1998-03-053816SENATE44101998-03-05The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid) took the chair at 9.30 a.m., and read prayers.44110001CLERK ASSISTANTThe Clerk—Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows:44114EU4O'Chee Sen BillTo the Honourable President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled:We the undersigned respectfully submit that Social Housing is a major social safety net, crucial for all Australians.Your petitioners therefore call upon the Senate to maintain a commitment to the buying and building of new housing properties. The new Commonwealth State Housing Agreement must provide the States with monies to buy and build more Public and Community Housing. Dismantling the safety net of Social Housing will mean homelessness, overcrowding and the scrapping of public housing redevelopment plans, all of which will impact on the most disadvantaged groups in the Australian society.Your petitioners support an increase in assistance to low income earners in the private rental market, but not at the expense of Public and Community Housing.Your petitioners thus urge the Senate to reject current plans in the area of public and community housing.Senator O'CheeEU4Senator O'Chee(from 14 citizens)44114EU4O'Chee Sen BillTo the Honourable President and Members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled:This petition of the undersigned residents on the electoral roll in Australia(1) Deplores the proposed funding cuts to the ABC, and the consequent major cuts to staffing and programs.(2) Commends to the Parliament the Coalition's national and community broadcasting policy, which states: `The ABC must be an independent, truly national, publicly funded broadcaster devoted to excellence and objectivity and offering a clear alternative to the commercial broadcasting sector. The ABC should reflect the broad spectrum of interests, values and views in the Australian community'. (3) Reminds Parliament that the policy includes the following unqualified promises: The Coalition will maintain existing levels of Commonwealth funding to the ABC and retain triennial funding. The Coalition will maintain the current prohibition on advertising and sponsorship on ABC television and radio. The Coalition will `Cease the politicisation of the ABC Board' and `will ensure that future appointees to the ABC Board not only possess the broadcasting, management, and financial skills needed to guide Australia's pre-eminent broadcaster into the next century but also reflect a broad cross section of the Australian community.' The Coalition will insist upon strict managerial and financial separation of the ABC's Charter broadcasting activities from its commercial ventures. . . The Coalition `will encourage and support the ongoing expansion of ABC radio, including the extension of the highly successful Triple J network into regional Australia' The Coalition will `Maintain current levels of financial support for the orchestras'.(4) Reminds Parliament that the Prime Minister made an unqualified commitment to keep his promises(5) Calls upon the Senate:(i) To oppose any weakening of the comprehensive Charter of the ABC, and(ii) To honour these unqualified commitments which we, the undersigned, regard as core promises to the Australian people.Senator O'CheeEU4Senator O'Chee(from 14 citizens)Petitions received.Notices441441441Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSONLI4VICLP10—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the Senate—(a) notes that 8 March 1998 is International Women's Day;(b) recognises the many and varied contributions women make to Australian public life, particularly the achievements of women in Australia's foreign service both at home and overseas;(c) notes, with approval: (i) the recent appointment of Victoria Owen as Australia's ambassador to Egypt, and (ii) that this brings to 11 the number of female heads of mission or heads of post at Australian missions, a record number of female appointments; and(d) commends the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Downer) for his appointment of eight women as heads of mission or heads of post since coming into office in March 1996, reflecting the Government's absolute commitment to recognising professionalism and achievement, regardless of gender, in all aspects of public service.442442Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the Senate—(a) notes that: (i) the closure of the Cobar copper mine has left 260 workers and their families facing extreme financial hardship due to the failure of the mine owner, Ashanti, to pay accrued entitlements amounting to $9.5 million, (ii) many businesses in Cobar are also owed monies by Ashanti, thus affecting their viability, (iii) similarly, 300 workers and their families in Grafton are also facing extreme financial hardship due to the closure of the Grafton meatworks and the failure by the owner, J J Gilbertson, to pay its employees their accrued entitlements, (iv) the Federal Government has so far failed to provide any support or assistance to the workers at Cobar or Grafton to enable them to obtain wages and other entitlements legally owing to them, (v) the Prime Minister (Mr Howard), the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business (Mr Reith) and the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (Mr Anderson) have shown a hypocritical indifference to the rights and the plight of the workers at Cobar and Grafton, whilst at the same time giving support to the National Farmers' Federation (NFF) in its political campaign on the waterfront, and (vi) the NFF, which claims to represent the interests of people in rural Australia, has done nothing to assist the workers and other people, including rural businesses and farmers, affected by the closure of the Cobar mine and the Grafton meatworks;(b) condemns the Ashanti company and J J Gilbertson for their financial mismanagement and their callous action in depriving these workers of their lawful entitlements; and(c) calls on the Federal Government to provide immediate assistance to these workers and their families and to also support legislative changes to ensure that workers are not deprived of their wages and other lawful entitlements due to company closures.Business442442Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell) agreed to:That the following government business orders of the day be considered from 12.45 p.m. till not later than 2.00 p.m. this day:No. 3— Criminal Code Amendment Bill 1997 [1998]No. 4— Civil Aviation Legislation Amendment Bill 1997No. 5— Flags Amendment Bill 1996442Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell) agreed to:That the order of general business for consideration today be as follows:(1) General business notice of motion No. 937 standing in the name of Senator Carr relating to agreements with the states.(2) Consideration of government documents.442Motion (by Senator Faulkner) agreed to:That general business notice of motion No. 931 standing in the name of Senator Faulkner for today, relating to the establishment of a select committee on certain government accountability matters, be postponed till the next day of sitting.442Motion (by Senator Bourne) agreed to:That general business notice of motion No. 795 standing in the name of Senator Bourne for today, proposing orders for the production of documents by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Hill), be postponed till 23 March 1998. 443Motion (by Senator Margetts) agreed to:That general business notices of motion No. 927 (relating to the Multilateral Agreement on Investment) and No. 938 (the imprisonment of Mariana Cetiner) standing in the name of Senator Margetts for today, be postponed till the next day of sitting.443Motion (by Senator Brown) agreed to:That general business notices of motion No. 939 (relating to media ownership), No. 941 (logging in East Gippsland) and No. 943 (police procedures at loggidng demonstrations in Tasmania) standing in the name of Senator Brown for today, be postponed till the next day of sitting.443Motion (by Senator Bourne) agreed to:That general business notices of motion No. 928 (proposing an order for the production of documents by the Assistant Treasurer (Senator Kemp)) and No. 933 (relating to the Multilateral Agreement on Investment) standing in the name of Senator Bourne for today, be postponed till the next day of sitting.443Motion (by Senator Bourne, at the request of Senator Lees) agreed to:That general business notice of motion No. 925 standing in the name of Senator Lees for today, relating to the reference of a matter to the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, be postponed till the next day of sitting.Miscellaneous443Motion (by Senator Allison) not agreed to: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 maga zines 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.Committees443443443Motion (by Senator Stott Despoja) not agreed to:(1) That a select committee, to be known as the Select Committee on Genetic Manipulation, be established to inquire into and report on:(a) the ethical issues arising from genetic manipulation and the application of this technology, also known as genetic engineering, in Australia, with special reference to humans;(b) the likely economic and social impact on Australia of patents the subject matter of, or the claims of the patents, being directed to: (i) deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) and ribonucleic acid (RNA) derived from animals, plants, bacteria, viruses or other things, (ii) DNA and RNA derived from human genes including their use for the purpose of cloning human tissue(s), detecting and treating human illnesses and diseases and the treating of humans howsoever described, (iii) DNA and RNA derived from non-human genes including their use for the purpose of cloning tissue(s), detecting and treating illnesses and diseases and the treating of animals, plants, bacteria, viruses or other things howsoever described, and (iv) proteins derived from DNA and RNA for use in the detection or treatment of illness or disease and the treating of animals, plants, bacteria, viruses or other things howsoever described; (c) the public interest requirements of existing regulations in the granting of patents for inventions involving genetic manipulation;(d) international developments in the regulation of genetic manipulation and genetically-manipulated products;(e) the regulation and use of genetically-modified food and food components in Australian agriculture, manufacture, sale and consumption; and(f) the regulation of arrangements for the research, testing and release of genetically-modified materials in Australia.(2) That the committee present its final report on or before 30 June 1998.(3) That the committee consist of 9 senators, 3 nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, 3 nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, and 3 nominated by minor groups or independents.(4) That the committee may proceed to the dispatch of business notwithstanding that not all members have been duly nominated and appointed and notwithstanding any vacancy.(5) That the committee elect as chair one of the members nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate.(6) That the chair of the committee may, from time to time, appoint another member of the committee to be the deputy chair of the committee, and that the member so appointed act as chair of the committee at any time when there is no chair or the chair is not present, at a meeting of the committee.(7) That, in the event of an equality of voting, the chair, or the deputy chair when acting as chair, have a casting vote.(8) That a quorum of the committee be 4 members.(9) That the committee and any subcommittee have power to send for and examine persons and documents, to move from place to place, to sit in public or in private, notwithstanding any prorogation of the Parliament or dissolution of the House of Representatives, and have leave to report from time to time its proceedings and the evidence taken and such interim recommendations as it may deem fit.(10) That the committee have power to appoint subcommittees consisting of 4 or more of its members and to refer to any such subcommittee any of the matters which the committee is empowered to consider, and that the quorum of a subcommittee be a majority of the senators appointed to the subcommittee.(11) That the committee be provided with all necessary staff, facilities and resources and be empowered to appoint persons with specialist knowledge for the purposes of the committee with the approval of the President.(12) That the committee be empowered to print from day to day such documents and evidence as may be ordered by it and that a daily Hansard be published of such proceedings as take place in public.Miscellaneous444Motion (by Senator Brown) proposed:That the Senate calls for an immediate halt to logging at Mother Cummings Peak in the National Estate-listed Great Western Tiers of Tasmania.09:43:00The Senate divided. (The President—Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid)9Allison, L. Bartlett, A. J. J.Bourne, V. *Brown, B.Lees, M. H. Margetts, D.Murray, A. Stott Despoja, N.Woodley, J.54Abetz, E. Bishop, M.Boswell, R. L. D. Brownhill, D. G. C.Calvert, P. H. *Campbell, G.Campbell, I. G. Carr, K.Collins, J. M. A. Colston, M. A.Cook, P. F. S. Coonan, H.Cooney, B. Crane, W.Crowley, R. A. Eggleston, A.Evans, C. V. Faulkner, J. P.Ferguson, A. B. Ferris, J.Forshaw, M. G. Gibbs, B.Gibson, B. F. Harradine, B.Herron, J. Hill, R. M.Hogg, J. Kemp, R.Knowles, S. C. Lightfoot, P. R.Lundy, K. Macdonald, S.MacGibbon, D. J. McGauran, J. J. J.McKiernan, J. P. Murphy, S. M.Neal, B. J. Newman, J. M.O'Brien, K. W. K. Parer, W. R.Patterson, K. C. L. Payne, M. A.Quirke, J. A. Ray, R. F.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.Bills445r424Billsr398Billsr401Billsr405Billsr409445Bills received from the House of Representatives.445Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I indicate to the Senate that those bills which have just been announced are being introduced together. After debate on the motion for the second reading has been adjourned, I will be moving a motion to have the bills listed separately on the Notice Paper . I move:That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills read a first time.44509:49:00445Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I move:That these bills be now read a second time.I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard .Leave granted.The speeches read as follows—MANAGED INVESTMENTS BILL 1997Managed investment schemes are any type of scheme where an investor purchases an interest from a professional manager who manages the funds received to produce a return. Schemes encompass a wide range of investment products and services including property, equities and cash management trusts as well as smaller schemes such as ostrich farms and pine plantations. Managed investment schemes constitute a large, and rapidly growing, area of investment activity in Australia. In 1980, when the first retail cash management trust was launched in Australia, there was $2 billion under management. Today, approximately $85 billion is invested in managed investment schemes, and the amount invested continues to grow by around $20 billion a year. These figures demonstrate the significance of managed investments for savings and investment capital formation in Australia.One factor which has made these schemes popular with investors is that they allow them to diversify their investments into areas which, traditionally, have required large sums to participate. Another is that they also allow investors, who might otherwise lack the skill or confidence to participate in direct investment opportunities, to rely on the expertise of professional investment managers.This bill is not concerned with the superannuation segment of the managed funds industry, which includes products provided by superannuation funds and approved deposit funds. Those funds are regulated by the Insurance and Superannuation Commission under the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993. The segment of the managed funds industry with which the bill is concerned is non-superannuation managed investments, which are at present regulated as prescribed interests under the Corporations Law.Currently, the law requires each non-superannuation managed investment scheme to have a two party structure comprising a management company, which is responsible for the day-to-day operations and investment strategy of the scheme, and a trustee, which distributes scheme income and ensures investments conform with the trust deed. A trustee owes fiduciary obligations to scheme members to supervise the management company on their behalf and in their best interests.It has become apparent that the law's requirements for these schemes need to be updated. A combination of the commercial property crash at the end of the 1980s, the reductions in asset values of a number of unlisted property trusts, the consequent loss of confidence by investors, and the need for legislation in 1991 imposing a standard 12 month notice period for redemptions from such trusts, focussed attention on the regulatory framework for managed investments. On 24 May 1991, the Law Reform Commission and the Companies and Securities Advisory Committee (`the Review') were asked to examine and report on the most efficient and effective legal framework for regulating managed investment schemes.To assist its consideration of the role of superannuation in its retirement incomes policy, the Government of the day asked the Review to report separately on the regulation of superannuation. The Review published its report on this aspect, entitled Collective Investments: Superannuation (ALRC Report No. 59, 1992), in April 1992.The Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act, which was enacted to strengthen prudential supervision of the superannuation segment of the managed investments industry, requires that there be a single responsible entity (known as the trustee) in relation to each superannuation fund.The report on the non-superannuation segment of the managed investments industry, entitled Collective Investments: Other People's Money (ALRC 65), was tabled on 30 September 1993. Briefly, the Review was critical of the current two party structure for schemes and recommended regulatory reform. The Review's fundamental recommendation was that, for each scheme, there be a single responsible entity in which the current responsibilities of both the trustee and management company are combined and vested.The need for regulatory reform has, more recently, been supported by the final report of the Financial System Inquiry (the FSI), released on 9 April 1997. Recommendation 89 of the FSI recommends that the regulatory structure for managed investments be brought into line with that for superannuation funds, by introducing a requirement for a single responsible entity. The FSI noted that the introduction of the responsible entity concept would result in clear accountability to members, provide cost savings and be consistent with arrangements for superannuation funds.The Government has given very careful consideration to the recommendations of the FSI and the Review. As part of that consideration, it has engaged in extensive consultations with key participants in the managed investments industry. The result of that work is the bill before the House today, the key features of which I now want to describe.Single responsible entityAs I have mentioned, the current foundation of schemes is the two party structure of management company and trustee. The Review found that this structure was unsatisfactory and may substantially prejudice the interests of investors, giving rise to confusion—for the management company, the trustee and investors in a scheme—about who is ultimately responsible for the scheme's operation. The Review concluded that no re-working of the current two party structure could overcome its inherent problems of divided powers and responsibilities, and the attendant legal complexity and uncertainty. This conclusion was the basis for the Review's recommendation that the Law be changed to require a single responsible entity for each scheme. As many investors would be aware, there have recently been cases before the courts which illustrate the confusion about the role and duties of those involved with the operation of schemes. The divided responsibility inherent in the current structure reduces the accountability of both trustee and management company, to investors, and allows a shuffling of blame in cases where something goes wrong.The responsible entity concept will, by removing the current third party between investors and fund managers, improve investment decision-making, while at the same time making the corporate structure for managed investments consistent with other corporate structures. It will also make clear, not only to investors, but also to the responsible entity itself, the nature of the responsibilities owed to investors by those managing investment funds on their behalf. This will impose additional discipline on fund managers. The single responsible entity concept will clarify and simplify the legal duties and responsibilities of a manager by imposing clear statutory duties in relation to investors and the scheme it operates, and providing a right of civil action against the responsible entity by any member of the scheme who suffers loss or damage because of conduct contravening those duties and responsibilities. From the point of view of investor protection, it will ensure that the liability for any loss of investors' funds, through negligent or illegal activity, rests entirely with the responsible entity.Custody of scheme assetsIn developing the bill, the Government has been conscious of the need to afford a high level of protection to scheme assets, and the bill achieves this through several measures. First, the bill imposes certain statutory duties on the responsible entity with respect to the property of any scheme it manages. These duties are to ensure—* that scheme property is clearly identified as such; and* that the scheme property is held separately from the property of the responsible entity or of another scheme.These duties are designed to ensure that scheme assets are not applied, either unintentionally or fraudulently, to the responsible entity's own purposes rather than those of the scheme. In the event of the failure of the responsible entity, the fact that scheme assets are identifiable as such and kept separate from the responsible entity's own assets will help to ensure that those assets are not applied to meet outstanding debts of the responsible entity, but are returned to the investors in the scheme.Secondly, a scheme's compliance plan must set out arrangements for ensuring that scheme property is identifiable and kept separate from other property. The scheme's compliance plan is one of the documents that must accompany an application, submitted to the Australian Securities Commission (ASC), to register a scheme. The ASC will hence have an opportunity to consider the custodial arrangements a responsible entity proposes to put in place for a scheme. If the ASC believes that the compliance plan does not make adequate provision, among other things, for ensuring the responsible entity complies with the Law, including its duties with respect to scheme assets, it may refuse to register the scheme.It is important to recall that the ASC from time to time issues practice notes and other guidance which puts members of the public on notice as to the way in which it intends to administer its functions under the Law. While it would be a matter for the ASC, the Government envisages that there will be guidance to the industry about the criteria by which the ASC will assess the adequacy of compliance plans, including the adequacy of custodial arrangements for the holding of scheme property proposed for schemes. Such guidance could require a scheme to have specified custodial arrangements that vary with the nature of the scheme, of the scheme property, or the size or characteristics of the responsible entity. These arrangements could contemplate a separate custodian where appropriate.Thirdly, the bill requires that the responsible entity holds the scheme property on trust for scheme members. By this provision, the bill imposes trust-law obligations on the responsible entity in relation to its oversight of the scheme property. I want to stress that this provision will not prevent a responsible entity from appointing an agent to hold the scheme property separately from other property. Indeed, the Government believes that, in many cases, a responsible entity will find that the easiest way to discharge its duty to keep scheme assets separate from its own assets will be to engage another party to take custody of the assets.Moreover, it may be appropriate in certain cases for a responsible entity to be required to engage a separate custodian of scheme assets. In this regard, the bill's provisions on the ASC's exemption and modification powers, set out in Part 5C.11, authorise the ASC, for all cases or on a case-by-case basis, to declare the bill's provisions to be modified or varied as specified in the declaration. By such a declaration, the ASC will be able to declare that custodial arrangements in relation to property of a particular scheme or class of scheme is to take a particular form, for example engaging a separate custodian of the scheme property.The Government recognises that there has been concern in that the bill does not include a requirement that there be a custodian for all schemes. It has, however, decided not to impose such a requirement directly in the Law for a number of reasons. The Government takes the view that, having regard to the custodial arrangements that I have already detailed, a requirement for a separate custodian is not justified for regulatory purposes. The Government is also concerned that the inclusion of a statutory obligation for a custodian may lead to renewed confusion as to responsibility for a scheme's operation and assets. Certainly, the responsible entity concept means that any custodian of scheme assets would be a bare custodian, obliged to deal with scheme property in accordance with the responsible entity's instructions, and the Government does not believe that such a custodian should be the sole, or even primary, element of the bill's protection of scheme assets.The Government considers that an across-the-board requirement for a custodian for all schemes would be inappropriate for many schemes and would impose costs that may well outweigh the benefits in terms of improved compliance.Finally, I note that the bill's provisions on custody of assets are entirely consistent with the recommendations of the Review I referred to earlier. Indeed, the report of the Review states that imposing a requirement for all schemes to have a separate custodian was neither necessary nor appropriate, but would be unnecessarily rigid.ComplianceThe bill contains a number of elements to ensure a high level of compliance. A pre-condition to operating a scheme will be that the responsible entity hold a special licence issued by the ASC. Each scheme with more than 20 investors operated by a responsible entity will also be required to be registered by the ASC. As part of registration, applicants will need to lodge the scheme's compliance plan with the ASC.In addition, the bill will require that a responsible entity have in place a compliance mechanism that takes one of the following forms: a board of directors with at least half of the directors being independent; or a compliance committee with at least half its membership being independent. A scheme will thus have some flexibility in meeting the obligation placed on it to ensure that it monitors its compliance with the compliance plan and the legal obligations on it.The ASC will also play a role in ensuring a high level of compliance through its licensing, registration and surveillance activities in relation to schemes. Moreover, to provide the ASC with added enforcement flexibility, the bill will allow the ASC to enter into legally binding undertakings with the responsible entity of a scheme. The ASC may apply to a Court for appropriate orders if the undertaking is breached. Transition to new regimeThere will be a 2 year transitional period for existing schemes to comply with the new requirements. The transitional arrangements will be even-handed in allowing either the existing management company or trustee to become the scheme responsible entity.The bill is not expected to have any significant financial impact on the Commonwealth.In accordance with the Corporations Agreement between the Commonwealth, the States and the Northern Territory on corporate regulation, the Ministerial Council for Corporations has been consulted on the introduction of the bill into Parliament.I commend the bill to the Senate.SOCIAL SECURITY AND VETERANS' AFFAIRS LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (BUDGET AND OTHER MEASURES) BILL 1997This bill gives effect to a number of measures announced in the Government's 1997-98 Budget, and to a number of non-Budget measures.One of the measures announced in the 1997-98 Budget provided for the reform of the means test treatment of income streams under the Social Security Act 1991.The reforms will give greater incentives and provide greater choices for retired people investing in longer term income streams. These amendments complement other Government policy initiatives aimed at encouraging the use of superannuation and other investments to provide income in retirement. The reforms will provide a more generous means test of long term pensions and annuities meeting specified criteria. In addition, they will ensure that very wealthy people will no longer be able to use loopholes to access social security payments through the use of short fixed term financial investments.There will be no general savings provision, as this would generally benefit those utilising loopholes. However, people who have products purchased before the commencement of the reforms can request a Ministerial exemption from the new regime where significant financial disadvantage may result.This Government has always ensured that the community is widely consulted when measures are being developed. Consistent with this approach, and following on from the extensive consultation with industry and community groups in the policy development process, an exposure draft of the income streams measure was circulated to the financial industry and other interested parties for comment. Responses to the exposure draft have generally been quite favourable.This bill also includes measures that will help carers build on the extra assistance offered in last year's Budget, demonstrating the Government's determination to offer a better deal to those often unsung Australians looking after friends and relatives.The Government recognises the stresses that a caring role can place on carers. In recognition of these stresses, this bill provides for an increase in the number of days a year that a carer can have a break from caring and still remain eligible for carer payment. While a carer may currently have a break for 52 calendar days per year, this measure will provide that the carer