that, as mentioned above, Telstra upgraded services to the Warburton area on 12 December 1997 by the provision of a satellite service. Telstra is currently reviewing the options to provide longer term solutions, with the completion of the project expected by June 1999. However, factors such as the availability of equipment from overseas manufacturers and the provision of land access clearances may impact on this time frame.421(Question No. 1005)1005421Murray, Sen AndrewSenator Murray3M6WAAD00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business, upon notice, on 26 November 1997:(1) With reference to an answer to a question on notice asked during the 1997-98 Budget Supplementary Estimates hearings of the Economics Legislation Committee concerning the Industrial Relations portfolio, subprogram 1.2—Legal and Industry:Can a comparison of the industrial relations systems' nine unfair dismissal jurisdictions in 1997 as compared to 1996 be provided at the earliest date following 31 December 1997.(2) At the earliest date following 31 December 1997, could details of research undertaken on the number and percentage of unfair dismissal applications which apply to small businesses with less than 15 employees, compared with total unfair dismissal applications for 1997, in all nine unfair dismissal jurisdictions be provided.421Alston, Sen RichardSenator AlstonLD4VICLPCommunications, the Information Economy and the Arts10—The Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's questions:(1) A comparison of unfair dismissal applications in all jurisdictions in 1997 as compared to 1996 is as follows.State/TerritoryJanuary-December 1996 1January-December 1997 1Combined 1997 figures as % of FederalStateCombinedFederalStateCombinedcombined 1996 figures 1New South Wales4,2902,1866,4761,1154,5585,67388%South Australia6331,2401,8732731,384 21,657288%Queensland5121,9322,4446231,9322,555105%Western Australia1,8759182,7932711,8242,09575%Tasmania 336011434741173693486103%Victoria 45,9583586,3164,527NA44,52772% ACT 4509NA4509260NA426051%NT 4396NA4396277NA427770%Total14,533 6,74821,2817,46310,06717,53082%Notes 1. Federal and State figures are based on calendar months, and incorporate estimates and interpolations, where original data not available. Official and unofficial sources are used.2. The SA Commission has advised that figures for the months of February, April and June 1997 were inflated by applications lodged on behalf of over 100 workers each month who were made redundant from SAMCorp (a large SA meat processing corporation) in February and April and from Bells (Sizzler) in June.3. Tasmanian State figures are unofficial only. Official monthly figures are not produced by the Tasmanian Commission. The official total figures for the 1995/1996 and 1996/1997 financial years were contained in the Commission's annual reports for those years.4. There are no separate Territory unfair dismissal systems, and there has been no separate Victorian unfair dismissal system after 1996.(2) In relation to Federal unfair dismissal applications, the Australian Industrial Registry is collecting information on the number and percentage of unfair dismissal applications which apply to small businesses with 15 or less employees, for each month from December 1997 to May 1998. This information is being forwarded to Senator Murray. The information relating to applications from 1 December 1997 to 31 January 1998 is as follows.RegistryTotal termination of employment applications lodgedTotal employer responses to Industrial Registry's question on employer sizeEmployers employing 15 or fewer employeesEmployers employing 15 or fewer employees as % of total employer responses receivedACT3312975NSW234681928NT4318844QLD5529621SA421218TAS167114VIC81030812139WA501716Total1,28347116635In relation to State unfair dismissal applications, it is not possible to provide information on the number and percentage of unfair dismissal applications which apply to small businesses with 15 or less employees, as no State collects data on the size of respondents to unfair dismissal applications.423(Question No. 1026)1026423Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Family Services, upon notice, on 5 December 1997:(1) (a) What training or seminars for Canberra-based public servants employed by the department have occurred outside Canberra since March 1996; and (b) where has the training taken place.423Herron, Sen JohnSenator HerronVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—The Minister for Health and Family Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) (a) and (b) Each year senior management of the Department hold a corporate planning seminar. In 1996 this was a residential held just outside Canberra at Eaglehawk Hill, whereas in 1997 it was a non-residential activity held in Canberra. In addition, in January 1997, a policy review seminar involving the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary was held at Bungendore, NSW.Some senior staff of the Department, the majority of whom were Canberra-based, have participated in a Leadership Development Program since December 1996. These programs were conducted in Bateman's Bay and Mollymook in NSW, in order to distance participants from the day to day demands of the workplace and to allow sufficient time for both debate and reflection on the issues confronting the Department.Canberra-based staff may have also participated in other training courses offered by external agencies and program specific training or seminars. However, given the complexities and scope of this aspect of the question, to provide a complete answer would require the Department to allocate considerable resources to the task. I am not prepared to ask my Department to divert them at this time.423(Question No. 1033)1033423Knowles, Sen SusanSenator KnowlesTH4WALP10 asked the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 5 December 1997: (1) What entitlements do former Prime Ministers have to overseas travel at taxpayers' expense.(2) What restrictions apply to such travel.(3) Does the department only pay for airfares.(4) Are there any other allowances paid.(5) (a) What claims for such travel have been made during the 1996-97 financial year; and (b) did all claims fully comply with the guidelines.423Minchin, Sen NickSenator MinchinJX4SALPSpecial Minister of State;Minister Assisting the Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:(1) None(2) Not applicable(3) Not applicable(4) Not applicable(5) (a) Not applicable(6) (b) Not applicable.423(Question No. 1034)1034423Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Status of Women, upon notice, on 5 December 1997:(1) Was the office of the former Minister for the Status of Women consulted on the question of why the Prime Minister's Sports awards were not held in 1996?(2) Is it the Government's intention they be held in future years; if not, why not?423Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NewmanBE4TASLPSocial Security10—The Minister for the Status of Women has provided the following the answer to the honourable senator's questions:(1) The Women and Sports Unit of the Australian Sports Commission had sole responsibility for the event.(2) The Government intends to amalgamate the range of awards into two national sport award schemes. One scheme, to be conducted by the Confederation of Australian Sport, will recognise best performance by athletes and coaches, and the other scheme, to be conducted by the Australian Sports Commission, will recognise best practice by sport industry organisations. One of the Australian Sports Commission's existing awards, the Margaret Pewtress Award, will be retained in the new scheme. This award recognises the outstanding contribution by a woman in sport.423(Question No. 1035)1035423Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Minister Representing the Minister for Finance and Administration, upon notice, on 5 December 1997:(1) What information has been received on the preparation of multiple Telstra share applications or the sale of Telstra shares to bogus names.(2) What would be the legal implications of a share investor who sold instalment receipts under bogus names and then utilised a trust account operated by stockbrokers or solicitors to disguise profits.(3) Could investors who obtained shares under bogus names transfer shares into a real owner's name by lodging a share transfer form with the Share Registry.424Kemp, Sen RodSenator KempWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—The Minister for Finance and Administration has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) The Public Offer Document for the Telstra Sale stated (at the bottom of page 8) that the Commonwealth reserved the right to reject or aggregate applications that appeared to be multiple applications from the same person. That right was exercised by subjecting multiple share applications to de-duplication during the application processing stage.There is no information on whether, or how many, Telstra shares were sold to people using `bogus names'.(2) The legal implications would depend upon the specific circumstances of any case, and no general answer can be provided.To sell Telstra Instalment Receipts (IRs) an investor would, in the usual case, have to open an account with a stockbroker. To open an account, the investor would generally need to provide some form of identification. This may eliminate many `bogus names', or at least make it difficult for them to sell the IRs easily.If an investor `disguised profits' for the purpose of lowering taxable income, an offence would be committed under Australia's taxation legislation.(3) Provided share transfer forms are properly executed, which in the case of a transfer from one name to another requires signatures by both parties and payment of stamp duty, there is no obligation upon the Share Registry to identify the bona fides of the two parties to a transfer.424(Question No. 1037)1037424Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 5 December 1997: (1) What information has been received on the rate of return of Constitutional Convention ballot papers by indigenous Australians.(2) What has been the effect of the massive downgrading of resources available to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Electoral Information Service on the participation of indigenous Australians in the convention ballot.(3) Why was the Australian Electoral Commission directed on the issue of resources to the service rather than being given the discretion as to where budget savings would occur.424Minchin, Sen NickSenator MinchinJX4SALPSpecial Minister of State;Minister Assisting the Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:(1) It is impossible to ascertain nationally the number of Constitutional Convention ballot papers returned by indigenous Australians, as electors are not identified by race on the electoral roll.(2) It is not possible to provide participation levels as explained in (1) above. During the Constitutional Convention election, the AEC conducted a special remote area information program in Western Australia, South Australia, Queensland and the Northern Territory. As part of this program, AEC staff visited electors in remote areas and provided information about enrolment and voting procedures for this election. A separate field operations program in the Northern Territory also visited remote communities where a regular postal service was not available to provide ballot materials. Electors could return their completed ballot papers to these teams.The AEC information campaign included the provision of advertising and public relations materials to a wide variety of media. AEC advertisements were translated into 9 aboriginal languages for radio and placed in media circulating in areas where aboriginal electors lived.(3) The AEC was funded to undertake the original Aboriginal Electoral Education Program (AEEP) in 1979, in addition to its ongoing program funding. Over the years the original program evolved into the ATSIEIS program. Funding for the ATSIEIS program was withdrawn by the Government in the context of the 1996-97 Budget.424(Question No. 1038)1038424Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 5 December 1997:(1) What were the circumstances surrounding the decision by the department to dispose of surplus computer equipment from approximately 300 departmental office sites around Australia.(2) What are the relevant Commonwealth procurement guidelines that would apply to such a disposal.(3) Was the contract advertised; if so, when and in which newspapers/periodicals, et cetera; if not, why not.(4) (a) What type of tendering arrangement was conducted for the contract; (b) is there a Commonwealth register of firms interested in the purchase of second-hand government computer equipment; and (c) how many names are on the register.(5) (a) Was a short-list of potential vendors developed; (b) from where were the names drawn; (c) what was the criteria used to select the short list; (d) how many firms were short-listed; and (e) which firms were shortlisted.(6) (a) Were all the short-listed firms approached to tender; (b) how many tenders were received; (c) what were the names of the firms that submitted tenders; (d) what process was used to evaluate the tenders and select the successful bid; and (e) which firm was ultimately selected.(7) (a) Under the contract for the removal and sale of departmental second-hand computers, what will be the cost to the department for the removal and disposal of the equipment; (b) what will be the average cost to the vendor for each of the serviceable HP4 laser printers and for each of the personal computers; (c) what will be the cost to the successful vendor for the purchase of the second-hand equipment; (d) what is the anticipated final net cost to the Commonwealth for the settlement of the contract; and (e) what is the agreed timeframe for the completion of the contract.(8) (a) How are decisions made by the department and the successful vendor as to which equipment is serviceable and therefore chargeable to the vendor; (b) is the department satisfied that no equipment classified as unserviceable is being resold by the vendor;(c) would such resales be inconsistent with the terms of the contract; (d) is the department satisfied that no equipment removed but not purchased by the vendor is being resold by the vendor; and (e)would such resales be inconsistent with the terms of the contract.425Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator Ellison9X5WALPSchools, Vocational Education and Training10—The Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) The Department is installing new PC computer platforms in 289 CES offices throughout Australia to support the new employment systems. This project also involves the disposal of the old system's mainframe terminal equipment (7,100 items), and obsolete PCs (800 items) and laser printers (400 items).During the contract negotiations with IBM Australia for the supply and installation of the new equipment, they quoted a very substantial cost to the Department to remove and dispose of the obsolete equipment. Because DEETYA officers considered the price of disposal to be too expensive, the market was tested by seeking quotations from four other companies (three IT brokers and a manufacturer) to ascertain the feasibility of handling this aspect of the project separately and at a lower cost. Two of the four companies approached responded with quotations which were evaluated together with the IBM Australia quote.(2) The Department of Administrative Services published guidelines for the disposal of assets in the "IT Buyers' Handbook" in November 1991, and the "Guidelines for Surplus Asset Disposal" in January 1992. The entire disposal process including the approach to three IT brokers, was consistent with those guidelines.(3) The equipment for disposal was not advertised separately for sale, because its sale could not be separated from its removal from 289 locations. The entire disposal project was awarded on the basis of a competitive process.(4) (a) In addition to IBM Australia, four companies were identified as having an interest in the obsolete equipment. Of those four, three were identified as brokers of second-hand computers and the other was Memorex Telex, the manufacturer of the obsolete mainframe terminal equipment. All four received a Request for Quotation (RFQ).(b) Yes. This list is now maintained by the Department of Finance and Administration. It is used by the Aussales group in arranging disposals on behalf of agencies. It is not available to agencies undertaking their own disposals. The Department of Administrative Services was however, consulted on the selection of the winning vendor.(c) It is believed that around 100 IT dealers are listed, of which only a very few would be brokers interested in removing and disposing of mainframe terminal equipment located 289 locations throughout Australia.(5) (a) All four vendors were asked to quote.(b) The three companies were all that were identified as brokers in second-hand computers from a search of a national telephone directory listing of over one million businesses.(c) All four vendors were asked to provide a quotation. No short-list was prepared.(d) See 5(c) above.(e) See 5(c) above. The RFQ was sent to: National Capital Traders; Camray Holdings; HMR Group of Companies; and Memorex Telex. (6) (a) See 5 (c) above(b) Two quotations were received in response to the RFQ.