may take a break for 63 days. In addition, qualification for carer payment will be extended to those looking after a profoundly disabled child, who is aged under 16.The Government has always made it clear it believes the vast majority of social security recipients are genuinely in need of assistance. This is why it is determined to protect the integrity of the social security system so that the limited welfare dollar goes only to those who need it most. To this end, reforms in this bill will ensure a better targeting of the welfare dollar by preventing high income seasonal, intermittent or contract workers and their partners from being able to go straight on to a social security benefit during the off season or between contracts. It will also exclude higher paid casual or contract workers and their partners, who have their leave entitlements cashed out in their salary payments, from receiving social security benefit over short lay-offs like Christmas shutdowns. There will be an exemption in cases of severe financial hardship.This bill also includes measures that aim to make the social security system easier for people to access and understand. Simplification has been a key priority of this Government and we are committed to further reducing complexity in the future. In line with such an approach, this bill introduces a fairer and more consistent income and assets test treatment of lump sum amounts for pensions and allowances. This is done by aligning the allowance means test arrangements for lump sums with the pensions means test.Finally, this bill includes a number of amendments that are consequential on various other measures. These include amendments to the Social Security Act 1991 to take account of the change of name of family payment to family allowance. In addition, the bill includes minor amendments to the debt recovery provisions of the Social Security Act 1991 to take account of the introduction in the Farm Household Support Act 1992 of the new "exceptional circumstances relief payment" and the "restart income support". Lastly, the bill makes a number of minor amendments consequential on the establishment of the Commonwealth Services Delivery Agency.I commend the bill to the Senate.WORKPLACE RELATIONS AMENDMENT BILL 1997 [No. 2]This bill is intended to ensure that small businesses are exempted from the federal unfair dismissal provisions, in respect of new employees. This exemption is necessary and appropriate, given the special features of small business—and it is necessary, to maximise growth in employment in small business.This bill is the same as the bill that was introduced into the House of Representatives on 26 June 1997 and passed by the House of Representatives on 27 August 1997, but rejected by the Senate on 21 October 1997, in the face of the majority report of the Senate Committee to which it was referred. The Government has reintroduced this bill, not because we want an election over it, but because we want to see this problem fixed.Senators who spoke against the previous bill said there was insufficient evidence of the need for the bill, and its benefits. There was plenty of evidence, but they were not convinced. They were not convinced by Morgan and Banks' 1996 survey, which indicated that 16 per cent of businesses with less than 30 employees had been adversely affected in their hiring intentions by the previous Federal unfair dismissal laws. They were not convinced by the Recruitment Solutions survey, released in April 1997, which indicated that 32 per cent of businesses in metropolitan Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane had been the subject of some sort of unfair dismissal claim in the 12 months covered by the survey. They were not convinced by the Bell Committee, which reported on the widespread feeling that the previous Government's unfair dismissal laws were `the final nail in the coffin' for small business.When the Senate rejected the bill, small business made its view even clearer. Mr Rob Bastian of the Council of Small Business Organisations of Australia said that small business would create 50,000 jobs if this bill could go through the Senate. And the Chief Executive of the New South Wales Chamber of Commerce, Ms Katie Lahey, said that `For the Opposition to claim that there has been no independent research proving business concern on this issue is nonsense—it shows how little attention they have paid to the needs and concerns of the small business community'. She drew attention to the New South Wales Chamber's own survey, conducted jointly with the St George Bank in May this year, in which 56 per cent of businesses surveyed said that the prospect of unfair dismissal claims had discouraged them from recruiting additional staff to their businesses.And to make it all completely clear for the Labor Party and the Democrats in the Senate, the Commonwealth Government commissioned further research, as part of the labour market research program being conducted under the auspices of the Labour Ministers' Council. Specific questions on unfair dismissal were included in the Yellow Pages Small Business Index Survey, which was conducted from 30 October 1997 to 12 November 1997. This is the largest economic survey of small businesses in Australia; it focuses specifically on small businesses with 19 or fewer employees. Approximately 1,200 randomly selected proprietors of small businesses were covered in the survey. In this survey, 79 per cent of proprietors thought small businesses would be better off if they were exempted from unfair dismissal laws. 33 per cent of small businesses reported that they would have been more likely to recruit new employees if they had been exempted from unfair dismissal laws in 1996 and 1997. And 38 per cent of small businesses reported that they would be more likely to recruit new employees if they were exempted from the current unfair dismissal laws.Madam President, helping small business to grow, employ, export and invest in Australia's future has been a top priority for the Government since its first day in office. The Government's economic and industrial relations policies are central to its agenda for the growth and development of the small business sector—and the Government is also committed to tackling the impediments to small business imposed by unnecessary government regulation and paperwork, as set out in the Government's small business statement, More Time for Business .The Government has made substantial progress in labour market reform, which is and will be of particular benefit to small business. The Workplace Relations and Other Legislation Amendment Act 1996 changed both the federal industrial relations system, and the relationship between federal and state industrial relations systems. These changes provide small business with greater opportunities to develop industrial relations arrangements best suited to their individual circumstances. In particular, small business employers have new opportunities to make direct agreements with their employees. Small businesses that choose to remain in the award system are benefitting from a simplified and more flexible system; small businesses now have greater certainty with respect to industrial action within their business; and, the Employment Advocate has been given a specific charter to assist small business. Unfair dismissal was one of the most important industrial relations issues for small business, prior to the last election. Our commitment, in Better Pay for Better Work , was to introduce a new unfair dismissal scheme, which would recognise the circumstances facing small business: and we have done this. The new system is more balanced and fair to both employers and employees. It is less legalistic and costly, with an emphasis on conciliation. Employers are protected from frivolous and malicious claims by the requirement for a filing fee and access to costs where a claim is vexatious. In considering unfair dismissal claims, the Australian Industrial Relations Commission has to consider a range of factors, including the possible effect of any order on the viability of the employer's business.Madam President, these changes are important—but they have not gone far enough, for small business. It is an unavoidable fact that the defence of an unfair dismissal claim, however groundless, is especially burdensome for small businesses. In many larger businesses, expertise and resources can be put into recruitment and termination procedures. Small businesses have no such resources. Even attendance of witnesses at a hearing can bring a small business to a standstill.The Government has been listening to the concerns of small businesses, their experiences of the impact of unfair dismissal claims (particularly under the previous Government's provisions), and their fears that the simple fact of employing someone makes them vulnerable to unfair dismissal claims. The Yellow Pages survey confirms the difficulties that even the Government's new provisions cause for those small businesses who experience an unfair dismissal claim: not just the cost of settlement, where that occurs, but the time and location of hearings, stress, costs to business in lost time, disruption to working relationships and the costs of defending the application. And the Yellow Pages confirms the terrible pall that the fear of those difficulties casts over small business employing intentions, even amongst businesses which may not have themselves experienced a claim. These are the reasons that this bill should be brought into law, as soon as possible.I turn now to the terms of the bill itself.The exemption is to commence on Royal Assent. However, it will not affect existing employees. As it is intended to encourage new employment, the exclusion will only apply to employees who are first engaged by the relevant employer after the commencement of the amendment.The exemption is from the federal unfair dismissal provisions, only. Employees will still be protected by other provisions of the Workplace Relations Act. Section 170CK protects employees against dismissal because of any discriminatory reason. Sections 170MU and 170WE prohibit dismissal of an employee because the employee engages in protected industrial action, in seeking a certified agreement, or in AWA industrial action. Section 298K, in the freedom of association part of the act, prohibits dismissal on grounds contrary to the principle of freedom of association. And section 170CM prohibits dismissal without 1-5 weeks notice (depending on the employee's length of service and age), or pay in lieu, except in cases of serious misconduct.The exemption also does not affect the rights of apprentices in small businesses. Apprentices have a particular need for protection, given the additional impact that any break in the continuity of their employment may have, in terms of attainment of qualifications. This bill will not affect existing rights in this regard.The exemption applies only to businesses employing 15 or fewer employees. This size of small business was chosen because of the precedent provided by the Employment Protection Act 1982 (NSW), introduced by the Wran Government, and followed by the then Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission in the 1984 Termination, Change and Redundancy Test Case. An exemption for businesses of this size will benefit a substantial proportion of all businesses in the federal jurisdiction, but will not cover too many businesses of such a size and complexity that they are likely to have a separate management structure (which would facilitate defence of unfair dismissal claims).The bill provides that, in counting the number of employees in a business, casual employees are only to be counted if they have been engaged on a regular and systematic basis for at least 12 months. The intention of this exclusion is to reflect the fact that a business which occasionally engages additional casual employees is not necessarily a large business.This bill will have no significant impact on Commonwealth expenditure.I commend the bill to the Senate.COMPANY LAW REVIEW BILL 1997Overview of the BillIn March 1997 the Government commenced the Corporate Law Economic Reform Program as a comprehensive initiative to improve Australia's corporate law as part of the Coalition Government's drive to promote business and economic development. Proposals for reform of a number of key areas of the Corporations Law have been released for public comment with a view to the introduction of legislation early next year. The Corporate Law Economic Reform Program also includes a commitment to rewriting the Corporations Law in order to simplify it. This bill will begin that work.The Company Law Review Bill 1997 will also improve the efficiency of corporate regulation, and reduce the regulatory burdens on business and other users of the Corporations Law. It will bring substantial benefits for both small and large business, and has received strong support from the business community.The bill rewrites and improves the core company law rules concerning registering companies, meetings, share capital, financial reporting, annual returns, deregistration of defunct companies and company names, with a view to facilitating business and investment. It will also introduce for managed investment schemes rules similar to those which will apply to companies in relation to meetings, financial reporting and annual returns.History of the billThe bill was exposed for public comment in June 1995. In June 1996 the Government referred the draft bill to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Securities. This provided an additional opportunity for input by users of the Law. The Committee's report was tabled in the Senate on 18 November 1996. In its report the Committee expressed its approval for the general content of the draft bill. The Committee also made 11 specific recommendations which the Government has addressed in a separate response to the Committee's report.A number of significant changes have been made to the bill since it was considered by the Parliamentary Joint Committee. The bill will no longer require the annual directors' report to shareholders to include a management discussion and analysis component. While accurate and informative reporting to shareholders is essential to maintaining investor confidence, the detail of reporting requirements should usually be left to best practice in corporate governance, rather than through detailed black letter law. The Government considers that companies should be free to decide for themselves whether they should be preparing management discussion and analysis for shareholders, instead of being compelled to do so by law.The bill has also been amended to retain the capacity to register new no liability companies. The retention of these companies recognises their continuing importance to the mining industry.The bill will also allow greater use of communications technology in calling and holding meetings, as recommended by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Securities in its report on the bill. The assumptions that third parties may make about the internal management of a company have been strengthened. This should reduce the cost of doing business with small companies. Companies that are listed on an overseas stock exchange will be able to buy back their shares on the overseas stock exchange, if the ASC has approved the exchange.Benefits the bill will deliver to business and investorsSimplified procedures for setting up and running a companyThe bill will streamline the existing complicated procedure for setting up a company. Under the bill, the only formality will be lodgment of a completed application form. It will therefore be possible to register a company suitable for operating a typical small business by lodging a single form with the Australian Securities Commission (ASC), instead of the several that are currently required. This reform will reduce the cost of registering the approximately 80,000 new companies that are registered each year.The basic rules that are available for the internal management of companies in Table A of the Law will be updated and moved into the main body of the Law as replaceable rules. As with Table A, companies will be able to adopt a constitution displacing some or all of these rules.Proprietary companies will not have to keep their registered office open to the public. This measure will complete the Law's recognition of the 1 person company.Facilitation of electronic meetings and shareholder communicationsThe rules on meetings in the bill recognise the use of communications technology in calling and holding meetings. For example, companies will be able to serve a notice of a meeting to an electronic address or fax number nominated by a shareholder. Shareholders will be able to send their proxy to the company by facsimile, or by email with the agreement of the company. This will reduce the administrative costs associated with company meetings.The bill also facilitates the electronic lodgment of annual returns and other documents with the ASC.Proprietary companies will be able to pass resolutions, except resolutions for the removal of an auditor, by arranging for every member to sign a statement setting out the terms of the resolution. Proprietary companies will therefore be able to conduct their business without having to regularly incur the cost of holding formal meetings.Share capital transactionsThe bill will abolish the concept of par value for shares, and court confirmation for capital reductions. These are long overdue reforms which have been a part of company law in the USA for some time, Canada since the 1970s, and New Zealand since 1993.The abolition of court confirmation for capital reductions proposed by the bill will remove a significant constraint on companies seeking to adjust their debt and equity requirements to accommodate changes in the general economic environment.The abolition of par value for shares will allow companies whose shares are valued at a price less than their par value to raise fresh capital without incurring the cost of convening a members' meeting, and without the delay and expense involved in seeking court approval for this. It will also remove an unnecessary complication to the financial affairs of most economically significant companies.However, these measures will also make it easier for companies to stream capital to shareholders in circumstances where this would minimise tax. It is therefore proposed to amend the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 to reduce these opportunities for tax minimisation. A separate announcement has been made outlining the proposed taxation measures. In general terms, it is proposed to introduce a new anti-avoidance rule for certain tax preferred capital returns. These measures will be included in a bill to be introduced next year.The amendments made by the bill abolishing court confirmation and par value will commence at the same time as the associated taxation amendments. The share capital amendments have been moved into their own schedule in the bill for separate, and, if necessary, later commencement.As a contingency against the possibility that the separate schedule will commence after the main body of the bill, the main body of the bill will rewrite the existing par value and court confirmation rules in plain English. The separate schedule will replace those rewritten provisions when it commences.The existing rules in the Corporations Law concerning the acquisition by a company of an interest in its own shares frequently require companies to seek shareholder approval in a range of situations which do not threaten the interests of the company, its shareholders or its creditors. This imposes unnecessary costs on these transactions. The bill will address this by removing the need for shareholder approval for financial assistance transactions that do not materially prejudice the interests of the company, its shareholders or its creditors.The existing legal and technical rules against a company controlling its own shares will be amended so that they are based on the concept of control in the accounting standards, rather than the formal legal holding company and subsidiary relationship. This change recognizes that it is possible for a company to exercise actual control over its own shares without there being a formal holding company and subsidiary relationship.Reduced costs in relation to annual reports.The bill will give members of companies and managed investment schemes the option of receiving a concise annual report, saving the company or scheme printing and distribution costs.Longer notice periods for shareholder meetingsThe Corporations Law currently obliges companies to give 14 days notice for ordinary resolutions, and 21 days for special resolutions. The bill will oblige companies to give at least 21 days notice of a shareholders meeting. The change to 21 days for all resolutions is designed to give investors, particularly institutional investors, more time to consider proposed resolutions.Statutory recognition of members rights to ask questions at an annual general meeting.The bill will recognise that the annual general meeting is an opportunity for shareholders to ask questions about the management of the company. It will oblige the chairman to give the shareholders as a whole a reasonable opportunity to ask questions. The new rules will not oblige the chairman to give every shareholder who wishes to speak the opportunity to do so, because the chairman's obligation is to give the shareholders as a whole the opportunity to ask questions, and not every shareholder.Smaller annual returns.Over half of the items currently required to be included in annual returns will be removed. This will result in annual returns being shorter and less expensive to prepare. This measure will reduce paperwork in this area by over 50 per cent for Australia's one million companies and will be of particular significance to small business.Ministerial Council for CorporationsIn accordance with the Corporations Agreement between the Commonwealth, the States and the Northern Territory on Corporate Regulation, the Ministerial Council for Corporations has been consulted and has approved the introduction of the bill into Parliament.I commend the bill to the Senate.INSURANCE LAWS AMENDMENT BILL 1997The Insurance Laws Amendment Bill 1997 is an omnibus bill that amends three separate acts relating to the supervision of insurance activities. The most significant feature of this bill is that it will enhance the security arrangements applicable to the authorisation of Lloyd's of London underwriters in Australia and, as a consequence, significantly improve the regulatory protection for Lloyd's Australian policyholders. The Insurance Laws Amendment Bill 1997 also makes a number of other technical amendments to insurance legislation, some of which I will outline below.Lloyd's of LondonLloyd's is a major international insurance market based and operated in London where individuals, known as `names', and corporate members form syndicates to accept insurance risks. Lloyd's is a significant participant in the global reinsurance market and an important participant in the Australian insurance industry.Like all insurance underwriters in Australia, Lloyd's underwriters are subject to the Insurance Act 1973. However, in recognition of the unique structure of Lloyd's, provisions governing the authorisation and conduct of business of Lloyd's underwriters are specifically set down in Part VII of the act.In the late 1980s and early 1990s, Lloyd's underwriters incurred large property and liability losses which threatened the future viability of the Lloyd's market. During the last four years, Lloyd's has responded to this problem by developing and implementing a major `reconstruction and renewal' plan which will enable Lloyd's to rebuild into a strong and viable market. The amendments set out in this bill will change the regulatory requirements for Lloyd's underwriters in Australia so as to accommodate the initiatives in Lloyd's `reconstruction and renewal' plan while at the same time substantially enhancing the regulatory protection for Lloyd's underwriters' Australian policyholders.Currently, the key protection for Lloyd's underwriters' Australian policyholders is the requirement that Lloyd's lodge with the Treasurer a covenant given by a bank. The value of the covenant during any financial year is the amount of premium income sourced from Australia by Lloyd's underwriters. Some major shortcomings have been identified with this security. In the first place, Lloyd's underwriters are reliant on a third party, namely a bank, to continue to conduct business in Australia. In addition, while the covenant is intended to support outstanding claims liabilities in Australia, its value, based as it is on premiums, has no direct relationship to those liabilities. Given the strong potential for losses to far exceed the value of premiums written, there is a distinct possibility that at any point in time the amount available under the covenant may be insufficient to fully support the outstanding claims liabilities. Furthermore, in the event Lloyd's underwriters ceased business in Australia, Lloyd's would no longer receive premiums and, consequently, the value of the covenant would rapidly diminish. However, Lloyd's under writers would likely retain substantial outstanding claims liabilities in Australia for many subsequent years, and these claims would, under the present arrangement, be left with little or no asset security support.The Insurance Laws Amendment Bill is designed to remedy these shortcomings in the current security arrangements for Lloyd's. The bill will replace the bank covenant with new security arrangements involving the creation of trust funds. The trust funds will hold secure, tangible assets in Australia to a value determined primarily by reference to outstanding claims liabilities of Lloyd's underwriters. The use of security trust funds in this way will ensure that at all times Lloyd's Australian liabilities have adequate financial support in Australia, thereby significantly improving the protection afforded to Lloyd's Australian policyholders.The bill will also introduce new regulatory powers for Lloyd's similar to those already available in respect of body corporate insurers, such as the power to obtain additional information, to carry out an investigation, to give directions and to require actuarial assessments. These powers will both improve the ability to protect the interests of Lloyd's Australian policyholders and enhance competitive neutrality by bringing the supervision of Lloyd's more closely into line with that which applies to insurance companies in Australia.Technical amendments to insurance legislationThe Insurance Laws Amendment Bill 1997 also makes a number of miscellaneous amendments to insurance legislation.The bill amends the Insurance Act 1973 to streamline the processes for form setting and lodgement of accounts and statements with the Insurance and Superannuation Commissioner by authorised insurers in Australia. These reforms will produce considerable administrative and cost benefits for insurers, without compromising prudential requirements.Various amendments are made to the Insurance (Agents and Brokers) Act 1984 to improve the operation of that act. The amendments will remove certain technical difficulties, clarify interpretation of the act by inserting additional definitions and increase consumer protection by strengthening broker disclosure notification requirements.The bill also amends the Insurance Contracts Act 1984 to, among other things, increase the scope of that act to include non-commercial marine pleasure craft. Presently, marine pleasure craft are subject to the Marine Insurance Act 1909. The Marine Insurance Act 1909, however, is primarily designed for insurance relating to the international carriage of goods and does not contain many of the consumer protection provisions which are available under the Insurance Contracts Act 1984. This amendment will enable owners of non-commercial pleasure craft to receive the level of protection in insurance dealings which is available under the Insurance Contracts Act 1984. Other amendments to the Insurance Contracts Act 1984 set out in this bill will improve information flows between contracting parties and refine the insured's duty of disclosure.Debate (on motion by Senator Chris Evans) adjourned.Ordered that these bills be listed on the Notice Paper as separate orders of the day.Bills454r346454Consideration resumed from 4 March.