(c) Quotations were provided by: National Capital Traders; and HMR Group of Companies.Note: These were considered together with the original quote from IBM Australia.(d) The lowest cost to the Department and the ability of the vendor to carry out the task, were the primary criteria.(e) National Capital Traders. They offered the lowest cost, and had strong references from the Department of Administrative Services and the Department of Social Security for similar work in those organisations.(7) (a) This information is commercial-in-confidence.(b) This information is commercial-in-confidence.(c) This information is commercial-in-confidence.(d) National Capital Traders will complete the disposal at no cost, and will potentially return a modest sum, to the Department. The other two quotes involved substantial costs to the Department.(e) The Department expects to complete the project including the settlement negotiations, by the end of January 1998.(8) (a) The cost of removal of the obsolete equipment will be offset by the average prices tendered by the vendor for the equipment regardless of its condition.(b) The obsolete equipment was not classified by the Department.(c) No.(d) The contract requires the vendor to remove and dispose of all of the obsolete equipment. Any market opportunities for the equipment would have been considered by the vendor in framing the tender which involved the least cost to the Department, when compared with the competition.(e) No.426(Question No. 1039)1039426Cook, Sen PeterSenator CookRF4WAALP00 asked the Minister for Communications, the Information Economy and the Arts, upon notice, on 9 December 1997:(1) Is Telstra aware of Statement of Planning Policy number 4 issued by the Western Australian planning Commission entitled "State Industrial Buffer Policy" and published in the Western Australian Government Gazette No 66 of 5 May 1997. (2) Is Telstra familiar with the requirements of this Western Australian law for the provision of off-site buffer zones.(3) Is it a fact that Telstra requires an off-site buffer zone for the proper functioning of the Telstra telecommunications facility in Landsdale, Western Australia.(4) Is Telstra going to observe the law in Western Australia in relation to the provision of an off-site buffer zone; if not, why not.426Alston, Sen RichardSenator AlstonLD4VICLPCommunications, the Information Economy and the Arts10—The answer, based on advice from Telstra, to the honourable senator's question is as follows:(1) Telstra has advised that it is aware of the Statement of Planning Policy number 4. Telstra has further advised that in its opinion the planning policy does not apply to the facilities at Lansdale.(2) Telstra advises that it is familiar with the requirements of the law, but does not consider that it applies to the facility at Lansdale.(3) No. Telstra advises that the land is zoned rural and therefore there is no requirement for a buffer zone.(4) Telstra advises that it already observes the law in Western Australia in every aspect of its operations at Lansdale. Telstra further advises that the industrial buffer policy does not make the creation of buffer zones compulsory; it must be applicable and appropriate in the circumstances.426(Question No. 1040)1040426Brown, Sen BobSenator BrownQD4TASAG00 asked the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 10 December 1997:(1) Will the Government honour all Energy Research and Development Corporation (ERDC) commitments to the full amount contractually agreed.(2) Why has the ERDC's annual report for 1996-97 not been tabled and released.(3) Where will the $11 million come from to make up the shortfall in funding to meet ERDC commitments.426Parer, Sen WarwickSenator ParerKI4QLDLPResources and Energy10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:(1) The Government has given an undertaking to honour contractual arrangements entered into by the Energy Research and Development Corporation (ERDC). A renegotiation process with all ERDC contractors is presently under way with a view to making savings. (2) I received a copy of the 1996-97 Annual Report of the ERDC on 15 October 1997. The report was subsequently found to be incomplete. The Corporation will need to incorporate a reference to the current renegotiation process in its financial statements. The revised annual report will be tabled in Parliament during the Autumn sittings of 1998.(3) The shortfall in funding to meet ERDC commitments will come from the Advance to the Minister for Finance in 1997-98, and through adjustments to appropriations in future years.427(Question No. 1041)1041427Brown, Sen BobSenator BrownQD4TASAG00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Development, upon notice, on 10 December 1997:(1) Has the Government received a request from Tasmania to extend recognition of the national highway from Bridgewater south to Dover.(2) (a) What further action is in hand to decide this matter; and (b) when will it be decided.(3) Is Hobart the only State capital with no part of the national highway traversing its urban areas.427Alston, Sen RichardSenator AlstonLD4VICLPCommunications, the Information Economy and the Arts10—The Minister for Transport and Regional Development has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) While there have been some representations from Tasmanian Local Governments and individuals, the Tasmanian Government has made no requests regarding a possible extension of the National Highway from Bridgewater south to Dover.(2) (a) The House of Representatives Standing Committee on Communications, Transport and Microeconomic Report, `Planning not Patching: An inquiry into Federal road funding' recommended that the present scope of the National Highway be maintained and that the inclusion of additional roads within the Commonwealth's national road system should be funded as roads of national importance. The Government is considering the report.(b) In accordance with normal practice the Government is seeking to respond to the Committee's report within three months.(3) No, the National Highway does not traverse the Darwin urban area and traverses the outskirts of the Perth urban area. 427(Question No. 1042)1042427Brown, Sen BobSenator BrownQD4TASAG00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 10 December 1997:(1) What financial contribution, material resources or other support has the University of Tasmania provided to Seahorse Aquaculture Pty Ltd.(2) Has the University any plan to provide such support to Seahorse Aquaculture in the future.(3) Has the University of Tasmania signed any contract or agreement with Seahorse Aquaculture; if so, is it publicly available.(4) If the University of Tasmania has plans to contribute to research to benefit Seahorse Aquaculture's venture, will the results of the research be freely available to assist efforts throughout the world aimed at making the seahorse industry more sustainable.427Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator Ellison9X5WALPSchools, Vocational Education and Training10—The Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1)—(4) The University of Tasmania is an autonomous higher education institution. The question seeks information with respect to business decisions of the University which do not involve the Commonwealth Government.427(Question No. 1043)1043427Brown, Sen BobSenator BrownQD4TASAG00 asked the Minister for the Environment, upon notice, on 10 December 1997:Following the signing of the Regional Forest Agreement with Tasmania, what remaining rights or obligations does the Federal Government have concerning Tasmania's forests and timber resources.427Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4SALPEnvironment10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:The Tasmanian Regional Forest Agreement (RFA) is a comprehensive document which will govern the ongoing rights and obligations of both parties. The RFA specifies the actions which the Tasmanian Government must perform to implement its commitments in relation to establishing a comprehensive, adequate and representative (CAR) reserve system, achieving ecologically sustainable forest management and facilitating industry development. A failure to meet these commitments, for example a persistent failure to take the necessary actions to establish and manage new reserves as required under the RFA, could amount to a breach of the RFA. In such a situation, the avenues for dispute resolution which are available to the Commonwealth to seek to address the failure are set out in clauses 11 to 15 of the agreement.The RFA contains Commonwealth obligations including the following.Clauses 22, 23. Introduction of legislation—the Commonwealth is obliged to use its best endeavours to secure the enactment of legislation with provisions to the effect that, where an RFA is in force,(a) the Commonwealth will not impose export controls on woodchips or unprocessed wood from that region(b) specific Commonwealth legislative provisions will not apply to forestry operations on land which, under the RFA may be used for such operations(c) the RFA may only be terminated in specified circumstances.Clause 95. Compensation—the Commonwealth will pay compensation to specified parties if it acts inconsistently with any provision of the RFA and this results in a loss to those parties.Clause 100, 101. Financial assistance—the Commonwealth will provide financial assistance to Tasmania for the purpose of implementing specified initiatives under the agreement.Both parties also have ongoing responsibilities in relation to threatened and endangered communities and species, monitoring and review of the agreement, and reporting.428(Question No. 1044)1044428Brown, Sen BobSenator BrownQD4TASAG00 asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 10 December 1997:(1) Did the department authorise Centrelink to adopt smartcard technology, as indicated in its recent advertisement which refers to `intended smartcard initiatives'.(2) (a) When and on what basis was it decided that the use of smartcard technology was appropriate; and (b) what community consultation was undertaken to ascertain the appropriateness of the technology.(3) What is the department's view of the use of smartcard technology.(4) What privacy safeguards would be necessary if smartcards were to be used.(5) Will Centrelink be directed to undertake public consultation, including public meetings, to obtain the views of the community in relation to the use of smartcard technology, and in particular the implications for privacy.428Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NewmanBE4TASLPSocial Security10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:(1) and (2) No. The Department of Social Security and Centrelink are together investigating opportunities for improved service delivery through the use of new technology including the potential for using smartcard technology. However, no decision to adopt such technology has been made by either the Department or Centrelink.(3) The Department believes it appropriate to investigate the relevance and suitability of smartcard technology to improve service delivery and security and offer greater choice for customers in the way they access Government programs.(4) Any technology authorised by the Department would need to meet the requirements of the Privacy Act and the consultation process surrounding the investigation of the potential for smartcard use will be conducted in close consultation with the Privacy Commissioner.(5) Investigation of the potential for smartcard use will include full public consultation including with peak bodies, community and special interest groups with a particular focus on the privacy implications.428(Question No. 1045)1045428O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Development, upon notice, on 18 December 1997:(1) How many officers in the department undertook overseas travel in 1997.(2) (a) Who undertook the travel; (b) what was or were the destination(s); (c) when was the travel undertaken; (d) what was the duration and cost of each journey; and (e) what was the purpose of the travel.428Alston, Sen RichardSenator AlstonLD4VICLPCommunications, the Information Economy and the Arts10—The Minister for Transport and Regional Development has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) and (2) The overseas travel outlined in the attached table was undertaken in 1997.In some cases the cost of travel is yet to be finalised; the figures provided are based on quotes provided to the Department. For the same reason, some final figures provided differ from earlier estimates. OVERSEAS TRAVEL UNDERTAKEN IN 1997OfficerDestinationTravel Dates DurationCostPurposeExecutiveHawkeSingapore, Netherlands, France, England, USA, Canada6/6/97-28/6/97$15,024.11Accompanying MinisterHawkeIndonesia, Japan28/7/97-3/8/97$6,462.55Ministerial meetingsHawkeNew Zealand11/11/97-15/11/97$3,634.128th Australian Transport Council meetingBowdlerUSA12/4/97-20/4/97$7,207.23APEC Transportation Working GroupBowdlerCanada20/6/97-27/6/97$7,048.4APEC Ministerial meetingBowdlerIndonesia23/8/97-27/8/97$4,025.76AIDA Transportation Working Group, LombokFederal Office of Road SafetyGascoyneJapan, Korea4/4/97-19/4/97$7,478.28Audit assessment of motor vehicle testing and production facilities in Korea and liaison with Japanese inspectors.Kimber-leeSwitzerland, Indonesia21/6/97-3/7/97$7,943.53UN/ECE working party 29 on international vehicle standards harmonisation and meet with Indonesian officials.MakehamCanada27/11/97-7/12/97$0.00Manitoba Road Safety Conference, at invitation of Manitoba road safety council, to give keynote address and conduct three seminars.MakehamSwitzerland, USA6/3/97-23/3/97$10,431.79UN ECE working party 29 on vehicle safety standards and participate in US Transportation Safety Board forum on air bags and child passenger safety.OckwellFrance, Netherlands, Belgium, UK5/4/97-21/4/97$10,711.071st meeting of the OECD Advisory Group TSA5 on the implementation of Intelligent Transport Systems.SeyerUK and USA29/4/97-12/5/97$9,777.77UK Department of Transport and Transport Research Laboratory to discuss future directions on vehicle safety issues. Attend the 2nd meeting of the International Harmonised Research Agenda working group in Washington DC as part of the Society of Automotive Engineers' government/industry meetings. Chair a special international workshop in Washington to develop the likely benefits of moving towards a harmonised side impact regulation.Goone-wardeneJapan, Korea4/4/97-2/5/97$12,937.64Audit assessment of motor vehicle testing and production facilities in Korea and liaise with our Japanese inspectors.LamKorea19/4/97-2/5/97$6,961.74Audit assessment of motor vehicle testing and production facilities.SeowUSA and India10/5/97-6/6/97$14,442.08Audit assessment of motor vehicle testing and production facilities.WongUSA and India10/5/97-6/6/97$14,390.28Conduct audit assessment of motor vehicle testing and production facilities.Kimber-leeUSA12/4/97-20/4/97$7,544.8611th APEC Transportation working group (TPT-WG) meeting, Road Transport harmonisation project, and draft mutual recognition agreement on automotive product. Kimber-leeChinese Taipei27/9/97-7/10/97$7,010.60APEC TPT-working group 12SmithKorea2/12/97-6/12/97$560.66At the invitation of the Government of Korea, address the annual meeting of the Traffic Science Institute.ZaalSwitzerland4/12/97-22/12/97$10,205.7014th session of the UN Dangerous Goods committee.OckwellUSA9/8/97-14/8/97$6,889.971st international workshop on Vehicle Highway Automation.MakehamCanada, USA19/6/97-29/6/97$8,388.54APEC Transport Ministerial meeting. Inspect HELP-Crescent ITS project which involves weight in motion, automatic vehicle identification with transponders and automatic vehicle classification.RealUSA, Canada18/1/97-26/1/97$1,860.13Attend world car conference to present paper on air quality and transport and obtain up to date information on international developments in emission controls in new vehicles, approaches to controlling emissions from in-service vehicles and related fuel issues.MakehamNew Zealand12/11/97-15/11/97$2,830.57Attend Australian Transport Council meeting.OckwellGermany, Sweden, UK16/10/97-9/11/97$12,917.55OECD/RTRP meeting, 4th World Congress on Intelligent Transport Systems, Austroads delegation to the UK.SeyerSwitzerland, USA1/11/97-17/11/97$17,319.42UN ECE working party 29.MoletaIndonesia18/8/97-24/8/97$4,669.35APEC Transportation Working Group meetingBaileyEngland/Canada (Recalled to duty while on private overseas travel)ENG 6-7/10/97 CDA 28-29/10/97$2,267.70Airport Rail Links Conference/Discussions with Canadian National Transportation Safety BoardPotterNew Zealand11/11/97-15/11/97$3,816.40ATC meeting/accompany MinisterQuinlivanNew Zealand12/11/97-15/11/1997$3,418.20ATC meeting/accompany MinisterHrastNew Zealand9/12/97-13/12/97$3,336.20Joint RTF Study TourTerritories and Local GovernmentWattsNew Zealand21/7/97-25/7/97$3,520As a member of a study tour comprising state government officials and local government representatives, examine how councils in New Zealand have approached the commercialisation of their business activities.Regional Affairs UnitMurnaneNew Zealand8/3/97-15/3/97$2,006.35Attended a conference hosted by New Zealand Government on the development of industry clusters and discussions with regional development practitionersHunterNew Zealand8/12/97-12/12/97$2,947.54Presented a paper on the Commonwealth Government's Regional Development Strategy at the Pacific Regional Science Association 15th meeting WellingtonCloneyMalaysia, UK, Ireland, France, Germany, Canada, USA13/9/97-6/10/97$17,384.40Examine