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—The question is that the bill, as amended, be agreed to, subject to requests.09:51:00454Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEALB36NSWALP00—I move:Schedule 1, item 6, page 27 (line 20) to page 28 (line 2), omit "21 years old" (wherever occurring), substitute "18 years old".Essentially, this is the crux of our difficulty with this whole bill. Even though we had not got to that stage of the debate, there was some discussion already in this chamber yesterday evening about the age of independence for non-students. It has generally been accepted both in law and in practice by most of the community that at the age of 18 years a person is independent and is an adult. This bill attempts, almost through backdoor provisions, to try to change that age from 18 years to 21 years, at least for the provisions of social security.I was quite interested to see the sheet that was delivered yesterday evening by the minister which set out a table whereby a family with a child—as described—at 19 years was affected. It struck me immediately that we are getting a re-run of a brave new world. Suddenly by calling someone who is 19 a child, it is quite reasonable to expect their families to support them long past the age where we have, in Australia, accepted them as being adults, that is, at age 18. I do not believe it is acceptable to expect an adult to be supported by their parents when they are seeking work and I believe that just because you are 19 years of age, a young person, you are no less entitled to financial support than an older adult. This is very much what this bill is saying in relation to the age of independence, that is, that you are a less valuable adult when aged between 18 and 21 than an older adult.I found Senator Harradine's contribution to the debate and his questioning of the minister very helpful. The view that was put by the minister that only affluent families would be losers in this change, I find completely untrue.BE4NEWMANSenator Newman—Denied payments.B36Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEAL—I have heard the minister just say that only more affluent families would be denied payments, but I confess I think she is playing with words because, after some questioning yesterday evening, she had to truthfully advise the Senate that a family on an income of $23,400 would start to lose benefits, if they had one child, as soon as they earned $4 over that sum. By definition, a family involves an income that supports more than one person. So we are talking about two people at a minimum sharing $23,400 and, because they have an adult who was born to them and is over the age of 18 years, that adult starts to lose their benefit. In my mind, that is absolutely and completely unacceptable and unfair. That is why the opposition is moving request No. 5, which reinstates the law as it presently stands, that is, that a person is an adult at 18 when they have left education.I talked before about the consequences of turning 18. I thought we had this debate some years ago, probably when I was in primary school, that, if you are 18, you are an adult, you are entitled to vote, you can enter into legal contracts which you are bound by and in criminal offences you are treated as an adult. It seems to me, if this government is going to say that you are not an adult at 18 and that you are only an adult when you reach the age of 21, then they should be recommending to the states that, if you enter a contract when you are 19 or 20, you can turn around and say, `Sorry, I'm not bound by that contract. I'm not an adult.' If you are going to be fair about these provisions, that would be the natural conclusion to be drawn from this change.I was quite interested to hear the minister denying that these are savings. I asked for some figures to be provided. I still have not received them, despite being told that I would receive them. Maybe the minister, when she has the opportunity to get on her feet, can let us know why they have not arrived and when they will arrive. We are told that over two years there will be an increase in expenditure of $125 million. It is a very common trick of the government to make these sorts of statements and claim that that means that everybody wins and that there are no losers. They engaged in what I believe is a dishonest ploy in relation to child care in this way as well. Because the population is growing, there is a general upward trend in the social security area and in all other payments of benefits. So even if the guidelines as to the benefit and the eligibility remain identical, expenditure in social security benefits climbs each year.I have asked the minister to provide the figures as to who would access these benefits each year in an attempt to see whether this was another one of their ploys, where they were using the general increasing trend of a population which increased the total expenditure to hide the fact that there were losers, that there were people who lost benefits and that there were people under the existing legislation who would have been able to access the benefit but will not be able to under these new changes. Minister, I think this is one of those cases. Obviously, if we leave the legislation as it is, there will be people who, when they reach the age of 18 years, would be able to access benefits. But if we pass this bill in its present state, there will be 18- and 19-year-olds who are unemployed, who have no access to benefits or whose access to benefits will be reduced because of the income of their parents.One thing I am a little concerned about is that even though most parents do support their children—or attempt to—there is no obligation whatsoever on parents to support their children once they have become adults. To prevent someone who is an adult accessing a benefit, on the basis that they may or may not be given support by their parents, is extraordinarily dangerous. I do not believe that this government should deny people who are adults—despite the fact that they are young adults—a benefit that every other member of the community is entitled to, if they comply with the eligibility requirements except for their age. It seems to me quite discriminatory. I might allow other members of the Senate to make their comments on this matter, and I would appreciate it if some indication could be given in relation to request No. 6.10:01:00455Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—I can certainly give you an indication in relation to request No. 6, Senator Neal. I do not think it is the indication you are after. The Democrats will not be supporting it, because we find opposition request No. 5, in relation to the age of independence, much more palatable, and you will be receiving support from the Democrats in relation to the maximum age being 18.In fact I am quite surprised. I thought you put forward quite a compelling argument for the legal status of adulthood being recognised at 18, and for independence being granted and established at 18. I thought you might even withdraw request No. 6 in relation to the age of independence for a student, because in fact all the arguments and all the logic that you have just applied are equally relevant to students. I am at a loss to explain the opposition's position on this. Thank goodness I do not have to explain it, because I think it is particularly indefensible as well as illogical.B36NEALSenator Neal—I don't think you know what our position is. I think you should wait until we have stated it until you make wild statements.3I6Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA—I will take that interjection, and I will happily wait and be corrected if the ALP will change the maximum age to 18 in both cases. I look forward to it if that is the argument that comes through. But the rationale for the Democrats opposition to request No. 6 is because we believe it should be somewhat reduced. We do support in principle the changes to ensure that the maximum age of the youth allowance is 18 for the unemployed.As I say, we are opposing any move by the government, or the opposition for that matter, to enshrine what we consider to be a ridiculously out of touch student age of independence at 25 years. This is going to be covered in a number of amendments which follow—in relation to minimum and maximum ages et cetera. The Australian Greens have a similar amendment to the one before us: request No. 5, which is in two parts and follows this. We are more inclined to support the Australian Greens amendment, rather than No. 6 as provided by the opposition.I have stated many times in this chamber—and I do so for the record again now—our moral and philosophical as well as our legal and economic objection to the rates and the ages of independence that are set down in this legislation—not only in this legislation and other legislation which has come from the current government; I put on the record the Democrats' opposition to the former government's concocted and ridiculous ages of independence. I still do not understand—and I take on board Senator Harradine's comments from yesterday—why there is such a gap, a difference, in legal nominations as to what the relevant age of independence is—whether it is for a young unemployed person or whether it is for a student. I have put on record before the arrangements which exist for legislation such as child support, maintenance and the family tax initiative as opposed to when social security and other benefits have kicked in previously and when they will kick in under this legislation.The Democrats find it appalling that a young unemployed person—or someone who is seeking work—is considered independent at age 21. We find it perhaps even more offensive that 25 is the nominated age for those engaged in full-time study or training. We believe this is contrary to community norms. We believe it is contrary to even the government's own practice. Senator Harradine certainly gave us some examples yesterday in relation to the inability of taxation laws to take this into account; and I have provided others on record in relation to other government legislation.I cannot leave this debate without noting that the former government is in many respects just as responsible for setting such differentiated and illogical standards on the age of independence. Senator Neal said that this debate may have happened when she was in kindergarten, but I am afraid I remember the debate that took place in the late 1980s and early 1990s, under the Labor government, in relation to the age of independence and in particular the age of independence for a student. Many of us were involved in that debate to ensure that 25 was reduced, ideally, to 18—the Democrats have always believed that 18 should be at least the recognised age of independence, regardless of the occupation, career or institution the person is involved in. Certainly, we were involved in that debate to reduce it to 21.I acknowledge that the former education minister, Mr Baldwin, did eventually reduce the age of independence—incrementally, year by year. I note that Senator Neal interjected earlier about it being rubbish that this debate had happened, but I remember the year-by-year reduction—25 down to 22. But didn't it take a long time for that to happen. As soon as we finally got to the point where we had perhaps a more relevant definition of an independent age—I am not suggesting it was the fairest or most appropriate—but an age at which people could attain the independent rate of student assistance in the form of Austudy, up it shot again under this government.I have seen little progress on this issue over the years and that is why I still believe that, ideally, 18 should be the recognised age for independence, whether you are a student or whether you are young unemployed. That is why we will not support request No. 6, and that is why we will continue to push—along with other people in this place who have moved amendments to this effect—for 18 and, failing that, 21, to be the recognised age of independence for students. Certainly we will be supporting the amendments before us in relation to the maximum age of 18 for young unemployed people.I record my objections to the legislation as it stands in relation to this issue. I also very strongly put on record the frustration and the anger that a lot of people—be they students, young people, political parties or community, youth and advocacy groups—have towards the previous government, because they could have resolved this issue. This issue could have been resolved. I am not suggesting it would have been changed or that regressive amendments or legislation would not have been passed by this government. The point is that they could have done it. I appreciate Senator Neal making a statement now, but I wish this had been done a lot earlier in law because we still have ridiculous standards and differentiation among legislation as it relates to the age of independence in this country.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator McKiernan)—Before calling Senator Brown, I clarify that the committee is dealing only with request No. 5 at this stage.10:09:00457Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I want to endorse what Senator Stott Despoja said and point out Australian Greens request No. 2, which would bring the maximum age for youth allowance back to 18. The reason for doing this is so that people who are 18—whatever they are doing—are regarded as adults and have access to the alternative benefits that are available. There will be some difference with the Labor Party, apparently, in so far as the maximum age for unemployed people is concerned, but that will come up later. Senator Stott-Despoja is quite right in what she said, and that is why we will move a similar request to this one.10:10:00457Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—I found it fascinating—obviously so did Senator Stott Despoja—listening to Senator Neal criticise the government for taking action which is very similar to the action taken by her government such a short time ago. Her government was able to justify moving the age for students to 22 on the basis that they were not financially independent. We are not talking about the question of adulthood; we are talking about the question of financial independence.Surely today, when young people—as we said earlier in this debate—move in and out of education, sickness and unemployment, the need for a flexible system is demonstrated. But it also demonstrates that, for quite a prolonged period these days, young people are not financially independent. They are not financially independent whether they are students or whether they are looking for work. It is not a question of whether they can sign contracts or what the criminal law says about them; it is a straight factual question about their financial independence. We are not suggesting that they are less valuable. Senator Neal said that we would claim that they are less valuable than older adults. No, on the contrary, they are more in need of help. We believe that this more flexible way of supporting young people through the different phases of their move to financial independence is a recognition of the reality of young people's lives.When my father and his generation left school—usually this was at the age of 14—they went straight into the work force. For most Australians over the previous decades, it has been a relatively painless progression from dependency, to leaving school at quite an early age, to financial independence. We all know that that has changed—that there is a greater demand for skills, a greater demand for people to have more education. In the sixties, when I was leaving university and looking for work, there was a natural progression into jobs. Now that too has changed. Families and the community are faced with the issue of protecting and helping young adults who have not yet achieved financial independence.The youth allowance is very much a natural progression from the Labor government's move to have young people supported by Austudy, with a parental means test up to the age of 22. Therefore, the arguments that Senator Neal has been using do not, as far as I am concerned, wash. She said something like, `Families on $23,400 would start to lose after they have income over that sum.' Doesn't she understand that is exactly what happens with Austudy now? We are not treating young unemployed people differently from the way her government—and now our government—treated students of the same age in the same circumstances.I want to make clear to Senator Neal that we are endeavouring to get the figures that she asked for yesterday. They were sought overnight, but they are not yet ready, Senator Neal. They are not yet available and for that I am sorry, but I hope to receive them during the course of the morning. As I said yesterday, we need information from other departments—namely, Treasury and DoFA. I explained that to you yesterday. We are endeavouring to get the figures for you. I am also advised—in case this is really the crux of what you want from those figures, because it sounded like it from what you said this morning—that the increase in numbers, the demographics, in other words, would have a minimal impact on expenditure. So if you were using that as an argument as to why there would be an increase in expenditure in each of the next four years then, as I told you yesterday, I am afraid that argument does not hold up.I have also been advised that the cost of reducing the age of independence for students to 21 years would be $178 million per year, and the cost of reducing the age of independence for unemployed people to 18 years would be $135 million per year. That is a total of $313 million per annum.10:15:00458Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—In relation to the financial impact of these measures, I understand that the minister is actually claiming that this is a cost-neutral proposal. Is that the case?BE4NEWMANSenator Newman—No. It is an expense.AW5Carr, Sen KimSenator CARR—In the explanatory memorandum, on the effect of the bill, the financial impact is listed on page 1. Could you explain the figures listed on page 1 of the explanatory memorandum in regard to the program savings?10:16:00458Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—Senator Carr, I presume that you are not aware of the fact that there is a corrigendum to the expla natory memorandum and that the figures I gave you yesterday are drawn from that.10:16:00458Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEALB36NSWALP00—Are you saying that they are different?BE4NEWMANSenator Newman—The ones I gave you yesterday are the up-to-date figures; the ones that Senator Carr has in front of him are the previous explanatory memorandum figures.B36Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEAL—Could you explain, Minister, what assumptions have been changed to make those figures different?10:17:00458Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—I will read to you the explanation for the change which is in the corrigendum, rather than try to tell you from my own notes. It says:The amounts set out in the Financial Impact Statement when the Bill was introduced were expressed in 1997 dollar values, based on AUSTUDY and Department of Social Security customer numbers for 1996. However, since that time, the youth allowance initiative has been recosted using out-turned dollar values and recent projections of potential youth allowance customer numbers. In addition, extra expenditure will be incurred in 1997-98 converting payments to students to a fully retrospective basis ($14 million) and in making a one-off payment in 1998-99 of family allowance in respect of young people attracting more than minimum rate family allowance as at 18 June 1998 ($0.05 million).If you have a copy of the corrigendum you will see where I have read that from.10:18:00458Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—Minister, you are referring to the figures of financial impact statements for the whole initiative. How do these compare with the particular bill we have before us? How do they compare in that regard?BE4NEWMANSenator Newman—Mr Chairman, for the committee's sake, we will get that ready for Senator Carr and I will get back to him in a minute with that information.AW5Carr, Sen KimSenator CARR—I appreciate the difficulty, Minister. I have been watching this issue carefully and I am concerned about the way in which these questions are being developed without an examination of the financial impact of this particular bill and its measures.BE4NEWMANSenator Newman—They have been available. AW5Carr, Sen KimSenator CARR—I accept that they have been available to me, and I note the particular document that you have drawn my attention to. I am concerned that we get these figures clear. While those figures are being calculated, I ask: how do these compare with the consideration of other budget measures that have already been introduced in regard to changes to Austudy and Abstudy over the last two years? Do these costings include changes to student assistance that the government has already announced?BE4NEWMANSenator Newman—I am advised that they would all be included.AW5Carr, Sen KimSenator CARR—If that is the case, then I am troubled by the proposition that the government is suggesting that there are no savings involved in this particular bill. Perhaps you could explain that to me again.10:21:00459Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—You were not here yesterday, Senator, when I was explaining that, as a budget measure, this is a spend. I listed the next four years of additional expenditure. That does not mean that there are no savings in part of it and extra expenditure in other parts of it. It is a balance of bringing together two programs, giving people new entitlements who did not have them and means testing people who had not been means tested before.10:22:00459Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—I appreciate the point you make but is it the case that the savings of $514 million over the outyears have been included in your calculations? Five hundred and fourteen million dollars is the figure that I get by examining the changes to student assistance already introduced. Half a billion dollars is a substantial sum of money, which reduces the support for students by a considerable degree. I would ask a simple proposition: are these savings—assuming assistance of half a billion dollars—included in the government's calculations of the costs of this bill?10:23:00459Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—If I gave any cause for you to be misled, I am sorry, but this is expenditure on top of what has gone on before. It is taken into account but it is not included in these costings.AW5CARRSenator Carr—It is not included?BE4NEWMANSenator Newman—No.10:23:00459Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—When we talk about the changes as a result of the government's introduction of the youth allowance, we should consider—BE4NEWMANSenator Newman—This bill.AW5Carr, Sen KimSenator CARR—this bill. But we should also consider, because they are not included in this bill, measures that the government has already introduced which will see a reduction of some half a billion dollars in student support measures through income support measures.10:23:00459Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—I am afraid that you are trying to draw a long bow here to get another piece of legislation drawn into a committee stage debate on the youth allowance. It is not relevant; it is not an issue before us today; and it does not affect the figures that are here, which are genuine and clearly stated.10:24:00459Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—The question arises when we talk about the impact of these particular measures. I understand the government has calculated that some 50,000 people will be worse off financially as a result of the measures undertaken by this government in regard to the common youth allowance. Does that figure of 50,000 people include the 125,000 people who will be affected by the changes to student support measures announced by this government in regard to Austudy and Abstudy?10:25:00459Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—I am afraid that I am not the minister responsible for Austudy. I am having a bit of trouble trying to get advice on what it is exactly that you are talking about. When you say `student financial assistance', specifically what are you talking about?10:25:00459Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—This is the problem that needs to be attended to. What you have here are measures which will allegedly go towards simplifying payments to young people who otherwise would have received Austudy or other payments. Under this proposal—the so-called amalgama tion of five payments into one—what I am arguing is that there will be significant impacts which are not being considered in the explanatory memoranda that are put to the parliament.What I am concerned about is that other government measures in regard to student support have already had an impact with 25,000 persons being adversely affected, which is a much more substantial measure than the government has led us to believe to this point. When you talk about the costs of this measure, I think you have to conclude that there are measures already introduced by the government which affect the payments made to students and as a consequence—BE4NEWMANSenator Newman—Which ones?AW5Carr, Sen KimSenator CARR—Changes that the government has made in the cessation of schooling incidentals allowance for secondary students; changes in the reduction to the maximum rent assistance payable to singles in shared accommodation; changes in the introduction of the two-year waiting period for Austudy for newly arrived migrants; tightening the actual means test; and raising the age of dependants. How much have government measures already introduced, which have raised the age of independence for Austudy to 25, saved the government?10:27:00460Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—No wonder you are not prepared to be specific, because they are not relevant to this legislation. They are matters on which you have had an opportunity to debate before in this parliament. You have the information you need. We are now debating not whether students should be means tested to the age of 25, not whether there should be a sharers rate for rent assistance, et cetera—we are debating whether students should be entitled to rent assistance like young people who are unemployed, people of the same age and in the same circumstances. That is not relevant to the motion before the chair, and you should be pulled into line.10:27:00460Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEALB36NSWALP00—Minister, I suppose we have to say that it is very relevant. Obviously this youth allowance goes to the sort of financial support that we are providing for our young people in Australia. How it interrelates with other changes that you have made in the legislation that affect benefits to both students and non-students is very important.If you look at it as a total package of benefits payable to young people who are either in education or unemployed, even though you are saying in this particular bit, this particular bill, expenditure is increasing, it appears that, if you put all the benefits payable by the government to young people together, this government seems to be making substantial savings by taking money out of the pockets of those young people—who in most circumstances are living essentially in poverty.To say that it is not relevant is avoiding the essential point. We are here today to talk about what is fair support for young people—for students and for the unemployed—and it is very important that we look at it as a total. When you speak to young people on the streets, they are not going to say, `I am only going to look at the benefits that comes from the youth allowance bill. Any benefits that arise from any other piece of legislation, I am not interested in.' They are going to say, `What I am interested in are what benefits I get as a whole.' It is quite proper and reasonable that you should be able to answer questions in relation to that.10:29:00460Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—If the opposition think that this is an appropriate place to be widening the debate when we are looking at their amendment on this specific part of the bill, I presume they would have no problem with me also widening it to include, for example, the reduction in the unemployment rate, the increased participation in the work force and the increased hope that young people in Australia have now because of the actions of this government. Perhaps they would also like to take into account the reduction in interest rates that has come about because of our better management of the national economy and the national budget to the extent that the family that is supporting a young person, because of the reduction in the interest rates on their home loan mortgage, is now in a position where they have had an effective pay rise of between $90 and $100 a week. I presume you are happy to have that included in the record as well.10:30:00461Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEALB36NSWALP00—Minister, if you think mortgage payments are relevant to most young people under the age of 21, you are not in touch with the real world. Very few young people pay mortgages.BE4NEWMANSenator Newman—Their parents. You are talking about them.B36Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEAL—That is exactly what we are talking about. You seem to misunderstand that we are talking about adults. We are not talking about their parents. Most young people do not have a mortgage. The government were very quick to claim credit for interest rates, even though they had just been elected, but I would like to see whether they are so quick to grab responsibility for interest rates when they start to see them go up again. I guess that is a debate we will have then, but I suspect that their enthusiasm for taking responsibility will not be as strong.To go back to the issue at hand, we are really interested in what sorts of benefits are payable to young people. I think it is quite reasonable to debate that issue here in the context of the youth allowance bill. Minister, I asked you yesterday for a breakdown of the figures that you provided on this bill. I asked how many young unemployed people and how many people in education you assume would be taking advantage of the youth allowance up to the year 2002 and what assumptions you base that costings on. I have not received that information yet. I would like to know if you have it available and, if not, when it will be available, because it is very difficult for us to proceed with this debate without those figures available.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator McKiernan)—The question is that the request be agreed to.10:33:00461Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEALB36NSWALP00—I asked a question, Minister. I really would like the—BE4NEWMANSenator Newman—I have already given Senator Neal that answer. I do not think she could have listened.B36Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEAL—I have asked the minister if she can provide me with those figures and, if not, when they are going to be provided because it is very difficult for us to proceed with this debate without them.10:33:00461Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—I am not sure whether Senator McKiernan was in the chair at the time, but I answered that in some detail about 15 or 20 minutes ago, Senator.B36NEALSenator Neal—Where are they?BE4Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMAN—I explained why they are not here yet.B36NEALSenator Neal—When are they going to be here?BE4Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMAN—If I have to go through it all again, I said that the figures are being worked on, that they will be brought here as soon as possible. I apologise that they are not here yet. We will be trying to get them here during the morning. As I said to you yesterday, there are other departments involved and it is taking a little while. I then went on to explain some other things in relation to it.10:34:00461Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I hope the minister will bear with me in going back over some figures she has given to the committee this morning. Did I hear correctly, Minister, when you said that a reduction of the maximum age to 18 for unemployed people would cost $178 million and for students it would cost $135 million?BE4NEWMANSenator Newman—No, back-to-front.