international development in regional policy and program initiatives Bureau of Transport and Communications EconomicsHunterUSA and Canada17/6/97-28/6/97$10,719.58To attend Air Transport Research Group ConferencePapandreaUSA and Canada25/6/97-22/7/97$4,114.25To carry out collaborative research with the University of Alberta in Canada on the economics of international film and television pricing and to attend a workshop on the economics of converging information industries at the University of CaliforniaGentleIndonesia13/7/97-16/7/97$3,880.77To finalise Transport Synergies report with Indonesian staffEldertonIndonesia23/8/97-27/8/97$3,599.38Attend Transport Working Group meeting in LombokGentleIndonesia23/8/97-27/8/97$3,524.65Attend Transport Working Group meeting in LombokGentleIndonesia29/11/97-21/12/97$13,125.10To collect data for the second stage of the Transport Synergies studyKierceIndonesia29/11/97-21/12/97$6,998.05To collect data for the second stage of the Transport Synergies studyWilliamsIndonesia10/12/97-20/12/97$2,334.35To collect data for the second stage of the Transport Synergies studyBureau of Air Safety InvestigationLeeToulouse, France26/01/1997 3 Days$1,434.60Recall to Duty—Airbus Industrie Production Facilities VisitMcMartinLos Angeles, USA01/02/1997 7 Days$4,332.5614th Annual International Aircraft Cabin Safety SymposiumAdamsCartegena, Columbia08/02/1997 9 Days$17,387.37Safety Advisory Committee of the International Air Transport AssociationLeyshonHong Kong10/03/1997 2 Days$1,129.75Qantas Familiarisation FlightLeeManila, Philippines11/03/1997 2 Days$1,831.69Orient Airlines Association (OAA) Flight Operations & Safety Working GroupHattleyNew York, USA19/04/1997 9 Days$9,861.84Reconstruction of TWA,B747, Flight No. 800OtevrelNew York, USA19/04/1997 9 Days$10,490.42Reconstruction of TWA,B747, Flight No. 800WalkerWashington DC & Columbus, USA23/04/1997 12 days$14,088.439th International Symposium of Aviation Psychology / Discussions with the National Transportation Safety BoardEdkinsChristchurch, NZ05/05/1997 2 Days$997.37Qantas Familiarisation FlightMcCallumJohannesburg, South Africa05/05/1997 6 Days$6,333.45International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) Accident Prevention/Investigation and Safety SeminarMcDonaldChristchurch, NZ07/05/1997 2 Days$756.06Qantas Familiarisation FlightJohnstonFrance/Dublin England/USA15/05/1997 6 Days$893.60Recall to Duty—Liaison with aircraft accident investigation organisationsLeeQueenstown & Auckland, NZ27/05/1997 4 Days$2,990.85Aerial Agricultural Association of Aust. & New Zealand Agricultural Aviation Association Combined ConventionLeeTaipei, Taiwan02/06/1997 4 Days$752.551997 Eva Air Safety ConferenceLeeSingapore16/06/1997 5 Days$502.90Singapore Aviation Academy—Air Safety Seminar ("Air Safety—The Asia Pacific Challenge")HobbsSingapore16/06/1997 5 Days$686.72Singapore Aviation Academy—Air Safety Seminar ("Air Safety—The Asia Pacific Challenge") RodgersSingapore16/06/1997 5 Days$564.25Singapore Aviation Academy—Air Safety Seminar ("Air Safety—The Asia Pacific Challenge")StottSingapore16/06/1997 5 Days$4,599.21Singapore Aviation Academy—Air Safety Seminar ("Air Safety—The Asia Pacific Challenge")McMartinSingapore16/06/1997 5 Days$4,322.95Singapore Aviation Academy—Air Safety Seminar ("Air Safety—The Asia Pacific Challenge")BurnsSingapore17/06/1997 6 Days$4,529.02Singapore Aviation Academy—Air Safety Seminar ("Air Safety—The Asia Pacific Challenge")CampbellUK19/07/1997 21 Days$11,436.34International Test Program—fuel-air explosions on B747-100 aircraft(TWA Acc)KellUK19/07/1997 21 Days$9,874.06International Test Program—fuel-air explosions on B747-100 aircraft(TWA Acc)LeeCanada & USA27/07/1997 9 Days$8,743.23International Airline Transport Association (IATA) Safety Advisory Committee (SAC) Investigation Group/International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) Programme Manager Flight Safety and Liaison with NTSB (National Transportation Safety Board)AkedUSA28/07/1997 2 Days$198.65Recall to Duty—Liaison with Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and National Transportation Safety BoardStottGuam, USA06/08/1997 9 Days$10,171.43Korean Airlines B747 Major Aircraft Accident InvestigationBosworthGuam, USA06/08/1997 9 Days$10,654.54Korean Airlines B747 Major Aircraft Accident InvestigationBrownUSA08/08/1997 10 Days$9,538.38Fine Air DC8 Major Aircraft Accident InvestigationSargeantThailand21/08/1997 2 Days$4,446.21Investigation into Qantas B747 RA TCAS (Traffic Collision Avoidance System) AlertHenryThailand21/08/1997 2 Days$4,802.76Investigation into Qantas B747 RA TCAS (Traffic Collision Avoidance System) AlertMayesNetherlands26/08/1997 5 Days$1,502.101997 International Aviation Safety Conference (IASC)LeeIndonesia01/09/1997 4 Days$648.32Combined Indonesian Air Force and Garuda Airways Seminar—"Air Safety"JohnstonIndonesia02/09/1997 4 Days$4,281.11Air Traffic Services Coordination Group (Australia/Indonesia)RodgersIndonesia02/09/1997 4 Days$4,235.16Air Traffic Services Coordination Group (Australia/Indonesia)LeePhilippines09/09/1997 3 Days$3,347.25Association of Asia Pacific Airlines(AAPA) MeetingStrayPhilippines09/09/1997 3 Days$3,239.55Association of Asia Pacific Airlines(AAPA) MeetingNaylorAlaska, Japan, Korea23/09/1997 8 Days$2,993.00Seminar—International Society of Air Safety Investigators and liaison with Air Safety organisations in Japan & KoreaLeyshonAlaska27/09/1997 9 Days$8,892.48Seminar—International Society of Air Safety InvestigatorsOgdenMedan, Indonesia27/09/1997 15 Days$4,170.33Garuda A300 Major Aircraft Accident InvestigationHenryMedan, Indonesia27/09/1997 15 Days$4,383.77Garuda A300 Major Aircraft Accident InvestigationRodgersMedan, Indonesia27/09/1997 15 Days$6,473.41Garuda A300 Major Aircraft Accident Investigation MayesUK19/10/1997 5 Days$1,278.30Recall to Duty—Royal Aeronautical Society Conference on "Recording Aircraft Accident Data" and EUROCAE Working Group 50MacaulayUSA01/11/1997 9 Days$10,395.50Flight Safety Foundation ConferenceKellsSimbai, PNG10/11/1997 5 Days$3,528.70Twin Otter DHC-6 CFIT (Controlled Flight into Terrain) Aircraft Accident InvestigationHenryUSA15/11/1997 8 Days$8,524.15University of Southern California Aviation Safety Program "Software Safety"Broken-shireIndonesia09/12/1997 3 Days$2,631.85Air Traffic Control `97 Asia Pacific SeminarLeyshonPalembang, Indonesia21/12/1997 18 Days$5,550.40Silk Air B737-300 Major Aircraft Accident InvestigationHattleyPalembang, Indonesia21/12/1997 18 Days$5,550.40Silk Air B737-300 Major Aircraft Accident InvestigationOtevrelPalembang, Indonesia21/12/1997 18 Days$5,550.40Silk Air B737-300 Major Aircraft Accident InvestigationCorporatePrimroseJakarta, Indonesia18/2/97-22/2/97$3,464.40Special working group of AIDAGriff-ithsSeattle, USA12/4/97-18/4/97$8,326.7011th APEC Transportation Working Group (TPT-WG)Griff-ithsVancouver, Canada19/6/97-27/6/97$7,678.90Attend the APEC Transportation Ministers meetingGriff-ithsHonolulu, USA10/8/97-14/8/97$6,738.60APEC TPT-WG 1st meeting of intermodal taskforceGriff-ithsTaipei, China27/9/97-4/10/97$6,652.2012th APEC TPT-WG meetingPorteousSingapore, The Netherlands, France, UK, USA, Canada6/6/97-28/6/97$19,297.80Accompany MinisterRaynerThailand29/11/97-8/12/97$4,312.70Attend ESCAP meeting & Industry meetingsCallioniIndonesia20/7/97-26/7/97$5,196.15Bilateral Relations with IndonesiaCallioniIndonesia23/8/97-27/8/97$4,222.15AIDA Transport Working Group meeting in LombokMagorIndonesia23/8/97-27/8/97$4,222.15AIDA Transport Working Group meeting in LombokCrutch-leyTaipei, China27/9/97-5/10/97$6,085.20APEC Transport Working Group 12th meetingStephensHong Kong4/5/97-10/5/97$3,281.51International Conference on private sector involvement in infrastructureStephensIndonesia18/8/97-24/8/97$4,919.04APEC transportation working group on private sector involvement in infrastructureJonesNew Zealand27/7/97-30/7/97$3,178.58Discussions with NZ Ministry of Transport re ATCJonesNew Zealand11/11/97-15/11/97$3,351.3Provide secretariat services to the 8th Australian Transport CouncilIzzardNew Zealand11/11/97-15/11/97$3,466.3Provide secretariat services to the 8th Australian Transport CouncilAviation PolicyWheelensPapua New Guinea21/12 to 23/12/97$2,498.97Australia/PNG bilateral informal talksParlePapua New Guinea21/12 to 23/12/97$2,480.07Australia/PNG bilateral informal talksBoughtonCanada08/11 to 19/11/97$10,582.75ICAO conferenceGoughAthens, Frankfurt, Bonn08/11 to 17/11/97$10,761.31Air service consultations WheelensAthens, Frankfurt, Bonn08/11 to 17/11/97$10,696.06Air service consultationsHarrisJakarta, Shanghai, Seoul1/11 to 19/11/97$2,196.80Australia's Future in Asia—Leadership Program WheelensBangkok09/12 to 14/12/97$5,069.36Air service consultationsGoughBangkok09/12 to 14/12/97$5,052.01Air service consultationsStamford Singapore13/10 to 17/10/97$3,587.52APEC meeting—Competitive Air Services Group.WolfeSingapore13/10 to 17/10/97$3,380.55APEC meeting—Competitive Air Services Group.Harris Hong Kong26/10 to 28/10/97$5,512.40Australia/Hong Kong bilateral informal talksSamuelNew Zealand07/10 to 09/10/97$2,419.95Air service consultationsWilson New Zealand07/10 to 09/10/97$2,396.80Air service consultationsWheelens Indonesia22/09 to 27/09/97$6,361.99Air service consultationsGough Indonesia22/09 to 27/09/97$6,330.69Air service consultationsGough Brussels, Luxembourg, and The Hague30/08 to 08/09/97$10,222.11Air service consultationsWheelens Brussels, Luxembourg, and The Hague30/08 to 08/09/97$10,088.06Air service consultationsWheelens Indonesia23/08 to 27/08/97$3,990.80Australia-Indonesia AIDA discussionsHarrisCanada20/06 to 30/06/97$8,833.16APEC Ministerial meetingWheelensDubai, Cairo01/06 to 13/06/97$4,840.27Air service consultationsParle Dubai, Cairo01/06 to 13/06/97$5,375.42Air service consultationsMcColl Singapore17/06 to 22/06/97$4,018.78Attend IATA Scheduling ConferenceHenchy Singapore31/05 to 09/06/97$2,432.95Participate at ICAO Asia/Pacific Forecasting Group meetingWheelensBrunei12/05 to 16/05/97$5,156.30Air service consultationsGoughBrunei12/05 to 16/05/97$4,924.10Air service consultationsWheelensIndonesia22/04 to 26/04/97$5,413.20Australia-Indonesia AIDA discussionsWolfe Canada22/04 to 05/05/97$1,088.20Attend ICAO carrier liability meeting and address International Aviation Symposium (Sponsored by Transport Canada)BoughtonCanada12/04 to 20/04/97$7,712.89Attend 11th APEC TPT-WG meetingHarrisBangkok03/03 to 07/03/97$3,615.30Participate in International Air Transport in Asia and Oceania ForumHenchyBangkok01/03 to 06/03/97$3,840.60Regional ICAO workshop on Aviation statisticsGoughSingapore24/02 to 01/03/97$3,812.75Air service consultationsWheelensSingapore25/02 to 01/03/97$3,911.65Air service consultationsParlePapeete16/02 to 22/02/97$6,477.44Air service consultationsWheelensPapeete16/02 to 22/02/97$6,384.77Air service consultations Aviation OperationsTurnerCairo, Athens01/10 to 13/10/97$5,350.00Represent Australian aviation security position at IATA/ACI AVSEC World 97 conference and brief Greek officials on aviation security Olympic planningBinksUSA and Canada01/09 to 19/09/97$13,727.75Represent Australian position at ICAO Aviation Security Panel meeting and discussions with US and Canadian security officialsFrenchUSA07/06 to 18/06/97$8,928.43Deliver paper at US Federal Aviation Administration AVSEC97 conference and discuss cargo security with FAAPieruschkaUSA10/03 to 20/03/97$4,508.79Attend course on the use of Integrated Noise Model for predicting aircraft noise impacts and discuss aircraft noise sharing arrangements at Boston AirportMoodyPort Moresby17/03 to 20/03/97$3,363.82Aviation security assistance to Qantas at Port Moresby and assessment of security for Australian carriersWalterMadrid, London23/02 to 03/03/97$7,661.48Represent Australian position at ICAO working group meeting on aircraft noise abatement and engine emissionsBinksSingapore27/01 to 02/02/97$2,536.45Present Australian aviation security position paper at Regional Conference on aviation security435(Question No. 1050)1050435Collins, Sen BobSenator Bob CollinsOF4NTALP00 asked the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs, upon notice, on 19 December 1997.(1) Has the Federal Government conducted any market research on community attitudes to reconciliation issues, or any other issues, related to Aboriginal affairs since study no. 9653 by Brian Sweeney and Associates in June 1996; if so, (a) what research has been conducted; (b) by whom; (c) when was the research conducted; and (d) can copies of the research be provided.435Herron, Sen JohnSenator HerronVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission has provided the following information in response to the honourable senator's question:(1) No public opinion research on reconciliation or other issues has been undertaken either by ATSIC or by the Reconciliation Branch of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, since the work by Brian Sweeney and Associates in 1996.435(Question No. 1051)1051435Collins, Sen BobSenator Bob CollinsOF4NTALP00 asked the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs, upon notice, on 19 December 1997:(1) How many times has the Inter-departmental committee which was established by the Government to advise on its official response to the report, "Bringing them Home", met.(2) Which departments or statutory authorities were represented on the committee.(3) Was any advice from the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission on a suggested Government response to the report sought, independent of that provided by the Inter-departmental committee.(4) Were any discussions sought with the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission Board of Commissioners as part of the whole of government response to the report; if so (a) when; and (b) can any written advice which was received be provided; if not, why not.(5) Is the $63 million assistance package over 4 years entirely `new' money or does the funding include monies already committed by the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs Commission or other Government departments in the last Budget.(6) Were any discussions or advice sought from the Government's Chief General Counsel, Mr Henry Burmester, following his advice to a Senate Estimates Committee in May 1997 that there was no legal impediment such as possible compensation claims, to the Government, providing a carefully worded apology to indigenous people; if so, when was that advice sought and received; if not, why not.(7) Given Mr Burmester's advice, can you explain why the Government is adamant no apology can be given.436Herron, Sen JohnSenator HerronVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) The inter-departmental committee met on 22 July 1997. Committee members then met on either a bilateral or trilateral basis on a number of occasions thereafter.(2) Prime Minister and Cabinet (Chair); Attorney-General's; Immigration and Multicultural Affairs; Communications and the Arts; Health and Family Services; Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs; Finance; and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC).(3) Yes.(4) (a) Yes. The matter was raised at a number of ATSIC Board meetings when I was present. In addition, there has been correspondence between the Chairman of ATSIC and myself, and a number of discussions between ATSIC officials and Board members.(4) (b) No. The correspondence referred to above concerns matters considered by Cabinet.(5) Of the $63 million allocated $54 million is entirely new money. The remaining $9 million represents additional spending in the area of language and cultural centres and was allocated from ATSIC's discretionary budget.(6) No. The issue of an apology was not under consideration. The Prime Minister had previously stated the government's position on a formal national apology in response to a question without notice from the Hon Kim Beazley MP, Leader of the Opposition, on 2 June 1997.(7) An apology could imply that present generations are in some way responsible and accountable for the actions of earlier generations, actions that were sanctioned by the laws of the time, and that were believed to be in the best interests of the children concerned. 436(Question No. 1053)1053436Allison, Sen LynSenator Allison1M6VICAD00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Family Services, upon notice, on 6 January 1998:With reference to the report The sterilisation of girls and young women in Australia—A legal, medical and social context commissioned by the Federal Disability Discrimination Commissioner and published in December 1997 which indicates that the principles laid down by the High Court were not being complied with and sterilisations are being carried out unlawfully in Australia:(1) Will an investigation be undertaken to determine the number and type of sterilisations performed on girls and young women with intellectual and physical disability without prior approval by a court or tribunal.(2) Will steps be taken to prosecute medical practitioners who have performed non-therapeutic sterilisation without court or tribunal approval.