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—So for unemployed people it would cost $135 million and for students it would cost $178 million. You did give the total then of $213 million. I think you meant $313 million in total.BE4NEWMANSenator Newman—Yes, you are right.10:35:00461Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—Minister, has consideration been given to the potential for conflict within a family when this legislation comes through, because the application of the means test on the parental income results in a drop in the youth allowance payable to the young adult, the 19- or 20-year-old? Has the government given consideration to the possibility of conflict arising in the event that the young adult may be blaming his parents for his losing some money and maybe not making it up? Maybe they cannot make it up. Under the proposal here, under the means test, it may well be that they cannot make it up, depending of course on their commitments—mortgages and this that and the other. I acknowledge what you say about the mortgage because that is a very important thing. It is understood, I think, to be brought in and implemented.10:36:00462Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—Yes, we have considered it. The information that I wanted for Senator Harradine is not what I have got in front of me now, although I can give him some statistics that may be a bit of help. Two-thirds of the unemployed 18- to 20-year-olds will not be affected by the youth allowance parental means test either because they are independent or because they come from low income, pensioner or beneficiary families.Although young unemployed people in those circumstances may have their payments reduced because of the application of the parental means test, the overall financial position of the family may, in fact, improve. For example, a family that has a student and an unemployed child, which is not unusual, both aged over 18 will be better off if the family income is below $30,700 because the increase in benefit paid to the student is greater than the decrease to the benefit paid to the unemployed person. If there were a second student in the family—two young people studying—and one unemployed, that would be even more so.We will be monitoring trends in the homelessness figures, as we do all the time anyway. The eligibility criteria for homelessness, if that were to occur through family conflict, which is what you are worried about, will be the same under youth allowance as they currently are for Austudy and youth training allowance. There are tight eligibility criteria.You know that we have looked at homelessness very carefully since we have been in government and set up pilot programs with St Vincent De Paul, the Salvation Army and others to work with those who are claiming a homelessness payment. That is not yet completed. It will be evaluated when it is finished. We are concerned that young people are being given money and not the other help that might be needed if they are genuinely homeless. There are now much more vigorous verification procedures than there were when we came into government to make sure that people who are getting assistance from the taxpayer on the grounds of homelessness are in fact homeless.I have just been handed more information. I knew there was something that we were using as a bit of a guide. We have to be assessing what the implications will be, we cannot be certain. Parentally means testing 18- to 20-year-old unemployed young people is not expected to lead to an increase in homelessness. About two-thirds of the group will not have payments affected at all, as I said. The average duration of payment is only five months, as I said yesterday.The other point I would like to make is that the increase in the age of independence from 20 to 25 for Austudy last year does not appear to have led to a significant increase in the overall homeless student population. You would expect there to be a parallel with what you might be looking at here with increasing the age for the unemployed. In fact, in 1997 only 485 students aged 22 to 25 received the student homeless rate, representing 2.8 per cent of that population for that year. That is the best answer I can give you at this time, Senator.10:42:00462Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—As I understand it, Minister Newman indicated to the committee that $135 million was the amount of savings.DX5MARGETTSSenator Margetts—She said costs.6H4Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE—I may have misunderstood. Could the minister again mention to the committee what the $135 million was?10:42:00462Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—The cost of reducing the age of independence of the unemployed to 18. If it this amendment passed, it would be $135 million.6H4HARRADINESenator Harradine—And with the students?BE4Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMAN—Students to 21 years would be $178 million.10:43:00463Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—Has the government calculated the savings in that particular area? Minister Newman mentioned that there were some savings to the government, but overall it was a net expenditure, an outlay, as a result of this legislation. Could the minister indicate to the committee, if she has the figures, the estimated savings to the government budget because of the implementation of the parental means test on youth allowance?10:44:00463Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—Those two figures taken together are the savings—the cost—the one-off. Yes, the $135 million is the figure for you.10:44:00463Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—I thought the $135 million would have been the cost to the budget. So $135 million is the savings to the budget; is it?10:44:00463Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—It is the cost if this amendment were to go through, but it is also the savings.10:44:00463Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I am sorry, Senator Harradine, if I am cutting across your line of inquiry, but does the minister also have a figure for the `cost' of reducing the student age to 18 rather than 21?10:45:00463Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—No, we have not, Senator. I would have thought that the cost of $178 million in reducing it to 21 was shock enough.10:45:00463Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—Yes, I am shocked by it. I wonder if the minister could get that figure for reducing it to 18 for me, please.BE4NEWMANSenator Newman—We will do our best, yes.10:45:00463Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—Here we have a situation which bears out what I was saying last night. What I said last night was that the government was in fact proposing to transfer the cost of its social security responsibility for young adults from its own budget to parents in these particular circumstances, and that goes to the extent of $135 million. I do believe that it is incumbent upon the government in fairness to the families affected if it is going to insist, and as I understand it it is going to insist, on this particular measure—whatever we do here it is going to bat it back to the House of Representatives and bat it back here—to have regard to the principle that I was suggesting last night—that is, if it is going to recognise the transfer of incomes within a family for the purposes of applying social security legislation, then it ought also do so in its taxation legislation by way of rebate.I indicated yesterday that there were certain measures that should be adopted, and in my view that ought to be done in the lead-up to the budget. That issue should be addressed very thoroughly by those people within the government who are considering the imposition of a consumption tax. That is a matter that really greatly concerns me, because a consumption tax treats spending on children and these young adults—our future taxpayers—as simply consumption expenditure. Yet that spending on children is really an investment in human capital and a consumption tax would in fact hit families very hard.I know that that is not, as the minister said yesterday, part and parcel of this particular legislation, but it is a relevant consideration. It is a matter to which the government should give thorough consideration in the first instance in the lead-up to the budget and in the second instance in its considerations of general taxation policy. Bear in mind, Minister—and I do ask you to bear this in mind—that it is not only the rich parents that you are talking about but also parents on $23,400. So, really, that is $450 a week.You could have a situation, for example, where that is the income of a one income family where the spouse decides—because of circumstances within the family or because of extraordinary circumstances that may occur from time to time—to go out to work. Say, for example, that spouse earns $100 a week part time. The effect of that $100 a week earning on the youth allowance of $87 a week is going to be $10. So the youth allowance will be reduced by $10. I could use the fortnightly figures, but I work better with weekly figures.Because of the operation of the $1 drop for every $4, if I am correct a person who, say, earns $80—actually, it is $10 in $40. It is more, isn't it? If you lose $1 for every $4, it is $10 in $40; for $80 it is $20. So it is not insignificant that, if the spouse goes into part-time work for $80 a week, it is $20 a week that the youth allowance comes down. That is not insignificant. What I am saying to the government is that it really does have to have a thorough look at this in order to compensate the families concerned and to acknowledge the proper principles of taxation.10:52:00464Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—I first of all thank Senator Harradine for his recognition of the importance and the impact of those interest rate reductions on families' mortgages, because when we are focusing here on families' disposable income and their ability to support, educate and feed their children, an effective pay rise of $90 to $100 a week is certainly nothing to be sneezed at and is important to factor into our consideration. I thank him for acknowledging that. I share his concern about the problems of families who are trying to raise families today, especially when the expectation is that they will need more education than their parents or their grandparents did. In other words, they will remain financially dependent for longer than previous generations, so it is much more of an issue for the parents of today than it was for the parents in the past.I said yesterday that we recognised as soon as we came into government the costs of rearing children, and we did that by implementing our election commitment of the family tax initiative, which was a billion dollars worth of extra money going into the pockets of Australian families with children. That is not where we intend to end. We do have more work to do in tax reform, but that was a recognition of the urgency of helping families as soon as we came into government and of honouring that commitment.The Prime Minister (Mr Howard), you will recall, in announcing Senator Gibson to chair a special government members task force on taxation, listed the principles under which our tax reform process was going to be based. He said that those making public submissions should bear in mind the government's view that, firstly, there should be no increase in the overall tax burden; secondly, any new taxation system should involve major reductions in personal income tax with special regard for the taxation treatment of families; thirdly, consideration should be given to a broad based indirect tax to replace some or all of the existing indirect taxes; fourthly, there should be appropriate compensation for those deserving of special consideration; and, fifthly, the reform of the Commonwealth-state financial relations must be addressed. You would know that Senator Gibson has been very busy over recent months chairing that task force. Increasingly, organisations in the community are adding their voices to, firstly, the need for taxation reform so that we have a tax system that is appropriate for modern Australia and, secondly, what form that should take, and people do have different views.You should be reassured that the Commonwealth is committed to any new taxation system involving major reductions in personal income tax with special regard to the tax treatment of families. I cannot say more than that at this stage because decisions have not been made on the fine print of the tax reform, as you would realise. It is certainly something I would direct your attention to when we are considering this responsibility which the youth allowance will place on families. It already places it on those very same families if they have students in the family.Senator Harradine, when you were speaking just now, you were looking at the extra impact on families if they have a young unemployed between 18 and 20, but I do urge you to think about the fact that the typical family is likely to have students as well as unemployed in the family. Therefore, within that family, there is a transfer of payments so, even though they might lose some through means testing for the young unemployed person, the swings and roundabouts mean that the benefits that accrue to the student make the family at least as well-off if not better off than they were to begin with.One thing that has not been mentioned in this debate is the increase in benefits for those under 18. Students under 18 will have an increase in the rate if they are away from home. It is the away from home rate for under 18s. For many country people or people in regional Australia, at the age of 16 to 18, they may have to be sent away so there may be an increase in the assistance to those families. And those families will be a mix. They might have their under 18s going on to a matriculation college, while one young person is looking for work and another young person is at TAFE or university.So it is very hard to just sit here and say that all parents will be disadvantaged because they are now going to be parentally means tested if they have an 18 to 20 year old unemployed. They are already parentally means tested for those under 18s and some would find they have more income coming in as a result of that. They are already parentally means tested for students up to the age of 25, so the change in terms of the parental means test is for the 18 to 20 year old unemployed where there may be a mixture of children in the family in different circumstances. It is a little complex to make claims about what will happen to any group of families. It is easier when you get a particular family and you can talk about the specifics. You can be assured that we are intending to address the issue of family taxation very carefully. Beyond that, I cannot say more today.10:58:00465Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—One of the reasons I asked the question was as a result of the information given by the minister to the committee that there will be a saving to the government budget of $135 million as a result of the means test—BE4NEWMANSenator Newman—And a redistribution.6H4Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE—and the increase of the age to 21 years. Obviously, that tab is going to be picked up by some of the families. I think you mentioned that two-thirds of the families will not be worse off and some of them will be better off. That implies, does it not, that a third of those families with young unemployed adults will not be better off. Presumably, they will be the same or worse off.The point that I am making is that it really is incumbent upon the government to consider this not only at the stage of their consideration of the future tax regime but also in the context of the forthcoming budget. I know that you are the Minister for Social Security, Senator Newman, and not the Treasurer, but I would be obliged if you would refer my concerns to the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) in that regard.11:00:00465Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—I would be happy to do that.11:00:00465Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEALB36NSWALP00—The debate that we have had and the information provided by the minister, if anything, have confirmed in my mind the concerns that the opposition had. That is, there was a transfer from the governments and those people who were previously treated as adults and entitled to some sort of support if they are unemployed are no longer able to access it.The minister gave it away when she said that the change proposed by me as a request—that is, the reduction of the age of independence of the unemployed to 18—would cost $135 million. It has been confirmed that the reverse is also true. If this measure is not amended, $135 million will be taken out of the pockets of unemployed people between the ages of 18 and 21. They are both reflections of the same picture, but they mean very different things to the government than they do to the particular individual who is affected.In relation to this request, I would continue to press it. I feel that all the information the minister provided indicates that, if this is not moved, those young people who are unemployed will certainly be the losers, and many families starting at an income figure of $23,400 will also be the losers. I do not think by any stretch of the imagination that those people are well off, and I certainly would not like to see that occur. Question put: That the request (Senator Neal's ) be agreed to.11:07:00The committee divided. 0Allison, L. Bartlett, A. J. J.Bishop, M. Bolkus, N.Bourne, V. Brown, B.Campbell, G. Collins, J. M. A.Conroy, S. *Cook, P. F. S.Cooney, B. Crowley, R. A.Evans, C. V. Faulkner, J. P.Forshaw, M. G. Gibbs, B.Hogg, J. Lees, M. H.Lundy, K. Mackay, S.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.0Abetz, E. Boswell, R. L. D.Brownhill, D. G. C. Campbell, I. G.Chapman, H. G. P. Colston, M. A.Coonan, H. Crane, W.Eggleston, A. Ellison, C.Ferguson, A. B. Ferris, J.Gibson, B. F. Harradine, B.Herron, J. Kemp, R.Knowles, S. C. Lightfoot, P. R.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.Bolkus, N. Calvert, P. H.Carr, K. Heffernan, W.Collins, R. L. Macdonald, I.Denman, K. J. Alston, R. K. R.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the negative.11:12:00466Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEALB36NSWALP00—The opposition is withdrawing request No. 6. I want to say a few words about this because, from some comments made from the crossbenches, there seems to be some misunderstanding. The intention of request 6 was only ever to rectify a technical error that we saw in the bill which related to making sure that there was a maximum age for every possible type of person.We have brought that to the attention of the government and they now seem to have recognised the problem and fixed it. They had a maximum age for everyone except people who are undertaking full-time study in a course of less than 12 months and who are not receiving newstart allowance. That was the intention of that request. It certainly was not to determine the age of independence. The age of independence is obviously determined at section 1067A of the bill and not in this section that we are presently dealing with. I wanted to put that on the record because there seemed to be some misunderstanding that arose from the format of that request. We will not be proceeding with it.11:14:00466Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I am having discussions with Senator Margetts from the Greens (WA) and Senator Stott Despoja. I think it might be a better way for the committee to proceed—if the committee agrees—if my amendment were held over until we deal with the schedule 2, item 8 amendments.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Calvert)—You can bring it on later.11:15:00466Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—There appears to be some confusion about the effect of these changes. I understand that there is an attempt being made to secure further liaison about the implications of these particular measures. I ask the government whether it would be prepared to review this whole issue of the age of independence. It is quite clear from what we have heard today and yesterday that this question of increasing the age of independence for students will have a very harsh effect on individual students. It will have a very serious impact upon families, who will be required to provide financial support for those who have been regar ded in the very recent past as adult children. Minister, I ask you directly: will the government withdraw these matters to allow some time to consider the implications of these particular measures?BE4NEWMANSenator Newman—The answer to that is no.AW5Carr, Sen KimSenator CARR—I am very disappointed, Minister. It strikes me that there is a need for the chamber to review this issue of the implications of forcing families to carry the additional financial burden of supporting adult children while they are undertaking study. The government, until recently, has provided support to families to undertake that matter. It has withdrawn that support in the education area in terms of changes to Austudy and various other student support measures, to the effect that 125,000 students are actually worse off.There has been a withdrawal of half a billion dollars of support for students as a result of actions taken by this government. In this particular measure, we see that program now extended so that some 50,000 additional people will be worse off. This is particularly serious for families with adult children who are undertaking study. As already indicated, I have urged the government to review this measure—to withdraw it and to give the matter further consideration.Mr Temporary Chairman, these issues should be considered in regard to section 1067A(4) where there is a reference to the age of independence. I move:Schedule 2, Item 8, page 125 (line 26), at the end of subsection (4), add "This age will be progressively reduced over time.".11:19:00467Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—Senator Carr has not been here for the full debate; Senator Neal has carriage of this matter for the opposition. I have already put on the public record in this place that there has been an enormous amount of time for the consideration of this legislation and for the principles behind it, in that the broad principles were announced in the 1996 budget. Senator Carr does not appear to be very interested in my answer. I would be very happy if you would listen, Senator.AW5CARRSenator Carr—Mr Temporary Chairman, on a point of order: that is an extraordinary proposition by the minister. I am very interested. I am disturbed by the callous disregard this minister has for working people in this country. It is an appalling measure. She cannot dismiss it in this cavalier way. To suggest that we are not interested in this proposition is a gross distortion of the facts.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—There is no point of order.BE4Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMAN—I know he is having a lot of fun, Mr Temporary Chairman, but we have had a committee stage in which this issue has been thoroughly canvassed. Before that, there was committee consideration last year. We have had the bill for five months. We have had consultations with the community. It came about as a result of requests from community organisations to your government which you ignored; you would not take any action. When there was a new government, they came to us, saying, `Please do it. We've got to do better.' I have told this to the chamber, Senator Carr, when, obviously, you have not been here, because I am sure you would have listened.As you are not aware of it, there has been an enormous amount of consultation—an enormous amount of time for the impacts to be studied. I think that it is a bit late in the day for you to try to produce delaying tactics when the matter has been very thoroughly canvassed.Many parents around Australia believe this is a very important measure. If you live in regional Australia or have any aspirations to live in regional Australia, you will have a better understanding of why it is badly needed. We are not taking money off young unemployed people; we are benefiting families who have a mixture of unemployed people and students—and that is the typical Australian family.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Senator Carr, do you wish to press ahead with that amendment which I understand is meaningless, but nevertheless—11:21:00467Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—That is a gratuitous remark, Mr Temporary Chairman. I wish to press ahead with the amendment. You might be of the view that it is meaningless—I am not of that view. I think it is quite apparent that there is a need to reduce the age of independence for adults undertaking study. I will press ahead with it and I reject your view that it is a meaningless concept.11:22:00468Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—Mr Temporary Chairman, I am probably going to ask the same thing that Senator Margetts wishes to ask: will you clarify which amendment we are being asked to consider at the moment? Is it an amendment moved by Senator Carr?10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Calvert)—For your information, it is an amendment that is not on the sheet. It has just been moved by Senator Carr and we are in the process of getting a copy for everybody.11:22:00468Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—If I may be helpful in the meantime, Senator Newman has just indicated that there has been lots of time, lots of very careful consideration and lots and lots of community consultation. So I wonder whether Senator Newman can table the outcome of any studies her department may have done on the impact of these changes on families with young unemployed people.11:23:00468Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—I cannot produce such a piece of research for you today, Senator, but I can say that I and my officials have spent a very great deal of time going around Australia—not just sitting in Canberra—talking to organisations like the Smith Family and talking to parents who have concerns that their children were taking unemployment payments in an attempt to be `independent' in lieu of continuing of studies because of the level of income that they could get from Austudy. That is my research, and I spent all the first year that we were in government doing that in small towns, in big towns and in cities around Australia.My officials have met with people too. When we opened the consultation process after it was announced in the budget in August 1996, Senator Vanstone and I had phone calls and letters, and we were receiving those sorts of representations for a number of months.11:24:00468Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—If I am reading the minister correctly, what the minister is saying is that no studies have been done by her department which she can actually table, which are repeatable or have any statistical basis, on the impact of these changes on families with young unemployed people.11:25:00468Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—The work that has been done by my department has not gone to customer surveys, but it has gone to ABS data and to our own customer data.11:25:00468Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I thank the minister. Perhaps she might give us the ABS data which has been used in their predictions on the impact of these changes on families. Of course, existing ABS data puts people in specific categories. So that does not tell us what the impact will be on families—not just the dollar impact, but the likely impact on the extra stresses on families of young unemployed people. Quite frankly, what has been coming out from both what Senator Harradine has been asking and from questions from the rest of the Senate is that you are clearly admitting that there are at least one-third of families with young unemployed people who, at the very least, will not only be worse off but may also be worse off in real terms.The statistic that was admitted last night is that those, for instance, on a total family income of $26,000 may be about $120 a fortnight worse off. If people are trying to cover mortgages and do the other things that families do, then I would expect that most families do not have—even on an income of $36,000—a slush fund where they could find $121 a fortnight because they are usually budgeting close to the limits of their income.Have there been no social impact assessments, no statistical studies of that one-third of families who are likely to be worse off because of unemployment of young people? In effect, Minister, are you blaming not only young unemployed people but blaming the families of young unemployed people for their young people being unemployed? It is a whole new way of looking at scapegoatism for young unemployed people.11:27:00469Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—We are not blaming anybody for anything, and that is a cheap shot too. The statistics that have been used by my department in analysing the impact on the customer population have been largely drawing on the household income and the household composition of families. That is why I keep emphasising to you, Senator, that families in Australia are rarely have one unemployed young person. They are a mixture of young people at various ages and stages of life and stages of financial independence or dependence. Consequently, what might be a reduction to the family income for one of their children could well mean an increase in payment to that same family for the other one or two of their children, or more of course.As I said the other day, for country families who have more than one child to educate, it is a terrible dilemma as to how they share the dollars available from that family income to allow all their children to have the benefits that they want for them. This will make an important difference. So while you may focus on some bit of the package that you do not like, I say to you that parents see it as being beneficial across-the-board to them as a family unit because the level of support for students has not been adequate.11:29:00469Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—I am now in a position to view the Labor amendment moved by Senator Carr. I want to suggest to the Senate that this amendment would be more appropriately dealt with in schedule 2 where it would, I believe, be more appropriately debated in conjunction with the Greens (WA) and Democrat amendments that also make changes to this particular section 1067A.As I understand, the effect of this amendment is to reduce 25 as the age of independence progressively over time. I believe that the Democrat and similar Greens amendments suggest that, instead of having a cop-out progressively over time, you put in the age of either 18 or 21 years. Our amendments deal with those particular alternatives. I would much prefer to deal with this under schedule 2 where most of the other amendments to this age of independence are being dealt with. Now that the amendment has thankfully been circulated, perhaps we can progress to the next amendment before us which I believe is from the opposition.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Calvert)—We have to dispose of this amendment moved by the Labor Party so, if that was your wish Senator Stott-Despoja, we would have to have a motion postponing this particular amendment to wherever you suggest. I do not know whether the Labor Party are happy with that or not.AW5CARRSenator Carr—We are happy to postpone it.Motion (by Senator Margetts) agreed to:That consideration of the amendment be postponed.11:31:00469Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEALB36NSWALP00—by leave—I move:(3) Schedule 1, item 6, page 29 (line 25), omit "notice of", substitute "a notice in writing of".(4) Schedule 1, item 6, page 29 (line 28), at the end of subsection (4), add: ; and (c) the effect of failure by the person to comply with the requirement set out in the notice.(5) Schedule 1, item 6, page 97 (line 20), at the end of subsection (3), add: ; and (f) must state the effect of failure by the person to comply with the requirement set out in the notice.