(3) Is the Government prepared to introduce legislative reform to clarify the law in relation to therapeutic and non-therapeutic sterilisations and in relation to what constitutes the `best interests' of the child.436Herron, Sen JohnSenator HerronVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—The Minister for Family Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) The Department's analysis of Medicare data since 1992 indicates that only about 200 procedures which would result in sterilisation have been performed on young women and girls aged less than 20, as opposed to the 1,045 claimed in the Report. This total includes procedures legitimately performed for the treatment of a disease or condition, with sterilisation as an unfortunate consequence. It is not possible to ascertain from Medicare data whether these patients have an intellectual or physical disability. The Department has requested a meeting with the Commission and the report researchers to discuss the matter.(2) While this is largely a matter for the States and Territories, the Commonwealth would of course take steps to investigate any claim that a sterilisation procedure had been conducted in breach of Commonwealth law.(3) The law in relation to the authorisation of sterilisation procedures for minors is, as stated by the High Court of Australia in Re Marion (1992) 175 CLR 218, that authorisation must be sought from a court or tribunal in order to conduct any such procedure.In November 1994, against the background of the High Court's decision in Re Marion, the Family Law Council provided a report to the then Attorney-General on `Sterilisation and other Medical Procedures on Children'. That report was considered by the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General (`SCAG') in February 1995. At that meeting, a number of State and Territory Ministers expressed some concerns about the centralised procedure for regulating sterilisation proposed in the report The Commonwealth was requested to prepare an issues paper for further consideration by SCAG. The report and the Commonwealth issues paper were subsequently considered by SCAG in March 1996, at which time the States and Territories were asked to indicate their views in writing on the proposals in each.As a number of States and Territories have not yet responded to this request, it would be premature for the Commonwealth Government to propose a federal legislative response to the sterilisation issue.In relation to the payment of Medicare benefits for any procedure, it is the Government's aim to ensure that the Medicare Benefits Schedule reflects and encourages appropriate medical practice. The Department is examining whether any changes are needed to the Medicare benefit arrangements to better support the principles laid down by the High Court and is planning to meet with the Report's researchers and the Royal Australian College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.437(Question No. 1054)1054437Allison, Sen LynSenator Allison1M6VICAD00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 6 January 1998:With reference to the answer to question on notice no. 650 (Senate Hansard, 22 September 1997, p.6691) in relation to funding provided for research into the so-called `Spalding' approach to literacy at the Tangara School for Girls, Cherrybrook, New South Wales:(1) With the project due to have been completed at the end of October 1997 and the final report provided by 30 November 1997, was the report completed and the research outcomes published; if so, can a copy of both documents be provided.(2) Has the final payment been made.(3) Is it proposed to fund further trials of the `Spalding' approach, if so, can details be provided.(4) Will the report be reviewed by any other academic education body such as the Australian Council for Education Research. (5) What, if any, further action is to be taken in relation to the trial.437Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator Ellison9X5WALPSchools, Vocational Education and Training10—The Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question.(1) The final report has been completed and has been provided to the Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs. A copy of the report will be forwarded to Senator Allison after it has been considered by the Government.(2) The final payment has been made.(3) No proposal to fund further trials of the Spalding approach is currently being considered.(4) There are no plans for the report to be reviewed by academic education bodies.(5) Any further action concerning the trial will be considered in the context of consideration of the final report.437(Question No. 1056)1056437Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MargettsDX5WAG(WA)00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Finance and Administration, upon notice, on 13 January 1998:With reference to the report of the Select Committee on Superannuation entitled The Parliamentary Contributory Scheme and the Judges' Pension Scheme:(1) What action is the Government proposing to take in relation to the report and are there any deadlines for action.(2) Will the Remuneration Tribunal be made responsible for revising the Parliamentary Superannuation Scheme or will this be the responsibility of the Government.(3) Is it proposed to reform the Parliamentary Superannuation Scheme prior to the next federal election.437Kemp, Sen RodSenator KempWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—The Minister for Finance and Administration has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) The Government will be giving further consideration to the findings of the Committee on parliamentary superannuation. Changes to the method of setting parliamentarians' remuneration are contemplated by the Public Employment (Consequential and Transitional) Amendment Bill 1997, namely setting parliamentarians' remuneration by reference to classifications set by the Remuneration Tribunal rather than by direct linkage to public service SES salaries as at present.The Government has decided to defer further consideration of the Committee's recommendations on parliamentary superannuation until the new method of setting parliamentarians' remuneration is finalised.In relation to the judges' pension scheme, the Government agrees that the scheme should be retained. The Government is consulting with the federal judiciary before finalising its view on the proposed modifications to the scheme.(2) Once the new method of determining parliamentarians' remuneration is resolved, the Government will give further consideration to the arrangements for any further review of parliamentary superannuation.(3) As indicated in my answer to Question 1, the timing of any consideration of this matter will be dependent on finalisation of the new method of setting parliamentarians' remuneration.438(Question No. 1057)1057438Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BartlettDT6QLDAD00 asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 19 January 1998:(1) For the most recent 12 months for which figures are available, how many people had their payments increased as a result of review activity.(2) What was the average of the increase.(3) What was the breakdown by payment type of the number of customers and the average increase.438Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NewmanBE4TASLPSocial Security10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:(1) For the 12 month period from 1/10/96 to 30/9/97 there were 63,639 payment increases as a result of review activity.(2) The average increase was $24.63 per fortnight.(3) The breakdown by payment type and average increase follows:Retired (1)Disabled (2)Sickness AllowanceUnemployed (3)Families (4)Sole Parent PensionParenting AllowanceSpecial (5)TotalNumber of payments increased34,9483,9099408,9433,2822,5748,46657763,639Average increase$10.19$15.82$36.78$28.84$95.23$50.13$47.62$21.00$24.63(1) Age Pension, Wife Pension.(2) Disability Support Pension, Wife Pension, Carer Pension, Child Disability Allowance.(3) Newstart Allowance, Partner Allowance, Mature Age Allowance, Youth Training Allowance(4) Family Payment, Family Tax Payment.(5) Special Benefit, Widows Allowance.438(Question No. 1058)1058438Allison, Sen LynSenator Allison1M6VICAD00 asked the Minister for Communications, the Information Economy and the Arts, upon notice, on 22 January 1998:With reference to a statement made during a Senate committee hearing into the telecommunication bills that the department is relegating some standard-setting procedures to the Spectrum Management Agency:(1) What status will any such agency have.(2) What aspects of telecommunications technology will it cover.(3) Will the new body be replacing the current committee TE7 of Standards Australia in setting Australian exposure standards for radiofrequency and microwave radiation.