(6) Schedule 1, item 6, page 99 (line 21), at the end of subsection (2), add: ; and (f) must state the effect of failure by the person to comply with the requirement set out in the notice.These are the other half of the amendments which relate to proper notification provisions—the requirement that the notification be given in writing and that the consequence of non-compliance be advised. We have had this debate at length, and I think they are acceptable to the government and supported by all of the other parties.Amendments agreed to.11:32:00470Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—I move:(14) Schedule 1, item 6, page 29 (line 27), after "times", insert ", being places and times which are reasonable in all the circumstances,".The amendment moved in my name on behalf of the Democrats relates to the youth allowance activity agreements. The amendment is designed so that there is an inclusion about reasonableness when the secretary is giving notice to a person about places and times at which the youth allowance activity agreement is to be negotiated. We have moved this amendment in response to those cases where a person is required, say, to attend two interviews at the same time in different places or at a place which a person has no ability to get to. I raised examples of this previously in the debate.Examples have been given to us from various centres—such as Welfare Rights—of when young people have been able to attend interviews at the Centrelink to which they have access only by public transport but have then been required, for whatever reason, to attend one which may be even geographically closer but is not necessarily easily accessible to them. I can think of a range of physical or other possibilities that may make travel difficult. We believe this amendment quite simply puts in a test of reasonableness and alleviates that problem.11:33:00470Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—The amendment that Senator Stott-Despoja has moved is certainly reasonable. The irony is that we talking about how we can cut students down to the bone. We will be dealing with an amendment later about how the government is trying to reduce liquid assets in conjunction with the youth allowance to $2,500. So basically the ability to do things like fixing up a car and so on, if you had a car, might be very limited. It is not reasonable to suggest that there might be a technical requirement to attend an interview at a time which you could attend only by automobile if there is no indication that any of these allowances would provide for people to run their own car.We have to be reasonably careful to make sure—when we are talking about such critical issues as how people survive and eat—that they are able to actually meet their technical commitments and that we do not have the minister coming in and boasting how many people she has thrown off youth allowance this month based on the fact that there may be people setting unreasonable times for interviews et cetera, and it is not technically possible to meet them. So I think it is very reasonable to suggest that there should be some humanity built into the system, which allows people to abide by the conditions set for them.11:35:00470Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—This is similar to an amendment which was proposed earlier. Senator Stott Despoja does assume that people can be made to take unreasonable steps to comply with requests. I did point out earlier to you that administrative law principles insist that requests and decisions be defensible. The department and Centrelink would not be in a position to deny that at all. So I think this amendment adds an unnecessary and ineffective addition to a provision that is clearly meant to be beneficially interpreted. The requirement in this case is for the secretary to let the person know when and where they are to attend to enter an agreement. I do not think it needs any further expansion.11:36:00470Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I think we must be totally imagining the increasing number of people who are ending up in the Social Security Appeals Tribunal these days. It must be totally our imagination that an increasing number of people are ending up with the Ombudsman—BE4NEWMANSenator Newman—It is.DX5Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTS—Oh yes, we are imagining it, sorry.3I6STOTT DESPOJASenator Stott Despoja—Table the figures.DX5Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTS—Yes, please table the figures. Basically, whether something is defensible or reasonable might end up having to be argued later on in some kind of appeals tribunal—for those people who know how to go about appealing a decision which might be unreasonable. I do not think `Leave it with us. Trust us. We are the government' is a good way to think about it on this occasion. At the outset, we have to decide whether we are going to be fair in the way things are being addressed. Remember that yesterday the minister said this is not a punitive legislation. It is punitive if the non-attendance at some required interview ends up with a person losing their benefit. It is punitive if you have nothing to live on.11:37:00471Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—I would like to answer that. I would not want you to misunderstand what I said to you across the chamber, Senator. I was not commenting on Ombudsman's figures, because I cannot remember them. But I do know that over the last many months the number of appeals to the Social Security Appeals Tribunal has diminished quite significantly. I put that down to a focus on much better decision making within Centrelink and a better review process within Centrelink. That is, after all, more humane and more beneficial to our customers than having to wait to get to a tribunal to get redress. If you are claiming that there are increased numbers of people going to the Ombudsman or to the tribunal, first of all, you are wrong about the tribunal. But, if that were the case, that would suggest that there is not a problem with people having an opportunity to get redress if something is wrongly done. You cannot have it both ways.11:38:00471Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEALB36NSWALP00—The opposition will be supporting this amendment. I understand that we all hope that decisions are made beneficially, but unfortunately there often are disputes about the way provisions are applied. When there is a dispute, the employees of Social Security often will fall back to the absolute, strict, black-letter provisions in front of them. I suppose that is reasonable for someone in that position if there is uncertainty. In that situation, I think it is quite fair and reasonable to state very clearly that requirements must be applied in a reasonable way and to re-emphasise that point—a point that we would hope is already occurring, but unfortunately does not always. This is an attempt to try to ensure that it will be most usually done in a reasonable way. I point out very clearly that, in the legislation, in the black-letter law, that is required.11:39:00471Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—I will respond briefly to the minister's comments. I do not think that it detracts in any way or makes any unfair implications or inferences to simply add what I think are quite tame and reasonable words. If we look at the secretary's obligations in relation to `notice of requirement', we see that he or she has to state the places and times at which the agreement is to be negotiated. I think to add to that or to add specifically after `time' the words `being places and times which are reasonable in all circumstances', only value adds to this particular section of the bill. I did not put it in there because I want to be sneaky or to suggest that the government has nasty intentions. I do think it is quite a fair addition. I think it is probably in line with a number of other amendments that we have looked at in the chamber—be they in relation to notification in writing, having to outline the effects of non-compliance or be they even the 14-day period that we nominated. I think it is just one of those value additions that also adds to the reasonableness and the fairness of the bill. That is what we are all hoping to achieve.Amendment agreed to.11:41:00471Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I move:That the House of Representatives be requested to make the following amendment:(9) Schedule 1, item 6, page 47 (after line 8), after subsection (2), insert: Exception—full-time students(2A) Subsection (1) does not apply to a person who is, or who is about to become, a full-time student.This amendment exempts full-time students from the onerous liquid asset test requirement, and it also exempts students from the liquid assets test waiting period. Students often save considerable sums of money in order to pay for rent, books, computers, fees, transport, and to top up the miserable amount of money a person receives on Austudy or youth allowance. It would be unfair for a student to be penalised for up to 13 weeks for being responsible enough to save money for their education. There are already income tests. There is already a number of other means by which a person's income is taken into consideration in relation to Austudy and youth allowance. I believe that it is not reasonable to impose this on a full-time student. We are looking at something as mean and miserable as setting the liquid assets test for a full-time student at $2,500, and for every $500 over that there will be another week's waiting period, up to a total of 13 weeks.The reality is that the average cost of, for instance, a motor going in an automobile—if it is necessary for a student to try to run a car—can be close to amount. Any other major problems with health, transport or even accommodation may cost close to that. The legislation is trying to make people of all categories, including full-time students, as vulnerable as possible. Basically, it means that, at the secretary's whim, at the wave of a wand, a person's means of living can be given, taken away or reduced at any particular time. The minister has strenuously resisted clarifying the guidelines.We have a situation where the liquid assets test for full-time students is set at $2,500. For some courses, this amount could be spent on books. For other courses, it could be spent on other means of getting around. What do you get for $2,500 if you are looking for a reliable means of transport? I really think this is not a fair amount to set it at. Perhaps if the government had set it at something like $50,000 or less it might actually have been realistic. I am suggesting that to set a liquid assets test and to say that a person will lose their means of support if they have anything more in the bank than $2,500—so that they have to run it down until they have no more than $2,500—is unrealistic for the needs of full-time students. We are asking for full-time students to be exempted.11:45:00472Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—It might be helpful if I answered Senator Margetts's question at this stage, because obviously it would be handy for senators to have some pieces of information. By way of introduction, the liquid assets test waiting period applies to other DSS allowances and ensures that people use their own resources before turning to income support. However, it should be understood that it only applies at the time of a claim and, therefore, if a person comes on to youth allowance and then, in the main study break for example, acquires some more liquid assets, they do not face a subsequent liquid assets test waiting period. That is the first thing that I want to make sure people understand.The application of the test to all youth allowees provides fair and consistent treatment of all young people. We have tried to do that as much as we possibly can with this, although the income bank for students is a special entitlement for students. Senator Margetts, I particularly want to emphasise that the consequential bill contains changes to the liquid assets definitions which recognise the considerable costs of education.Concessions are made so that students can deduct amounts for immediate educational expenses or one-off payments—for example, HECS debts—from the assessable amount of liquid assets. Examples of that could be—although this is not a complete list—fees, HECS, union fees, textbooks, which you mentioned, tools and equipment where that is relevant for study or training, and field trips. I am trying to give you the flavour of the sorts of payments that could be deducted from your liquid assets before the liquid assets test, as it applies to everybody else, would affect you as a student.11:47:00472Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—We are going on a bill that obviously has not arrived—BE4NEWMANSenator Newman—That's the definition.DX5Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTS—Yes. We are dealing with a bill which we were asking to have dealt with together with this one. Certainly, the Greens (WA) were asking that we did not deal with this bill without dealing with the other bill at the same time, but we are now being asked to deal with this bill as it is so far. You are also asking us to deal with a bill that has probably got a lot of nasties in it and which may not get immediate support. It may have a lot of other things which may be very contentions and which may hang around in the ether for a considerable amount of time.What the minister says is correct: it might be possible for someone to try to raise some money subsequently in the holidays and so on. However, the present situation is that it is going to be extremely difficult for someone at the outset to survive if they are required to reduce their liquid assets to such a small figure. For many people, $2,500 does not seem to be a small figure, but it is when you look at the cost of education.The consequential bill does not exist yet and it is likely to be very contentious, so we do not know what the outcome will be. There might be some nicer bits in this bill—and we understand that there can be—but there are also some bits which I think many people are going to find very contentious. To suggest that it will be okay because something that comes in a bill subsequently might make this a little bit better is, I think, playing games with the lives of students.I urge the Senate to support this amendment. If the minister comes up with a better definition of liquid assets at a later time then we could reconsider inserting this, but at this stage I do not think that is good enough. Over time, this government is saying to people on various kinds of social security that they have to run down either their savings or their superannuation to a very low amount, despite what they have done and what they have put aside over the years. I do not think that is a good principle.It is certainly not a principle that the Greens (WA) have supported over time. The fact that your government is doing this in a number of other areas does no make it right—61 wrongs do not make a right, or whatever the number of occasions may be on which you are doing this to people and making them as dependent as possible. To me, it sounds very similar to the way people thought about themselves in the Great Depression when, basically, people had to prove that they were totally miserable and totally bereft of any support before they could go to the soup kitchens. Maybe that is what we will end up with in this country: the worthy and the unworthy poor, soup kitchens, and people who have to run their assets down to almost zero, and then, at the whim of the secretary, some bureaucrat or the minister, find out whether or not they can continue to live. I do not think that is a good way to look at things.If the starting figure were more reasonable, I am sure the Greens (WA) would look at it, but $2,500 as a total amount of assets in the bank is not a sovereign's ransom. I do not believe it is a reasonable amount to reduce to cut back the waiting period for assistance for full-time students.11:50:00473Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—The subdivision relating to the liquid assets test waiting period is obviously putting in a waiting period for the youth allowance. Minister, could you clarify what the current situation is with liquid assets tests for other social security payments in terms of consistency across the act, particularly whether there is any difference between what is being proposed here and what currently exists for other social security recipients?11:51:00473Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—The clearest thing is to reiterate that the liquid assets waiting period which applies to Department of Social Security allowances means that people claiming income support may have to wait before they can be paid if they have access to readily available liquid assets. The liquid assets test for the youth allowance is the same as is available to all other allowances under the Social Security Act. We want to maintain that consistency.However, as I said in my answer to Senator Margetts, we do recognise that the special needs of students in terms of such things as HECS payments, union fees or textbooks are essentially what they have accumulated liquid assets to meet, and they will be allowed for in the consequential amendments bill which all parties received last week. This legislation will not be implemented until the consequential bill is also passed. So the chamber will have not only my word for it but also the legislation in front of them to see the fine print of the definition which I was just describing.11:52:00474Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEALB36NSWALP00—The opposition will not be supporting this amendment. As you are aware, we have raised some grave concerns in many debates on the liquid assets test and various amendments have been moved in the past. But it is very difficult for us to justify the non-application of this particular test to students when it is being applied to everybody else.11:53:00474Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—The Democrats will be supporting the Greens (WA) amendment. We are very concerned about the possibility of students running down their own savings before they commence study. I acknowledge the minister's comments on the consequential bill but, in the meantime, I believe that this is a much more appropriate exemption in relation to full-time students.We are very concerned that the only liquid assets that many students have include that money and those assets that they have saved for the very purposes of their education—whether it is up-front or full-cost fees at TAFE or uni, HECS payments or incidentals such as equipment, books and other study materials. We are hoping that if people are truly and honestly wealthy, then they will be subject to other appropriate means and income tax arrangements. But we are not particularly happy with the bill as it stands in this regard and, for that reason, we will be supporting the Greens' amendment.11:54:00474Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I was just looking at the figures for every $500 over $2,500. For instance, if a person has liquid assets of $3,000 and let us just say, generously, that the interest rates on $3,000 were five per cent, that works out to be about $150 a year, and $150 a year divided by 52 weeks does not work out a lot on a weekly basis. The amount of money that is going to be deducted from a full-time student is not commensurate with anything like any income that would be earned from that extra $500.I understand what is being said about the social security payments. As I say, the Greens (WA) did not agree with those kinds of proposals being put into social security in that way because I believe it is once again blaming unemployed people for being unemployed or for being pensioners. But the amount of penalty is in no way whatsoever commensurate with any income that can be gained with an extra $500 available as interest. It really says that you have to spend this money and then, later on, it will kick in once you have spent that amount of money. It is like a fine. You will get a fine of the weekly youth allowance until you have spent the money. When, in fact, the income from that amount in the bank does not in any way whatsoever equate to the amount of fine that is being imposed.Request not agreed to.11:56:00474Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—Madam Temporary Chairman, if I may make a suggestion: given the nature of my amendments in relation to the newly arrived resident's waiting period, they may be better dealt with after the Greens (WA) amendment. I understand the Greens (WA) amendment seeks to delete entirely the common youth allowance being subject to that waiting period, whereas mine are a series of ambit and fall-back claims. Is that acceptable to the chamber?11:57:00474Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I would be happy to move my amendment No. 10 first if the rest of the chamber concurs. That, obviously, is our preferred position. The indications from the Australian Democrats are that removing that provision is their preferred position. If the chamber concurs, I would be happy to put Greens (WA) amendment before the Democrats' amendment.B36NEALSenator Neal—Just to clarify: are you moving No. 10 by itself or Nos 8 and 10?DX5Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTS—Sorry. Yes, I would be seeking leave to move Greens (WA) amendments Nos 8 and 10 together.Leave granted.DX5Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTS—I move:That the house of Representatives be requested to make the following amendments: (8) Schedule 1, item 6, page 46 (lines 7 and 8), omit paragraph 549(b).(10) Schedule 1, item 6, page 49 (line 10) to page 50 (line 18), omit sections 549D to 549F.I thank Senator Stott Despoja for that suggestion. There will be another amendment coming up later, which will be Greens (WA) amendment No. 32.As indicated, these amendments simply delete that area, thereby removing the newly arrived resident's waiting period for benefits. There are many other checks and balances within this legislation, so I think it is already built in. It does not mean that people will be getting unfair amounts of money; it means that it is not fair to make things more difficult for the families who have young people that are in education.We are saying that, although people can pay tax when they arrive in Australia and although people can have all the responsibilities as soon as they arrive in Australia, anybody young who happens to be in a migrant family and who arrives will be penalised. I do think that is unfortunate, considering that we have no problem about taking tax from newly arrived residents. This has been a consistent approach from both the Greens and the Democrats, and I would seek support from the chamber.11:59:00475Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—The Democrat position on the original bill back in 1996 was quite clear. We found the introduction of the two-year waiting period for newly arrived residents quite abhorrent. At that time we moved a series of amendments which, originally, were successful with the support of Senator Harradine and the Independents.We sought to delete a number of benefits and payments from being subject to that waiting period because we found it quite a regressive and a punitive measure. It hit hardest at some of the most traditionally disadvantaged, some of the most powerless in our community. We include in that those young people who may be newly arrived migrants who may be applying for the com mon youth allowance. We still find this particular measure a distasteful one.We know now of many examples of not only young people but newly arrived migrants who have become homeless, who have had difficulties in sheltering themselves and their families, who have had difficulties feeding themselves, who have been unable to attend the AMEP language classes they have paid for because they might not be able to afford travel, or who have accepted exploitative work out of desperation. These examples go on and on. They have been made available to a number of senators and members in this place from various community and welfare and advocacy groups. So the government's impact, although it has not been examined either before this legislation was introduced when the coalition came into office, or since, has been extraordinarily negative from the reports from people on the ground, the people who actually know and the people who care.The Democrats do support the Greens (WA) position. That is our preferred position, and has been for almost two years now. We do have other amendments that we will seek to move in relation to not only the inclusion of the common youth allowance in relation to this waiting period, but also the retrospectivity. I recall, when we had this debate back in 1996, that one of the biggest issues with the introduction of the waiting period was, in fact, its retrospective elements.So we will seek to get rid of, or at least alleviate as much as possible, the retrospective nature of this waiting period, in particular in this legislation. I would have thought it was something that a coalition government would find equally abhorrent because I remember when they were in opposition that they were quite keen to delete any references to, or instances of, retrospectivity in law. Of course, it is a different matter when they get into office.So we support as a preferred position the Greens (WA) requests Nos 8 and 10. If that is not successful—and the measure of support that the introduction of the two-year waiting period initially got from both the old parties suggests that this one may not be successful—we will continue to oppose the retrospectivity.12:03:00476Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEALB36NSWALP00—I must say this unprovoked attack—the remark on the `old parties'—coming from the Democrat down the other end is quite disturbing. If I was not looking forward to reaching a little bit more maturity, I might take offence at that. I think the Democrats have gone through a few experiences over the last 12 months that will mature them.3I6STOTT DESPOJASenator Stott Despoja—They are going to mature you too; trust us!B36Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEAL—So you, too, can be an experienced and mature party in the not too distant future.On these particular requests, Nos 8 and 10, obviously the waiting period for newly arrived residents has been an issue that has been debated at some length. I have to say it was not an easy decision for the opposition. That having been made, except for the family payment, we would support the government in relation to this issue. We do not intend to change our minds for one group of the community, and that is students. So the opposition will not be supporting the Greens' requests.12:04:00476Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—Minister, how many people are likely to be affected by the non-availability due to the two-year waiting period for the youth allowance?12:05:00476Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—I will simply give you the advice I have just been given: it was not costed because there will be no change from the current arrangements in that somebody who is on a youth training allowance or newstart or Austudy would have been caught up in this requirement already. So it has not been costed at any change.12:05:00476Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—Could I ask a question about section 549F, which is one of the parts that would be struck out by this amendment, which is the double-whammy provision of being subject to two waiting periods. I would like examples from the minister of what sort of situation might apply when people actually end up having to serve two waiting periods, whether there would be a liquid assets test and the two-year waiting period on top of that. I would like some examples of a situation where someone would be faced with the two waiting periods concurrently.12:06:00476Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—The advice I have received is that normally the two-year waiting period would overtake any other waiting period. That would be the usual circumstance. It is not, in fact, likely to be a double-whammy.12:06:00476Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—Minister, why is this retrospective? Why is the element of retrospectivity contained in this bill?12:06:00476Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—I think that is a misinterpretation or a misunderstanding, Senator. The consequential bill is amending the date to make it absolutely clear that the two-year migrant waiting period applies only to newly arrived residents arriving after 4 March 1997. That was always the case, but the original provision, apparently, was confusing in that it referred to the whole period for which migrant waiting periods have applied. As you know, the six-month waiting period was brought in in 1993.An extra provision is also being added to ensure that young people who would have qualified for payments before 1 July 1998 can still qualify for youth allowance after that date. That is also necessary because there are some variations in waiting periods for the payments being incorporated and it is not the government's intention that young people be disadvantaged just because they are not receiving income support as at 1 July.12:08:00476Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I want to follow up the question that was asked by Senator Bartlett because I am intrigued. A person cannot apply for youth allowance if they are under the two-year waiting period; is that correct? If they had, for instance, $10,000 in their bank when they applied, they were of that age and they were otherwise eligible, would their bank account be taken from the time they applied for youth allowance?BE4NEWMANSenator Newman—The answer is yes.DX5Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTS—Therefore, it would seem that the answer you gave to Senator Bartlett may not be correct in that there is a double-whammy for newly arrived residents—they would have the two-year waiting period plus an extra waiting period after that if they had, for instance, $10,000 in the bank.12:09:00477Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—If I misled you, Senator Bartlett, I am sorry. I am advised that you serve one and then, if you do have the liquid assets, you wait until they are complying with the existing legislation. I am sorry if I did mislead you.12:09:00477Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—That is fine. Thank you for that clarification, Minister. Speaking further to the amendments, as senators would probably be aware, there is a further amendment right at the very end of proceedings—if we ever get there; another five or six pages of amendments away—relating to the waiting period and seeking to exempt special benefit from it. I will try not to double up on the arguments in relation to that.As Senator Stott Despoja has outlined, the Democrats have a very strong opposition to the whole concept of the waiting period and we have made that clear. Despite that, we also have a fairly reasonably strong liking for the idea of consistency across legislation, which I think is important to recognise. These amendments would mean that different groups of people are subject to different aspects. But there are special reasons why it is appropriate, even given that caveat, that young people should be exempt from the waiting