(4) Who will the agency be representing.438Alston, Sen RichardSenator AlstonLD4VICLPCommunications, the Information Economy and the Arts10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:In 1996 the Government amended the Radiocommunications Act 1992 to give the then Spectrum Management Agency, a health and safety function to protect the health and safety of persons who operate, work on, or use radiocommunications transmitters or receivers or are reasonably likely to be affected by their operation. The functions of the SMA were assumed by the Australian Communications Authority (ACA) from 1 July 1997.Under section 162 of the Radiocommunications Act, the ACA can make standards for the performance of specified devices; or the maximum permitted level of radio emissions from devices within specified parts of the spectrum.In October 1997, the ACA released for public comment a discussion paper "Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Energy: Proposal for Mandatory Human Exposure Standards and Compliance Framework" in which the ACA is proposing to mandate the Australian Standard AS2772.1. AS2772.1 is expected to be amended in 1998, but changes to the public exposure limits applicable in the VHF, UHF and microwave bands are not anticipated.The ACA's proposal may affect the operation of a wide range of radiocommunications and telecommunications devices and services. Compliance through licensing arrangements will be required of operators and users of all transmitters presently licensed under the Radiocommunications Act including broadcasting transmitters, both commercial and public. Manufacturers and importers of devices fitted, or intended to be fitted, with an integral antenna and intended to be used in close proximity to the body will also need to comply with the standard, through labelling requirements.The ACA anticipates that the proposal will be implemented this year.The Australian Standard AS2772.1 was developed by the TE7 Committee of Standards Australia, an independent, non-Government organisation. Standards Australia Committee membership is made up of people who are appropriately qualified in matters addressed by the standard. The standard, as with all Australian standards, is constantly reviewed to ensure that it reflects the most up-to-date scientific knowledge. All Australian Standards are subject to a formal public comment process prior to introduction. The Government does not intervene in the standards making process, as it is considered this process should remain independent of Government.439(Question No. 1059)1059439Allison, Sen LynSenator Allison1M6VICAD00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Family Services, upon notice, on 22 January 1998:With reference to the review into disability advocacy programs which is currently being conducted by the Office of Disability:(1) What credentials, in terms of knowledge of and experience in disability advocacy, do the current members of the Advocacy Review Steering Committee have.(2) Will the review take all the previous major reports on advocacy in Australia into account.(3) During the course of the review will there be consultations with a wide range of advocacy groups as well as people with disabilities.(4) Will the achievements of disability advocacy groups be built on according to the needs of people with disabilities.(5) If a community services agenda exists can it be made public.(6) Will the advocacy program review: (a) set out the reasons for the review; (b) take the historical and contemporary needs people with disabilities have for advocacy services into account; (c) be undertaken in the context of Australia's human rights obligations; and (d) clarify what does and does not constitute `advocacy'.439Herron, Sen JohnSenator HerronVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—The Minister for Family Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) The current members of the Steering Committee for the Review have a high level of knowledge and experience in the administration and management of Commonwealth programs. One member of the Steering Committee has particularly extensive experience in disability advocacy. In addition, the Steering Committee has received advice from a Reference Group comprising people with direct personal experience of disability advocacy.(2) Major reports on disability advocacy have been considered during the Review.(3) The Review has involved extensive consultation with people with disabilities, parents, carers, advocacy users and providers, and disability service providers across Australia.(4) The experiences and views of a wide range of disability advocacy groups have been considered as part of the Review.(5) There is no single document known as the Government's community services agenda. The Review has been informed by documents in the public domain, such as the 1996 Coalition Election Health Policy: A Healthy Future.(6) (a) The stated purpose of the Review is to ensure that Commonwealth resources committed to disability advocacy are targeted in the most effective manner.(b) Yes.(c) Relevant human rights obligations are being taken into consideration in the broad context of the Review. (d) The terms of reference for the Review do not specifically require clarification of what constitutes `advocacy'.440(Question No. 1064)1064440O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Family Services, upon notice, on 2 February 1998:(1) What is the process by which community-based child care centres may claim child care assistance payments.(2) How many child care centres in Tasmania are currently in the position of owing or being owed, money to, or by the Commonwealth because the estimate of utilisation numbers provided has been inaccurate.(3) How do new centres estimate their initial entitlement to child care assistance payments.(4) How many new centres in Tasmania have been in the position of incorrectly estimating their initial entitlements to childcare assistance because of either overestimating or underestimating utilisation numbers.(5) What procedures are in place for repayment of over-claimed child care assistance to the Commonwealth.(6) What procedures are in place for supplementing underpayments of child care assistance to centres.440Herron, Sen JohnSenator HerronVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—The Minister for Family Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) Childcare Assistance is paid to all eligible child care centres on a three monthly advance/acquit system. Payments are provided to the centres at the beginning of each month. The total payment for each quarter is based on utilisation for the quarter before last.Centres reduce the fees paid by clients according to the clients' entitlement. At the end of the quarter a claim for Childcare Assistance for the total of this fee reduction is sent by the service to the Department of Health and Family Services and this claim is reconciled against the advance.(2) The Department of Health and Family Services currently funds approximately 170 child care centres. All centres in Tasmania are likely to be owed or owing an amount to the Commonwealth as their utilisation varies constantly. However, the amounts outstanding or owed are minor in the majority of cases. The amounts outstanding or owed are resolved in the following quarter's payments.(3) An estimate of the initial advance required is calculated by the Department using the following formula:Number of approved places multiplied by; Number of hours the service is open multiplied by; Rebatable fee multiplied by; Number of weeks the centre is expected to be open in the period multiplied by; 50% (to reflect utilisation) multiplied by; 50% (to reflect average family entitlement).Centres are asked to monitor their expenditure on Childcare Assistance closely and contact the Department if the expenditure is significantly less or more than the advance so that an appropriate adjustment can be made.(4) The total number is not known. Only 4 new centres were opened during 1997. Of these, two underestimated their utilisation marginally and the amount outstanding was paid once the claim was received and processed after the end of the quarter. One centre did not seek an advance for Childcare Assistance and the total amount claimed was paid once the claim was received and processed. The remaining centre was overpaid because it did not reach the estimated utilisation as quickly as projected. This was carried forward to be offset against future Childcare Assistance claims.(5) Where the amount claimed by a centre is less than that advanced the acquittal is recovered against the next quarter's advance. The delegate may approve recovery to be spread over a longer period should a one off recovery adversely affect operations of the centre.(6) On provision of documentary evidence additional advances can be made to a centre during the course of a period covered by an advance should expenditure exceed the amount advanced. If they do not request an additional advance the acquittal is made with the first payment for the next quarter.