period—assuming that we are going to have it.Other senators no doubt have received some correspondence from agencies and youth agencies out in the field that deal with migrants who have asked the Senate to exempt the youth allowance from the newly arrived resident's waiting periods because of the specific circumstances of young people. It is less likely that younger people will have the financial resources to be able to support themselves during their first two years in Australia. Obviously, many of them would come out here with a family, but circumstances can change. Whilst there are elements in the existing legislation that attempt to deal with change of circumstances, I am certainly far from convinced that they are flexible enough to be able to catch everybody who does find themselves in hardship.A lot of this bill relates to encouraging young people to have the wherewithal to adequately participate in education. So we would think it more crucial for newly arrived migrants than for anybody else to be able to quickly get into the education system and to develop their skills and their ability to be productive members of Australian society. We are really putting an extra barrier in their way in this measure by subjecting young people to the newly arrived resident's waiting period. If we are serious about encouraging young people into education and young migrants in developing their skills and being productive in Australia, then it seems totally counterproductive to put the artificial barrier in their way.I hasten to add that the government's waiting period policy, which the Democrats are highly non-supportive of, is yet one example of many examples of a bad government policy being built on a bad initiative initially brought in by the previous Labor government, which showed the way by introducing the initial six-month waiting period. To that extent I suppose it is not surprising that the coalition jumped on the opening that the previous Labor government provided in that regard.But that not does excuse the inappropriateness of the policy and it does not negate the importance of the basic argument which the government itself often puts of the need to encourage young people and to encourage newly arrived migrants into our education system. For that reason, the Democrats are very strongly opposed to the waiting period, but believe that there are special reasons why, even if we do have to live with this waiting period on other social security payments, younger people through the youth allowance should be exempt from it.12:14:00477Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—Minister, when this matter was last being discussed—I am not sure whether it was outside the chamber or within the cham ber, but it was in general conversation—I understood that the application of special benefits would be appropriate to deal with situations which were distressing and where considerable difficulties were being experienced. Clearly, that is not the case. That has not occurred.3I6STOTT DESPOJASenator Stott Despoja—It hasn't been to the extent that it should be.6H4Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE—As Senator Stott Despoja says, it has not been. The latest, of course, was the court case. I was told that the situation would be covered and that there would not be families in distress. There is a very strong argument that has been put by Senator Bartlett. All right, there are migrant families here who want to improve their lot and thus improve Australia. Some of them are very brilliant people who may not be able to afford to get into studies when in fact their doing so would not only benefit them but also benefit the whole of Australia. There is example after example of this. I understand the attitude of the opposition that it cannot deal with this piecemeal, but I feel that the government does owe the chamber a thorough explanation of what has occurred in this particular area over the last few months.12:16:00478Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—I point out that we are not actually debating the special benefit amendment, which is Senator Bartlett's at this stage. To answer Senator Harradine now, I want to say to you, Senator Harradine, that the system is working as was intended. From memory, there are something like 350 people on special benefits in these circumstances now. I think you adverted to a couple of court cases recently. I cannot comment on those in detail because I am still getting advice about them but, as I understand it, the decisions in each case went to whether their circumstances had changed substantially since they came to Australia. That is when the special benefit for the two-year migrant period cuts in.Examples are if their sponsor has died, if their sponsor has become bankrupt, if they have come to a job where the business goes bung and there is not a job when they get here or if they end up in a family where there is domestic violence. There is a long list—I cannot remember how many items—giving the sorts of examples and the guidelines where clearly somebody's circumstances have changed since they arrived in the country. Approximately 350 people—that is my memory—are on that special benefit now. So I do not think we can say that it is not working. That is exactly as it was debated in the Senate when we had that debate a year or so ago. We are really not in a different position from what the Senate understood then.Requests not agreed to.12:18:00478Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—by leave—I move:That the House of Representatives be requested to make the following amendments:(1) Schedule 1, item 6, page 49 (line 14), omit "1 January 1993", substitute "the commencement of this section".(2) Schedule 1, item 6, page 50 (line 10) omit "1 January 1993", substitute "the commencement of this section".We are now dealing with my amendments in relation to what we consider the retrospective nature of the application of the two-year waiting period for newly arrived residents. Given the minister's earlier comments, I should perhaps seek clarification from the minister. Minister, you mentioned the consequential bill changes which change the date to 4 March 1997, which of course is the intent of my second set of amendments which I acknowledge we are not debating now. May I check with the minister. Presumably you will accept our amendments based on your earlier comments? That of course does not stop me trying to press ahead with the amendments before us—Democrats amendments 1 and 2 on sheet 857—which seek to ensure that this measure takes effect from the commencement of this act. We consider it abolishes all degree of retrospectivity for the reasons we have outlined, but we are still going to go for the commencement of this act. I hope we will get support for that attempt.12:20:00478Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I am indicating that the Greens (WA) will support Democrats amendments Nos 1 and 2.Requests not agreed to.12:21:00479Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—Briefly, I am sorry that the chamber could not see its way to approve the amendments which removed retrospectivity. They still applied the two-year waiting period for newly arrived residents. It did not get rid of that particular regressive policy; it just made sure that it did not apply to the common youth allowance until the commencement of this act. I did not think that that was a particularly scary thought. I am sorry that it was only supported by the Greens and the Democrats, but I do thank the minister for indicating the government's support for the amendments before us, Democrats amendments 3 and 4. I seek leave to have them taken together.Leave granted.3I6Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA—I hope that the chamber will support them. I move:That the House of Representatives be requested to make the following amendments:(3) Schedule 1, item 6, page 49 (line 14) omit "1 January 1993", substitute "4 March 1997".(4) Schedule 1, item 6, page 50 (line 10), omit "1 January 1993", substitute "4 March 1997".Requests agreed to.12:22:00479Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I move:That the House of Representatives be requested to make the following amendment:(11) Schedule 1, item 6, page 52 (lines 4), omit "8 weeks", substitute "2 weeks".What we are seeking to do in this amendment is reduce the penalties for non-compliance of activity tests in schedule 1, item 6. We are seeking to reduce that penalty, as I will keep reminding the minister. She said this is a non-punitive act, but there are penalties galore within this non-punitive act.The penalty was eight weeks, and that is a huge amount of money for people who have no other means of gaining income. The penalty was eight weeks and we are asking for it to be reduced to two weeks. I do not think that is out of the ordinary. If you were to have some sort of commensurate penalty for anything to do with industry which was realistic, you would have the entire Australian industry beating down the doors of government, as you would expect. In this particular case, sometimes the activity tests themselves may be onerous or there may be some technical difficulty in compliance. There may be some faults on either side, but I do believe that two weeks is sufficient penalty in what is considered to be a non-punitive act.12:24:00479Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEALB36NSWALP00—I just want to get a bit of clarification from the minister and maybe a bit of information about breaches of the activity test. I suppose I would like to get a feel for what sort of breaches there normally are. Do you have any of those figures? What category are they? Are they normally failures to provide information or not taking up jobs? I just want to get a feel for the seriousness of the types of breaches that are most usual.12:25:00479Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—My officials will quickly get that together on a piece of paper as best they can for you. We are talking here, as I understand it, about people who have already had two breaches, that was a rate reduction. You will recall that we debated these measures in the Senate a year or so ago and I did not proceed with the breach arrangements immediately. I do not think Senator Neal was the spokesman at that stage, so she may not be aware of what happened.I withdrew the proposals we had originally for breaching penalties. I think it was Senator Harradine who asked whether the parties could go away, have a look at it and see if we could come up with an agreed position, so that is what happened. We put proposals to each other and we came up with arrangements for penalty breaches. Essentially, they were that, for activity test breaches—and these are not administrative breaches, which are the lesser offences, if you like—you would be breached by a percentage. I think it was 18 per cent in the first instance for 26 weeks, and then on the second occasion you would be breached for something like 24 per cent for 26 weeks. Then and only then were people to come off payment altogether.That compares with the arrangement before, which was that people could come off ben efits altogether first go. To be more humane, to see that the law was enforced as it was meant to be and to encourage people to do the right thing voluntarily without the harshness of losing all payment immediately, that was the agreed position and we brought it back and it was endorsed by your party. I cannot remember whether everybody did or not, but certainly it was done by agreement.I think by reducing the non-payment period to two weeks, which is part of that arrangement—it is currently eight weeks—the deterrent effect is weakened. After all, we are talking about the deterrent effect on somebody who has had two warnings already and the penalty does then become almost meaningless. I think the current arrangements are fair. They have obviously been seen to be fair by other parties in the Senate, and it is within the power of young people to avoid penalties altogether by meeting the conditions of the activity test. This is the basis on which the taxpayer agrees to fund them and I do not think that is unfair, because you have to balance fairness in both directions.12:28:00480Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT5F4TASLP10—by leave—For the last division that was taken at 11.07, Senator Hill had requested a pair of my office at 11 o'clock. That particular matter was not related to the chamber, so therefore during the last division Senator Hill was not paired. The overall outcome of the vote was not affected, but I want to put on the record the fact that my office failed to communicate to the chamber the fact that Senator Hill was paired. As I said, it did not make any difference in the overall vote, but I do apologise for that mistake.12:29:00480Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—by leave—As I understand the result of the division that Senator Calvert refers to, it was ayes 34 and noes 34.5F4CALVERTSenator Calvert—It should have been ayes 33.5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—I am sorry, but you just said there was no difference to the result of the division. I beg to differ. I think you have made an inaccurate statement to the Senate. I was informed by the opposition whip that there was a proposal from the government to recommit this particular division, and that was one that I readily agreed to. I think you would know, Madam Chair, that the opposition has consistently taken the view that we need to have the will of the Senate accurately reflected in votes of the Senate. I believe, and the opposition believes, that that is a very important principle. It did not take place, in my view, in relation to this division.I accept, as I am sure all senators would, that there were mistakes made in that division. There were mistakes made, and we understand that these things happen from time to time. We also accept, by the way, that mistakes are made on both sides, which was the case in that particular division.When you have a situation like that, the best thing to occur is for the whips to try to sort it out while the division is actually being counted. That did not happen in that particular division. That is the weakness. In fact, the acting government whip received instructions from Senator Campbell in relation to what ought to occur because, as I understand it, we had a situation where Senator Colston's vote was counted, and that was germane to the division result.The government's original proposal for a recommittal of the vote is far more sensible and more proper in terms of the processes and procedures in this place than to suggest at the end of the day that a couple of foul-ups occurred that might not have made any difference to the vote. That is a much less preferred course of action. The voting in the division would have been different. In other words, it would not have had equal voting between the ayes and the noes. At the end of the day, I do not believe there would have been any difference in relation to the opposition amendment that was negatived. The question before the chair would still have been negatived. However, the votes would have been different.This is an important principle. I am disappointed to hear the contribution of the government whip on this because, as far as the opposition is concerned, we believe that the will of the Senate ought to be reflected in votes on the floor, and I think recommittal would have been a much more sensible course of action in a circumstance where Senator Hill missed a division and these other knock-on effects took place.I am sorry the government has changed its mind in that regard. I do not consider that good practice. I do not think that is a good precedent, and it certainly will not be treated as a precedent by the opposition. If mistakes occur, if they occur on both sides or on either side—in this case I think there were mistakes on both sides—we should do it again so the whips get an opportunity to sort it out. That way we do not have a situation where there is an attempt on the floor to sort these issues out between the government whip and the Manager of Government Business. That is not the way we ought to behave in this chamber.I would ask the government to reflect seriously on what I have had to say about the good sense in this circumstance of a recommittal. It is not good enough for the government to say that the result would have been the same, even though voting might have been different. We want to accurately reflect the will of the Senate so that there is absolute integrity in the Senate's decision making processes.12:34:00481Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—by leave—On the vote that is being discussed, I just want to query whether the government can indicate whether Senator Colston's vote was counted and whether that means from now on Senator Colston's vote will be counted with the government.12:35:00481Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT5F4TASLP10—by leave—The position is that, if Senator Colston is sitting on our side, he is counted. That has to be done. We have to count him. That is in the standing orders. Normally, if we do not wish to accept his vote, one of our people leaves the chamber—and in that particular case it did happen. Unfortunately, Senator Hill had applied for a pair and it was not communicated to the chamber.12:35:00481Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—by leave—The next question of course is: in subsequent votes, will the government accept the vote of Senator Colston or, as has been done in the past, will they send somebody out from the chamber to balance out that vote? This is what I am trying to find out: has that principle changed, or is the government suggesting it was a one-off occasion?12:36:00481Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT5F4TASLP10—by leave—There will be no change to the way in which we have been acting. We will be continuing to act in the same way as we have before regarding Senator Colston. There will be no change.AX5EVANSSenator Chris Evans—You have accepted his vote on two occasions this week. Check the Hansard .12:36:00481Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—by leave—In relation to the issue that we are speaking of—that is, the division on the request for amendment 5 on sheet 864—I believe Senator Calvert, the government whip, has indicated the vote was taken at 11.07 a.m. I ask that the division be taken again in respect of that opposition request. That is a far more preferable course of action in this circumstance. It is consistent with past practice and consistent with proper practice in this place.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Chapman)—Is leave granted?6H4HARRADINESenator Harradine—No.12:37:00481Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—by leave—Senator Faulkner is absolutely right. If the government is going to show propriety in this matter, the vote should be recommitted. The government needs to think this over. If it does not, it will be clearly seen to be breaching a public commitment about the vote of Senator Colston, and it will be clearly seen to have breached that because it was a politically important matter—that is, the government's commitment not to count the vote of Senator Colston can be breached when the matter is important enough and when it is convenient enough for the government.Senator Faulkner is really offering the government the opportunity to hold good to its word. The opposition is saying to the government, `Here's an opportunity to keep faith with your public commitment not to count the vote of Senator Colston.' That is what it boils down to. We can debate it all day, but that is how it will be seen.I think it is a generosity from the opposition that the offer has been made, and I think all components of the Senate should ensure, as Senator Faulkner has put it, that the vote be recorded as we—and that includes the government—all want it.Senator Faulkner says the outcome in terms of the legislative impact of that vote will not differ. That is all the more reason why the opposition should be congratulated for giving the government and the Senate the opportunity to recommit this vote and make sure it is properly counted, and that the actual wish of all sides in terms of how that vote is registered in the Hansard for good is how it is registered. I think the government is spiting itself if it does not accept this offer to recommit the vote. That is up to it. Let that be, if that is what the government wants.6H4HARRADINESenator Harradine—They are accepting it. I am not. The government wants to have it recommitted.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—Then let me say the same applies to you, Senator Harradine. You are a stickler for form in the Senate. You have always shown generosity in correcting votes when they are wrong. One only has to say, `Well, why not, Senator Harradine?' If you make this exception, where does it end?There is discontent in the Senate with the vote as it is recorded because a mistake has been made on both sides. You would be true to form, Senator Harradine, if you allowed the matter to be cleared up. It would go counter to your form—and indeed your asseverations and strictures to me on many occasions in this place to show goodwill—if you yourself were not to show that goodwill and allow this vote to be recommitted, and allow yourself to be free of any contention that you, for whatever reason, may see political advantage in not allowing the majority in this place to express their wish that there be a recommittal of that vote.12:41:00482Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—by leave—I understand what has occurred. I understand that the vote would have been one-up for the government had Senator Bolkus's vote not been taken when in fact he was paired.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—But Senator Hill too, Senator Harradine.6H4Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE—Yes, I understand that Senator Hill was in that same situation.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—That is the whole point I am making. It was not an accurate reflection of the will of the Senate.6H4Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE—That is right, but the Senate now knows, and it is there ingrained in the records of the Senate, what the situation was. I see no purpose under those circumstances in having a recommittal.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—We have always done it when a vote has been fouled up through inadvertence.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Chapman)—The advice I have from the clerks is that on previous occasions there has only been a revote when it actually changes the result of the vote rather than the personnel. That is the advice I have been given.12:43:00482Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—by leave—That may be the advice you are given, but we will never know what the result of a revote will be until it is carried out. It may be contended that it could change a vote if a new vote is taken, but you do not know until a new vote is taken. You cannot gainsay what a vote in this place will be, and that is one of the important reasons why this vote should be taken again and recorded properly.12:44:00482Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—by leave—The opposition consistently has argued in the case of divisions that, if there have been circumstances that have led to votes being recorded which do not accurately reflect the will of the Senate, then we ought to ensure that we go through the processes again so that no individual senator—nor, for that matter, no political party, government or opposition—is disadvantaged. That is a longstanding principle. I think it is important. I have suggested a course of action. It has not been accepted. So be it.Progress reported.Bills483s154483Debate resumed from 3 December 1997, on motion by Senator Ian Campbell:That this bill be now read a second time.12:45:00483Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—The Democrats will be supporting the Criminal Code Amendment Bill 1997 [1998] . I note that on 2 February 1995, in considering the Crimes Amendment Bill 1994, the Australian Democrats' former Senator Sid Spindler set out the issue. He stated:One particular provision I would like to address is the so-called Majewski issue . . . that evidence of self-induced intoxication cannot be considered in determining whether the conduct was voluntary. The Standing Committee of Attorneys-General decided to follow the UK decision in Majewski (1977) AC 480 that evidence of intoxication can be used to deny intention or recklessness in offences of specific intent, such as murder, but cannot be used as an excuse in relation to simple offences of basic intent, such as assault.This section, which is now being passed in the bills before the Senate, would place the Commonwealth in line with the law in England, Canada, the United States, Queensland, WA, Tasmania, and the Northern Territory. However, it alters the common law in New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia and the ACT, where gross intoxication may be taken into account in relation to all offences as a result of the High Court's decision in O'Connor in 1980. This is one of the provisions of the bills which was very carefully examined by the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. While we express some concern about the change in law, the Australian Democrats have decided to support it.The Australian Democrats still support this legislation. We also support the introduction of these provisions around Australia. I understand that the effect of these provisions, or these kinds of provisions, may mean that the prosecution does not need to prove intention where it is alleged that the accused was intoxicated.I accept that this is changing the requirement to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused intended the act and that it was voluntary. However, I think all of us here today have had to weigh up this aspect of the bill against the effects of violent crimes in our society related to self-induced intoxication. The meeting ground is Majewski, which preserves the requirement for the prosecution to prove intention in serious crimes where civil liberties are significantly at risk.I find this distinction a difficult one, probably a bit tenuous at times; however, I am reassured that this is an exceptional defence plea. It cannot apply in negligence cases, and it is not part of the offence in strict liability cases. Further, the accused could be subjected to civil actions where it is not necessary to prove criminal intent.I am advised that the recent decision in the Australian Capital Territory—we all know now about a case involving a footballer who was intoxicated and assaulted three women, including his wife—would have been different under the law in this bill because the footballer would have been unable to use the particular evidence of intoxication as was used. The Democrats think that it is appropriate that that cannot be used.I welcome a law which seeks to address this situation and I dearly hope that the remaining states and territories will enact similar laws very soon. However, I am also concerned that excessive self-intoxication is a social problem. We need to recognise that we have a responsibility to address social problems through appropriate community actions, which are not always or necessarily addressed by criminalising that problem. This provision, and similar provisions, must not become the remedy that we apply to drug and alcohol abuses which are linked with violence.I should note that domestic violence is a significant problem in our communities, and it is one we must address. We have a culture of physical conflict solving and it is usually, or very often, women who become the victims. Intoxication is a component of much of this violence even though it may not end up in the courts. I believe that this culture re quires attention, and the need for these sorts of laws is a flagging for attention.The Democrats support this bill and I ask the government to consider further the social needs that make this law necessary. I should add that domestic violence and violence against women are only partly addressed by today's law.12:51:00484Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—The opposition also supports this legislation. The legislation has become necessary through the defence at common law established by the High Court in O'Connor's case. The defence ensures that those who may be criminally liable have an excuse for the offence if the offence was committed whilst the person was in such a state of intoxication that they were incapable of forming the intention to commit the offence.This issue has raised a number of different aspects of a range of issues. The starting point with respect to criminality requires, in most circumstances, if not the overwhelming number, a specific intention. To that extent the High Court established the O'Connor defence.The trouble is that the High Court's judgment was one of concern that was addressed by the previous government. It was addressed in a manner that really appreciated particularly domestic violence situations and appreciated that the defence at common law was too wide in terms of protecting many innocent people.During the term of the previous government, the Commonwealth Criminal Code was developed and that code developed a situation which ensured that the defence of intoxication would be removed. However, in the interests of uniformity, the Criminal Code Act 1995 provided that all these provisions would not commence until March 2000. This has been brought on by the Noa Nadruku case in the most recent instance where Noa was availed of the defence of intoxication with respect to the charges in the Supreme Court of the ACT. At that time, the Minister for the Status of Women and the Attorney-General both criticised the ACT and any other jurisdictions which were yet to remove the defence of intoxication. They should have appreciated that that defence was to be removed in a uniform approach across the country as part of the model Criminal Code. This matter has brought it on at a faster rate.The opposition sees this legislation as bringing forward by two years an act which would have taken effect in March 2000. As I said at the time in response to the Nadruku case, there is no reason at this particular stage of the development of the model Criminal Code for this defence to be allowed to continue any longer. In that context, the opposition supports this legislation and recommends that the Criminal Code Amendment Bill 1997 [1998] be supported.12:58:00484Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEYSF4VICALP00—The Criminal Code Amendment Bill 1997 [1998] is supported around the Senate and is a bill where the sense of outrage overcomes the logic behind the criminal law. It is a central concept in criminal law that people should only be punished for what they intend. The logic behind O'Connor's case and behind the defence of drunkenness is that a person who is so drunk that he or she cannot form an intention should not be punished for what he or she does. This bill makes an exception to that very fundamental idea that underpins the criminal law.It is interesting to note that the defence of drunkenness is very rarely successful and today we are impinging on the criminal law to cure a matter that is not all that frequently successful. The thing that worries me is that if this were the beginning of a trend to punish people irrespective of what they intended to do so that the nature of the act becomes the thing that draws the punishment, then we are changing the criminal law in a very dangerous way. I sound that note of warning on this occasion. In the light of a particular case—it might have been more than one case—or in the light of very few cases, we have become so outraged that we are changing the basis of the criminal law in a particular respect and it would be a very dangerous trend if that were to go any further. In fact, it is a very dangerous trend as it is and is one that ought to be kept in check.In my view, if we go down the path of a law and order campaign and, as a result of that, do injustice to people, then our moral sense as people in a society which respects the moral basis for wrongful acts is usurped. Let us hope in the hereafter that we do not go to places of punishment for things we do not intend. Let us hope while we are still on this earth that we do not go too often to gaol for things that we do not intend.12:58:00485Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—I thank honourable senators for their contribution. From memory, I think Senator Cooney and I shared the same law school. I well heed the warning in his contribution. Of course, I also identify very closely with the comment that was made by Senator Stott Despoja that women around Australia have been very concerned at the implications for them from people who have taken action as a result of drunkenness which has led to a lot of pain, anguish and worry for women.There are a lot of straws in the wind in any good legislating and a lot of issues to be canvassed. The relevance of the Criminal Code Amendment Bill 1997 [1998] is really that it has support across parties. It is something that the country recognises is needed and I thank you for your support.Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.Bills485r363485Debate resumed from 27 November 1997, on motion by Senator Ellison:That this bill be now read a second time.13:00:00485Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—On behalf of Senator Schacht, the shadow minister, I indicate that the opposition supports the passage of the Civil Aviation Legislation Amendment Bill 1997 .13:00:00485Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I thank Senator Forshaw for his contribution. I also thank the opposition for its support of this measure.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.Bills485r30485Debate resumed from 13 December 1996, on motion by Senator Ian Campbell:That this bill be now read a second time.13:02:00485Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—I want to make a very brief contribution to the debate on the Flags Amendment Bill 1996 . I think the Senate will be relieved that the government has finally got its act together and brought the legislation before the Senate. It was introduced in June 1996 and passed through the House of Representatives later that year. It is a piece of legislation that has been in the ether for 12 months or more.I think it is proper to say that this legislation is the culmination of work undertaken by the then opposition who, over a period of in excess of a decade, brought forward quite a number of private members' bills with similar objectives to the legislation we have before us. Given that circumstance and if it is of such importance and priority to the government, I am surprised that it has taken so long to come before us. Nevertheless, we do have a capacity to deal with it now. I think senators will agree that it is an important piece of legislation.This legislation amendments the Australian Flag Act 1953 to require a vote by the Australian electorate for the Australian national flag to be altered and to ensure that the existing flag is one of the options that must be put to the Australian people. I am not entirely convinced that this legislation is necessary. Like the national song referendum in 1977, any sensible government would put such an issue to the Australian people and give them a voice. That is important in relation to the choice of the national flag.It has consistently been the position of the Labor Party that, whatever occurs, it is essential that we have a thorough debate about the alternatives and that public awareness and involvement be encouraged to the maximum extent. That will be very important in determining any possible alternative to the current flag. It is worth saying that the recent contribution by Ausflag has been useful in this debate about the flag. Frankly, I think it is very unlikely that any government would propose to change the Australian flag without the participation of the Australian people.That is unlike the approach our forefathers took when the issue of the current flag was being dealt with. As many would acknowledge, for some in the community the issue in the debate over the flag has been the prominence of the Union Jack as the feature of our flag. This has been significantly debated in the context of an increasing number of Australians who are embracing an aspiration for an Australian republic. Naturally, people in the community do look at the issue of the appropriateness of the current design or a new design of flag. Some believe that a new flag could symbolise the Commonwealth of Australia becoming a republic.I consider the move to a republic as the priority issue. I, along with many in the Labor Party, have argued pretty consistently that the issue of the Australian people determining whether or not we become a republic certainly ought to be dealt with before the issue of the flag. If it is the community's view that that should also be debated then that should be done after referendums are held in relation to an Australian republic.I recall that on Anzac Day 1996 the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) made a commitment to this particular legislation. He said at the time:The new Federal Government is to take action, as promised, to protect our great national symbol, the Australian Flag.Legislation will be introduced early in the life of the new Parliament . . . to ensure that the Australian Flag cannot be changed without the approval of all of the Australian people voting at a referendum or plebiscite.This will mean that no politician, no political party and no special interest group will be able to tamper with the design of our flag.I have indicated that it would be a very courageous government and a very courageous political party that would suggest that the Australian flag be changed in any way without full public debate, participation, consultation and a vote of the Australian people.It is interesting to note that the rules that governed the competition for the design of the current flag in 1901 stated:The Flag should be based on the British ensign, as the flags of the countries added to its fold, signalling to the beholder that it is an imperial ensign of the British Empire.When the final design was chosen, interestingly enough, it had to be to submitted to the British government and—I remind the Senate—the British admiralty for approval.I am certain that all senators in this chamber would believe that our flag is a very important, very significant—if not the most significant—symbol of our nation and our history as a nation. The arguments are presented to us that the Union Jack symbolises the history of the union of Scotland, England and Ireland. I would also point out that at no time has the design of the great flag of Great Britain been taken to its people. Its new design and ours were adopted without a referendum or plebiscite.I believe the principle of the Australian people determining these issues is one of fundamental importance. I have indicated that the opposition does question the necessity for the legislation. In these circumstances and because I have great faith in the good sense of the Australian people on these issues—in fact, I have enough faith in Australian governments and politicians to believe that no-one would propose a course of action without that level of consultation and participation and that decision being firmly in the hands of the Australian people—YE4BOSWELLSenator Boswell—I don't think the Left had their heart in this one.5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—You would not know. I am in a much better position than you to judge that, Senator Boswell, let's face it. That is why you will just have to take my word for it, if that is okay. I have adequate faith in politicians and government to believe that this course of action would be an absolute requirement in any case. With those few words—assuring the Senate that I do have my heart in this contribution—I indicate that the opposition will be supporting the legislation.13:14:00487Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I support the Flags Amendment Bill 1996 , but I do so as a means of clearing the decks for action. I, like everybody else here, move around the country a lot and the feedback I get is that there is enormous interest in the prospect of changing our flag to bring us into the 21st century and to give us a flag which more appropriately reflects Australia at the end of 20th century rather than at the start of the 20th century. The opinion polls are changing. It is not going to be long before they will be reflecting majority support for that course of action. I am sure they would have already had there been a clear consensus on what the alternative should be.The next thing for the government to do is commit itself to giving Australians an opportunity to take part in the design of a new flag which Australians can be proud of as we enter the next millennium. I think many Australians would feel that, for example, the Olympics would be a great time to have a new flag symbolising this country and for people to feel that Australia is no longer part of the British empire and secondary to anybody else but a clear, proud, independent part of the community of nations.The question is: where to next? There ought to be government moves to give the designing of the flag to the people. The popularity of the Constitutional Convention shows that the Australian people want to be involved. We should now devise the means of allowing them to be involved. Those people who do not feel that a change in the flag is warranted or wanted at this time have nothing to fear.My reading of it is that there is enormous interest in a new flag. You only have to see the reaction there is to newspaper and other media competitions or polls to allow people to vote on new flag designs to see how keen that interest is. Let us get on with devising a new flag—whether it is taking the current flag and simply removing the Union Jack and raising the Federation Star to complement and balance the Southern Cross to a new design. Let Australians take part in that process. Let the parliament take Australians into its confidence and start the process of allowing people to be involved in a move towards a new design which is going to give Australians the feeling of distinction which the Canadians get out of their new flag. It has been many decades since Canada dropped the Union Jack and the confusing symbolism of its old flag. It is time we did the same.I am an enthusiast for this. Not all those people around me agree. Many people feel that flags are of no significance. I note that it was stated in the second reading speech that the Australian national flag is our oldest and most important national symbol. It is not. The country itself, the nature of its land forms, its wildlife, its flora and its indigenous people are much older and more enduring symbols than the flag that has been with us for 100 years. That is a point to dwell on. There is much more symbolism about a country than the pennant which is taken up a flag pole on ceremonial and other occasions. It is nevertheless part of how a country identifies itself. It is time for change in Australia. I am an enthusiast for that change. I would inveigle the government to next think about how it is going to put this across to the people.13:18:00487Boswell, Sen RonaldSenator BOSWELLYE4QLDNP10—As the National Party leader in the Senate, I wish to express the wholehearted support of National Party members everywhere for the Flags Amendment Bill 1996 . Under this legislation, the only way our national flag can change is by the express and direct vote of the Australian electors. No government, no matter what their numbers or their political colour, will be able to change the flag for whatever reason without referring it to the Australian people.This bill will be greatly welcomed by those sceptical of the recent claims by republicans that they are not interested in changing the flag. It will be greatly welcomed by those sceptical of the Labor Party's intention regarding the flag. Our national flag is an important symbol of our country. It should not be vulnerable to the whims of political factions. This bill removes the Australian flag from being the victim of factional trade-offs. It removes the flag from the clutches of the wealthy elite who would turn our system of government upside down and change the flag at the first opportunity.It was one of my proudest achievements in this place when I moved a motion in this place to have two flags placed in the Senate chamber either side of the President's chair. There was a Labor government in power and there was a marvellous new building for politicians, yet there was no flag in the Senate chamber to remind us of who we are here to represent. It was left to the National Party to move that motion. Those flags have been with us ever since. The National Party will always stand firm to protect that flag.The bill is a safeguard mechanism for a national icon. It restores ownership to the people represented by the flag. The Australian flag is the highest part of Parliament House. As we owe our position to the people of Australia so too should the flag. This bill sends a message that the heritage and symbols of our nation are not up for political sale. It guards against the faddishness and trendiness by trusting in the stability and commonsense of the Australian people.From now on the flag will not be able to be toyed with by the likes of the Malcolm Turnbulls and the Janet Holmes a Courts of this world. Make no mistake, the Australian flag is under a lot of pressure. There is great wealth and power lined up against it. Mr Turnbull's company sponsored an exhibition of alternative flags. Mrs Holmes a Court has opened exhibitions of alternative flags put on by Ausflag—the group that wants to change the flag. Sponsors of the exhibition include multinational corporations and overseas companies spending money to change the Australian flag.What should we expect next—a flag section in the multilateral agreement on investment? These are people and organisations of power and influence nationally and internationally. What hope is there for an old digger who wants to keep the flag he fought for if he is up against the elite? This bill is the hope. This bill is the digger's flag insurance against the chardonnay set. This bill is the equaliser. It sends a signal that the ultimate power within our system of government rests with the people. Wherever the flag is raised—from prestigious international sporting events to humble scout halls—it can now be raised with a greater sense of ownership than before.There have been attempts to diminish, belittle and undermine important parts of our heritage and even to rewrite history. This leaves people feeling great unease as their past is taken away from them. Certainty and identity are lost in an already changeable world. But with this bill, Australians can at least say, with assurance of compliance, `Hands off our flag.'13:23:00488Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—On behalf of the government, I thank all senators for their contributions to this important debate on the Flags Amendment Bill 1996 . It has taken a lot longer than the government would have preferred for this bill to rise to the top of the Notice Paper . We are very pleased that it has come on today. To have a bill debated on Thursday lunch time—and I know Senator Conroy wants to go and have some lunch—1X4WESTSenator West—I do.H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—and so too does the Deputy President—requires all senators to agree that it be treated non-controversially. I think that sends a special message—particularly to those most vocal supporters of this bill—that senators from all corners of the Senate have agreed that it be dealt with on an entirely non-controversial basis, meaning there will be no divisions called. I think that sends a strong message. It shows that the government has carried through its important commitment to ensure that any potential change to a flag in the future will be dealt with democratically by all Australians.I am particularly proud to have been given carriage of this bill through the Senate, having represented Australia in international competitions under this flag and my grandfather having fought in wars under this flag and indeed having the Australian flag draped over his coffin when he was buried. I know many Australians feel very strongly about the Australian flag. I know this legislation will make those people very happy. Equally, as Senator Brown has said, it gets the support of those who genuinely seek change to the flag. It ensures that those people seeking that change will have that change facilitated when they can agree on some alternative proposal to the most beautiful flag that is our national flag at the moment.Senator Brown did make the point in summing up that the government should facilitate some sort of competition for the design of a potential alternative flag. I do not think that is necessary. There has been over the years, through Ausflag and other organisations, a range of competitions. I presume thousands of designs have been worked out by artists and other enthusiasts over the years. I do not think any government involvement needs to take place.I suspect that at some stage in the next 100, 200 or 300 years someone may come up with some alternative to our flag. It would have to be very good to attract my vote and to see consensus formed for it. That is all part of a vigorous democracy. National symbols are very important to a nation, nation building and democracy. I thank all senators—not only those who have contributed to the debate—who have agreed to make this a non-controversial and non-partisan issue in the Senate.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.Sitting suspended from 1.27 p.m. to 2.00 p.m.Questions Without Notice489489489Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—My question is to Senator Hill. In answer to a question in an estimates committee last Thursday, you stated that funding was provided to the Manly reservoir project in the Warringah electorate of New South Wales because of the lack of quality and quantity of applications from metropolitan areas. Minister, can you confirm that this project, $14,876 for restoration work at the Manly reservoir, was ranked 195 out of 202 applications for the state assessment panel? Can you also confirm that at least 14 metropolitan projects which the state assess ment panel ranked higher in quality than the Manly proposal did not get funding? As an example, why was a project for the Bankstown City vegetation management strategy, which was ranked in quality more than 100 places above the Manly project, not funded? Was the fact that this project is located in the electorate of Blaxland coincidental? Does this not confirm that political bias must have been involved in these Natural Heritage Trust grant allocations?489Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment10—I can understand why Senator Cook asked the question and not Senator Faulkner, because he would have to start by apologising to the Baillieu family.Opposition senators interjecting—BH4Senator HILL—You won't apologise to the Baillieu family.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—I won't apologise for identifying your rorts.BH4Senator HILL—Senator, dead men don't rort.Opposition senators interjecting—BH4Senator HILL—Senator Cook could equally have asked me why the Tuggerah Lakes bushland environment rehabilitation program in the seat of Dobell, which was under the nominal cut-off line, was funded by the government. He could have asked me why the Redhead Beach dune revegetation and construction boardwalk scheme, in the seat of Shortland—and under the nominal cut-off line—was funded by the coalition government. He could have asked me why the trees in Newcastle environment education workshops—again, in a Labor seat and under the cut-off line—was funded by the coalition government.You see, this is a priority order as determined by the New South Wales government; it is not necessarily the priority with which we agree. Of those that went through the SAP, we judge each program on the basis of merit. On that basis of merit, the particular project in Manly was rated extremely highly.This project, restoration and regeneration of remnant bushland corridor—catchment Manly reservoir, was submitted to the 1997-98 trust funding round by the Friends of Bantry Reserve Bush Regeneration Group, working with the Manly-Warringah councils and the Wakehurst Golf Club. The project aims to rehabilitate an area of native bush which is a significant link in larger bushland areas. The area is rich in native plant species, and native wildlife recording has identified varieties of birds, reptiles and frogs. The project is eligible under the trust criteria and was recommended for funding by the urban regional assessment panel and then, as Senator Cook said, by the state assessment panel. According to the advice of my department, the project is a very good one, helping voluntary community work which began in 1996 and which has been financially supported by the councils.There is no doubting the community support for the project, nor the conservation importance of the area. In all, it is a great example of the partnership between the Commonwealth government, community groups, local government and business. That is why this project was funded—because it stood up in our assessment on merit. And you will find, Senator Cook, that every project that we are funding under the natural heritage program is one that has been determined on its environmental merit or its sustainable agricultural merit. You see, we will be well judged on this program by the overall environmental outcomes, and we are determined to choose the projects which will give the best environmental outcomes. Obviously this project fits within that criterion.490Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Minister, you still have not adequately explained to the Senate why this project, which rated seven places from the bottom of a list of 202 projects, was leapfrogged over many projects into the funding area. What you have said is not sufficient explanation. Will you table any documents you have which justify that selection? But more importantly, Minister, will you now give the Senate a categorical assurance that Mr Tony Abbott did not have discussions with you or with your office about this project or any other project in the electorate of Warringah?490Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment10—He certainly did not have discussions with me. I do not think he made representations but, if he did, so what? Many parliamentarians have made representations. I mentioned Mr Beazley yesterday. I could have mentioned Mr Evans in the other place. He is doing his job as a local electorate member—he made representations. Who is the member for Dobell? Is he Labor Party? Mr Lee? He made representations. Mr Kerr, the shadow minister for the environment—he made representations. That is a local member doing his job. There is nothing wrong with that. It may well be the case, in this instance, that Mr Abbott should be criticised for not making representations. The point is: it would not have made any difference, because the projects are judged on merit.490490MacGibbon, Sen DavidSenator MacGIBBONYH4QLDLP10—My question without notice is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business. Is the minister aware that between 1983 and 1996—the years of the Labor government—the Labor Party transferred to the trade union movement sums from $2.5 million a year up to $18.5 million? Presumably they learned such cultural attainments as trashing the main entrance of Parliament House. What would be the effect on other cultural bodies in the community if a similar process were instituted?490Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, the Information Economy and the Arts10—It is a very important issue for the people of Australia because they will have to consider not just what happened in the past, but what is likely to happen again if this mob ever gets another chance. The fact is that between 1983 and 1996, when they were thrown out, they gave nearly $92 million to the trade union movement—$92 million of taxpayers' funds. In the lead up to the 1993 election, what did the trade union movement give to the Labor Party? Answer: $2.2 million. The trade union movement gave $2.2 million—streets ahead of any other donor, I have no doubt at all. What did the government give in return the following year? It gave $14 million in government grants, including $5.7 million to 13 out of the 18 trade unions which made donations. How is that for a return on your investment? It is not bad. You could not beat that in the market place. That is a fantastic performance.It happens because of the massive conflict of interest that we have opposite. More than half of this lot here are paid-up members of the trade union movement. When we go to preselection, what do they ask us? They want to know where we stand on issues. They want to know a bit about our backgrounds. What do they ask them? Their first question is, `Which union do you belong to?' Their second question is, `How much did they give at the last election?' Their third question is, `What will you do for us for evermore if we put you in there?' Of course, they say all the right things, so the last 10 of them elected or appointed to this place were all trade union members. It is a massive conflict of interest when the interests of the trade union movement are put ahead of the national interest.The Evatt Foundation, for example, got $250,000 at a time when it had in excess of $1 million cash in its bank account. It was simply a pay-off. Senator Faulkner likes to talk about fixes, but the fact is that this is political money laundering. This is your way of doing business. You think that if you pay out money, you buy support. Your previous leader Mr Keating did precisely this. He went around handing out hundreds of thousands of dollars to millionaires in the arts community in the hope that they would stand up and say the right thing at election time. In other words, it was another grubby and shabby attempt to buy political patronage. It is highly relevant because it happened last time; it will happen again this time.Of course they do not want to know about it. They bury their heads in the sandpit as usual. We always have these ad hoc meetings of the sandpit committee because they cannot stand the heat. They know full well there is no defence for this behaviour. It will happen again if ever they get the opportunity. What ought to be exposed now is the fact that you are not able to vote sensibly and dispassionately on issues; you will simply do what your masters tell you. That explains why there has been a deafening silence on the MUA. As Senator MacGibbon pointed out, the CFMEU, which was responsible for battering down Parliament House, actually got $1.8 million.YW4MACDONALDSenator Ian Macdonald—What?LD4Senator ALSTON—It was $1.8 million. This is the old BLF dressed up in new clothes. It will keep happening because these outfits are wholly owned subsidiaries of the ACTU. As Graham Richardson said the other day, the trade union movement still holds the majority of stock in the ALP. There it is. That is the stock. That is what they own. They are getting their return on the investment. They are certainly not getting it in terms of quality performance, but they are getting it in terms of compromising the national interest. I think it ought to be abundantly clear to the taxpayers that, if they want real value for money, they ought not have a bar of this mob. (Time expired)491491Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—My question is directed to Senator Hill, the Minister for the Environment. Minister, during question time yesterday you admitted that the Liberal member for Leichhardt had lobbied you about specific projects in North Queensland. Are you aware that Mr Entsch today admitted to the Courier-Mail that he rang your office to attempt to influence your consideration of the hill slopes grant in Cairns and that he found your staff `very responsive'? Minister, I remind you that this is a project which was originally rejected and then reinstated after a request to the department from your office. Do you still claim, as you did in question time on Tuesday, that this is just Mr Entsch falsely claiming credit for this grant or do you now agree that this is a further case of political interference in the grants process?491Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment10—I think that it is yet another misrepresentation within a question, but I do suggest to Senator Faulkner that he would have more credibility if he started off by apologising to the Baillieu family. He is not prepared to go outside that door—Opposition senators interjecting—BH4Senator HILL—If you want to treat this seriously, do not sit there grinning. Firstly, you should go outside this door—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! There are too many interjections, and too much noise during question time.BH4Senator HILL—Firstly, he should go outside the door and apologise and make the claim again—5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—You should apologise for rorting!BH4Senator HILL—or, alternatively, he ought to be able to get up here and apologise to the Baillieu family.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—You apologise for rorting!BH4Senator HILL—Slandering the dead! You have no credibility in this—Opposition senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senators will not shout at each other across the table.BH4Senator HILL—You have no credibility in this matter at all. Madam President, if he will not apologise to the Baillieu family, then he should apologise for misleading the Senate. Honourable senators will recall the taking note the other day when Senator Faulkner mentioned Richard Percy Clive Baillieu, the current secretary of EL&C Baillieu. He is the Richard Percy Clive Baillieu who died 57 years ago!You slander the Baillieu family and misrepresent the position of the Senate. You have no credibility in this matter at all. It is only Senator Faulkner and the Labor Party that think that. Why? For the most base of political motives. In relation to Leichhardt, certainly, Mr Entsch is an enthusiastic lobbier for his electorate. There is no doubt about that. I mentioned a number of ALP members who have lobbied for their electorates. There is nothing wrong with that also.What I said in relation to this particular matter yesterday was that advice that I received from my department was not based on the representations of any particular member. I would have thought that that was clear-cut. I said that the department looked at applications that were rejected at the SAP in Queensland for reasons that related to the fact that the SAP did not seem to understand totally the biodiversity issues which they should have been addressing.In relation to this particular matter, I have been told that a member of the SAP had, in fact, rung Mr Entsch before the SAP had made its decision to tell him that it was unlikely to get up because it had been said to be too regionally restrictive. There is nothing in the guidelines to that effect. I understand that Mr Entsch then contacted the Labor Mayor, Tom Pyne, in Cairns.VW4HERRONSenator Herron—A life member of the ALP.BH4Senator HILL—A life member! As a result of that, Mr Tom Pyne ultimately sent the application back to Mr Entsch. That was not necessary, of course, because we were looking at all of those that had been rejected by the SAP in Queensland. As I said, the advice from my department was that this was a particularly good project, setting up a system of incentives for local government—just what we would like to encourage Australia-wide—to encourage local governments to give incentives to individuals to protect remnant vegetation and to revegetate. That is what the bushcare scheme is all about. We talked about it during the last election. (Time expired)492Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Could the minister tell us who in his office he gave responsibility to to contact his own department to provide the instruction that previously ruled rejected or ineligible grants should be reassessed in relation to both Queensland and Victoria? Which member of his staff gave that instruction? When was the instruction given? What representations had been received prior to the instruction being given?492Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment10—When is Senator Faulkner going to apologise to the Baillieu family and when is he going to apologise to the Senate for misleading it? When is he going to try to rebuild his credibility in this matter? He would then be in a far better position to ask questions. The national vegetation initiative, which we now call bushcare, is new and unique.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Who gave the instruction?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Faulkner, you are persistently interjecting.BH4Senator HILL—He will not listen. The national vegetation initiative is the biodiver sity arm of the Natural Heritage Trust. It is the new part. It is the part that some RAPs and some SAPs did not totally understand. If it was the view of my department that it was not totally understood at the SAP level, I can think of no better reason for them to do a reassessment, and they determined that this one should be funded because of its high merit. (Time expired)493493Abetz, Sen EricSenator ABETZN26TASLP10—My question is to the Minister for Justice. This week it has been revealed that Senator Bolkus leaked information from confidential Federal Court documents which resulted in the sabotage of the government's plans to seize the assets of Christopher Skase. Senator Bolkus has previously falsely claimed that you delayed signing service documents when there were no documents for you to sign. Yesterday, Senator Bolkus falsely claimed that your office is being investigated by the Australian Federal Police. Now Senator Bolkus has claimed that he got the Federal Court documents from the media. Minister, will you advise the Senate whether this was a legitimate source.493Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPMinister for Justice10—Thank you, Senator Abetz, for your continued interest in this disgraceful exercise by Senator Bolkus. It is not a suitable excuse to simply say, `I got it from the media.' If $1,000 was stolen from someone in the gallery and they came down and gave it to someone here, would any of us say, `Oh, well, someone gave it to us. Someone in the media stole it from the gallery and just gave it to us.' How convenient to blame the media—how very convenient.This is the alleged alternative first law officer of the Commonwealth, so when he had a document that was a clearly a Federal Court document, some bells should have rung. He presumably new that it was an ex parte application. He knew that the document was not his. He did not sit there thinking, `This was destined for me.' It was clearly a court document, and he had a choice.He could have done the right thing with it and gone to the trustee in bankruptcy, Mr Donnelly—he did not have to come to us in the political environment, he should have gone to the proper owner of the document, Mr Donnelly. He should have said to Mr Donnelly, `Will the release of this information cause you any difficulty?'Why didn't Senator Bolkus do this? Because the document itself revealed to him that the release of it would cause Mr Donnelly some difficulty. So he did not want to go there—oh, no. If you read the document that he released a portion of to the media—read to the media sotto voce off the record—it actually says:If this matter comes to the attention of the respondents and in particular Mr Skase before the orders can be obtained in all jurisdictions, I have serious concerns that steps will be taken to prejudice the substantive proceedings.Despite reading that in the document, Senator Bolkus went ahead. That gives you the answer why he did not go to the owner, why he did not go to Mr Donnelly, because he knew that Mr Donnelly would have said, `Don't do it.'There is another alternative. We do have open courts in Australia, and Senator Bolkus might have stupidly thought that he could roll up to the Federal Court, pay $20 or $30 and get a copy of the document, because you can get copies of a wide range of documents from the courts—as it should be. But order 46, rule 6, of the Federal Court Rules makes it perfectly clear that you cannot get an affidavit in proceedings without leave of the court or of a judge, and no such leave has been sought.So the owner of the document did not want it released. Senator Bolkus could read that in the owner's affidavit. The Federal Court did not release it. Senator Bolkus had, and knew he had, an illegally or improperly obtained document. He knew after reading the contents of it the risk that was there if he revealed the details. What did he do? He wants to blame the media. He says, `They gave it to me.' Nobody up there, no person in the media that has ever alleged to me they have had this document used it. And that is the difference: Senator Bolkus had it and he used it. He put it in the public arena.Senator Alston interjecting—7E4Senator VANSTONE—A suggestion is that he had it, gave it to the media and they gave it back—I do not know if that is right, but the difference is he used it. What did he tip Skase off to? Skase always knows we are after him. But what Senator Bolkus said was that hearings had already been held and that they are doing it without him. He told them where the hearings had been held, which gives an indication of the assets and the people that are involved. He further told them they were around the corner with service. (Time expired)494494Reynolds, Sen MargaretSenator REYNOLDSXI4QLDALP00—I address my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy. Can the minister assure the Senate that every one of Minister Anderson's decisions regarding the Natural Heritage Trust grants have been made in accordance with the requirements of the NHT and made without any taint of political influence? I draw the minister's attention to the following projects approved by Minister Anderson: $63,350 for a marketing officer for the Queensland Grain Growers Association; $63,780 for a property management officer for the United Graziers Association of Queensland; and $49,911 for a project officer for the Cattlemen's Union. Can you tell the Senate exactly how these projects—effectively employment projects—meet the Natural Heritage Trust's objective of `a better environment for Australia in the 21st century'?494Parer, Sen WarwickSenator PARERKI4QLDLPResources and Energy10—I do not cease to be amazed by the total hypocrisy of these people opposite. Here we have put in place a trust fund to repair environmental damage that has been done over many, many years. Where this ideological stuff comes in is that they do not recognise the fact that most of the repair of that environmental damage is to be directed to rural and regional Australia, because that is where the damage is.Let us take it a step further. You would like to exclude the Cattlemen's Union, the United Graziers Association and all those people who have a direct interest in the repair of their environmental damage. The other thing that comes through pretty hot and strong from everyone is that if it is private or leasehold property—in other words, someone owns it— you should not put any funds into it. Where are we going to end up, for goodness sake?5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—What about the grants?KI4Senator PARER—Okay, let me give you the process: following receipt of each state bid, projects are checked by DPIE officers to see if prior advice on eligibility issues had been heeded. South Australia was the first state ready for approval and its assessment process established a general pattern. It goes through projects for approval, projects for approval in principle, projects subject to finalising and so on. Senator Hill has made it very clear that it goes through the regional assessment panel, the state assessment panel and then, of course, it goes to the people responsible.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—The fix is put in by the minister's staff.KI4Senator PARER—Senator, I think it is worth mentioning because Senator Reynolds is a Queenslander and she does have some interest in north and Far North Queensland that I could not help but notice a question that was asked yesterday or the day before—this is one of the ones that relates specifically to Minister Anderson—on a grant given for the control of tilapia in Far North Queensland and the question has been raised by Mr Entsch as to whether there was some interference.Let me explain to you that Mr Entsch wrote to me about this matter. Why would he have written to me? Because he was the local member who had been approached by those people who had applied for the grant—and this was for the fisheries action program. Mr Entsch wrote to me on 3 September 1997 arguing that the project should be given a high priority. The letter arrived after the state assessment panel had formulated its recommendations on 23 and 24 June. I responded to Mr Entsch on 14 October with a letter that explained the assessment process.494Reynolds, Sen MargaretSenator REYNOLDSXI4QLDALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Minister, can you understand how Queenslanders could see these large grants of money for the employment of staff by the United Graziers Association, the Grain Growers Association and the Cattlemen's Union as having a political basis, if not a political bias?495Parer, Sen WarwickSenator PARERKI4QLDLPResources and Energy10—Senator Reynolds is casting aspersions on organisations that have in their interests—5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—No, she is casting aspersions on your government. That is what she is doing.KI4Senator PARER—The environmental and resource management problems—I do not know how often we have to say this—being addressed by the Natural Heritage Trust are in rural and regional Australia. Who is Senator Reynolds suggesting should be those people who have the keenest interest in repairing the damage? It would have to be people such as those from the Cattlemen's Union—who were the other ones?—the united graziers and the grain growers.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—You're not even listening to the questions now.KI4Senator PARER—Of course I am listening to the questions. I would have thought they have gone through—5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—You're making a goose of yourself.KI4Senator PARER—Big mouth. Give us a chance.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Faulkner, I would ask you to cease interjecting.495495Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEYHX5QLDAD00—My question is addressed to the Special Minister of State. Minister, given that you have dismissed outright the advice of the Clerk of the Senate on the handling of the Native Title Amendment Bill last December in the House of Representatives in favour of your own advice, and given that the cost of a double dissolution election to enable the Wik bill to be passed in a joint sitting would be more than $60 million, do you agree that the government has effectively placed a $60 million bet with taxpayers' money that your legal advice, which has no precedent, is correct? Given the taxpayers' investment in this advice, will you table it today and also table previous advice to governments on this subject?495Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPSpecial Minister of State;Minister Assisting the Prime Minister10—The government does not seek a double dissolution at all. What we want is a normal election of half the Senate and the House. What we want is this Senate to pass our fair and balanced Native Title Amendment Bill.If there is a double dissolution on this issue, it will be because of the minor parties, and most particularly the Labor Party, obstructing what has been passed by the people's house, the House of Representatives, with an overwhelming majority. It is fair and balanced legislation which should be supported by this Senate. There is nothing in this legislation which should be opposed by this Senate.What we have clearly revealed in the Sydney Morning Herald by Alan Ramsey is a rort by the enlightened ones, including Senator Bolkus, who actually believe it is going to be in the Labor Party's interest to have a double dissolution on native title. It is the enlightened ones—HX5WOODLEYSenator Woodley—Madam President, I raise a point of order. My point of order is a question of relevance. Usually Senator Minchin does answer questions, but I would be grateful if he would answer the question about the bet and whether or not he will table the advice.JX4Senator MINCHIN—As I was saying, it is regrettable that it does appear to be Labor's strategy to force a double dissolution, come what may, on this issue. Their insistence on subjecting the Native Title Act to the Racial Discrimination Act, they know full well, is an amendment that the government cannot accept. The Labor government could not accept it. Father Frank Brennan, hardly a great supporter of the government, has asked the opposition to withdraw that ridiculous amendment. They do seem hell-bent on forcing a double dissolution, which we do not want.Senator Woodley, with great respect to the Clerk of the Senate, we do not accept his advice. We think his advice is wrong on this issue. We have very good advice that he is wrong. We are satisfied that the way in which this bill is being dealt with by the government will, if necessary, satisfy the requirements of section 57 of the Constitution. We do not propose to table that advice.496Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEYHX5QLDAD00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Minister, was this legal advice provided to your government on this matter before the House of Representatives laid aside the legislation or was it sought after the event to justify an on-the-run decision, which I must say looks like it was a result of pressure from government MPs so they could go home or overseas for Christmas? Was your advice given before or after the House of Representatives laid aside the legislation?496Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPSpecial Minister of State;Minister Assisting the Prime Minister10—I can assure you, Senator Woodley, that the government made absolutely certain that it was acting in full compliance with the Constitution when it dealt with the bill in the House of Representatives when, regrettably, the Senate passed amendments unacceptable to the government, therefore risking a double dissolution. We do not want a double dissolution. It is the responsibility of this Senate to pass the bill when it returns to the Senate. It is a fair and balanced bill which deserves the Senate's support. If you do not want a double dissolution election on this issue, Senator Woodley, vote for the bill when it returns to the Senate.496496O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business. Minister, do you recall that in October of last year your government refused to comply with a Senate return to order requiring the production of documents related to your government's waterfront strategy and justified your refusal by claiming that the documents in question were covered by cabinet and commercial-in-confidence? Minister, how do you explain why, according to evidence given at estimates hearings last week, Mr Reith and Mr Sharp shared this material with a large number of individuals, including representatives of the National Farmers Federation, at a meeting in Melbourne on 18 September last year? Minister, has this apparent flagrant breach of cabinet and commercial confidentiality been referred to the Australian Federal Police for investigation? If not, why not?496Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, the Information Economy and the Arts10—I take it that that was asked tongue in cheek. I am not aware of any—AW5CARRSenator Carr—No, it is very serious.LD4Senator ALSTON—Have you referred any matters to the police? Go for it. If any Labor member of parliament is concerned on this issue and they think that matters ought to be brought to the attention of the police, I am sure they will not hesitate to do it.The fact is that, as I recall, we were claiming public interest immunity rather than simply cabinet documents and commercial-in-confidence. That was an assessment made on the merits of the documents. It has nothing to do with what might happen to those documents in certain circumstances. It does not change the status of them. The status is determined by the contents of the documents and they retain that status. Accordingly, our position is still the same.496O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Minister, why don't you come clean and admit now that your government refused the Senate access to these documents because of political rather than security considerations?496Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, the Information Economy and the Arts10—I am not sure that is a serious question either, Madam President.Opposition senators interjecting—LD4Senator ALSTON—I will give it a serious answer. I am sure the disgruntled unionist faction would expect no less. The fact is that judgments are always made about the status of documents when requests are made either through the FOI procedures—Opposition senator interjecting—LD4Senator ALSTON—If you want to apologise, do it after question time. It is a lot more convenient. We will not have to interrupt you then. We will give you absolute silence. If you have got something to say, which at least portrays even a suggestion of regret, then we would be happy to hear you do it at the appropriate time.In the meantime, let me simply say that, in relation to both requests by members of parliament, questions on notice or without notice, and FOI requests, the documents are judged on their merits against the various criteria that are important in assessing whether they should be released to the public. In this instance the judgment was made. It had nothing to do with the sorts of motives that you attribute, but simply on merit.497497Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—My question is directed to the Leader of the Government representing the Prime Minister. The government is insisting on the passage of its common youth allowance bill, pointing to its overall beneficial effect. However, is it not a fact that the legislation will transfer the costs of its social security responsibilities for some young unemployed Australians from its own budget to that of their parents to the tune of $135 million? If that legislation assumes those siblings are sharing in their parents' income, should not the essential income transfers within a family be also recognised in the taxation system? Is it the intention of the government to include in its restructuring of the Australian taxation system measures to give further recognition to the function of parents in raising sons and daughters, Australia's future taxpayers?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Before calling Senator Hill, I point out that a significant part of the question related to a bill that is before the committee of the whole at the present time. We are usually fairly tolerant about that sort of thing, but this is before the committee. The latter part of the question certainly raised another issue.497Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment10—If I respond to the substance: as I understand it, the issue of Senator Harradine's question really is the commitment of the government through the taxation system to give support to parents, recognising the extra financial burden that children obviously must be upon any family. There can be no doubt about that commitment.The best example I can give to demonstrate that commitment is the family tax initiative, which we introduced after this government came to power, which gives additional help to low and middle income families with dependent children. That was a commitment that the now Prime Minister personally made during the election and it very much demonstrates his attitude and that of his government towards this very important issue.It is also why the Prime Minister when announcing that the government would undertake an overhaul of the Australian taxation system specified that one of the criteria of tax reform would include further relief in relation to the taxation of families. I take this opportunity to reiterate that here today.I can, therefore, assure Senator Harradine that, in restructuring the Australian taxation system to which this government is committed, the government will give further recognition and help to Australian parents concerning their responsibilities in—using Senator Harradine's words—raising sons and daughters, Australia's future taxpayers.497497Lundy, Sen KateSenator LUNDY7G6ACTALP00—My question is to the Minister for Communications, the Information Economy and the Arts. When you were first asked at estimates last Thursday about whether a strategy had been prepared for a $750,000 publicity campaign for your government's policies on CD imports, why did you deny it? Why did you say, `No particular strategy is being proposed or put forward at this time,' when you knew perfectly well that not only had a strategy been prepared but you had already let a contract for $73,000? Is it not also a fact that the publicity campaign is in part directed at persuading your own backbenchers that your CD policy is the right one?497Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, the Information Economy and the Arts10—Senator Lundy did her very best at estimates recently to try to beat up this issue and then, because it did not go anywhere, she put out a press release that said `despite intense questioning by her good self'. I think that tells you that she was running into the sand by that stage. The fact is that Senator Lundy had a document, but by being cute and coy about it she asked a question in such a way that it was very difficult to comprehend precisely what she was asking in the first place.The fact is that all the relevant matters were provided to Senator Lundy. She is very much aware, as she was from the outset, of the decision taken. I think the way in which she put it was: `Was a strategy prepared by the department and presented to you?' Essentially, I think the answer was that the department put forward a possible strategy.I can understand Senator Lundy not understanding the difference. She has not been in this place all that long, but there is, unfortunately, quite a deal of difference between the department wanting something or even the minister wanting something and it ultimately finding its way into government policy. I would have thought that that particular understanding would have dawned on Senator Lundy by now.I now go to the more important part of the question: why was it that backbenchers should be somehow involved in the campaign? The fact is that the record industry has spent literally millions of dollars on mounting a significant disinformation campaign. There are very many people in the community who need to understand the true facts of the issue. One of the best ways of doing that is, when people ring up with concerns to a backbencher's office, for that backbencher to be in a position to provide the facts to overturn the misunderstandings and inconsistencies that might otherwise influence their judgment.This is the lot that spent millions of dollars on information campaigns. Do you remember those little trees that grew all about the superannuation guarantee charge? You know who were the significant beneficiaries of that, don't you? The crowd that set up the industry funds—the superannuation funds run by the trade union movement. This was an absolute godsend to the trade union movement because every income earner in Australia was forced to contribute and many of them had no choice but to put their money into industry funds. So, once again, they were the classic beneficiaries of a system and yet you still had to get out there and spend millions of dollars advertising it.We make no apologies at all for, from time to time, finding it necessary to ensure that the public are not misled and for ensuring that all those who might be in a position to clarify any misunderstanding on the part of the public are fully informed, and backbenchers come into that category. Can I simply say that we would not expect you lot to, in any shape or form, try to undo those misunderstandings because you threw in the towel on this issue long ago. You were prepared at one stage to take the right and proper course of action. Of course you buckled at the knees on CDs. Senator Schacht is on the public record as saying we are doing the right thing. You know we are doing the right thing. You threw in the towel because you were too gutless and yet you are not prepared to debate the issue on its merits. As it therefore happens, it may be necessary for an information campaign.498Lundy, Sen KateSenator LUNDY7G6ACTALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. How do you justify spending $750,000 of taxpayers' money advertising what is merely government policy given that legislation has yet to be passed by parliament? How do you justify spending any taxpayers' money at all to sell the message to your own backbenchers?498Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, the Information Economy and the Arts10—It is as though I had said nothing for the last three minutes—Opposition senators interjecting—LD4Senator ALSTON—You cannot have it both ways. Either you want me to answer the questions or, if you do not want to hear it, if you do not think the answers are worth having, you can save yourself the time and trouble and not ask the questions. But, unfortunately, Senator Lundy chooses to ask the question. She therefore gets an answer. She gets an answer in spades about the necessity to mount a campaign to refute the disinformation that is provided by the Record Industry Association. She ignores all of that and pretends it has not happened and asks me again why we are mounting an information campaign. Well, I do not want to say it anymore. We are doing it to correct the record to make sure people are not misunderstood. We have not yet decided to go down that path, but if we do it will be because there is a necessity to correct the disinformation on the subject. (Time expired)498498Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—My question is to the minister for schools. Minister, in estimates last week we heard that the government will take $11.9 million from state budgets through its enrolment benchmark adjustment even though enrolments in government schools have increased by 8,500. Minister, what justification do you have for continuing to punish state schools when it is clear that all the students which your government predicted would exit public schools have not done so? Minister, why did Dr Kemp this week publicly deny that this money will be moved from government schools?499Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSchools, Vocational Education and Training10—I thank Senator Allison for this question. As Senator Allison well knows, the situation here is that there is no punishment at all. This government believes in a strong government school sector. It also believes in a strong non-government school sector so that parents can choose to which school they will send their children. That is a platform we went to the Australian people with at the last election and a platform on which we were elected.Senator Allison, I am glad you mentioned that figure of $11.9 million because in your address to the Senate the other day you mistakenly referred to it as $16.8 million. This figure represents under half a per cent of the total expenditure of the Commonwealth on government schools. In fact, in this year the Commonwealth will spend $127 million more on government schools than Labor did it its last year.Senator Allison also fails to remember the fact that, in recurrent expenditure, we allowed a supplementation of 7.4 per cent. This was a windfall because it exceeded the CPI index by several per cent and in fact involved a windfall of $228 million to schools. When you look at it in that context, there is an increase in expenditure towards government schools. This EBA adjusts funding between the Commonwealth and the states and addresses where you have a proportional shift between government and non-government enrolment.In some states and territories—Tasmania, the Northern Territory and the ACT—this was not even triggered. There was a lower result than anticipated because the drift from government to non-government was between 0.3 and 0.4 per cent. That was much lower than anticipated. What we are saying, Senator Allison, is that we believe in a strong government sector and a strong non-government sector so that Australian parents can choose to which school they want to send their children.499Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Minister, you say that this is a small percentage of the total schools budget, but I ask you again why is it necessary to impose this measure at all? What is the purpose of the mechanism if it is not to bleed government schools of very scarce resources? My question to you was: why does Dr Kemp continue to mislead the Australian public on this issue and these cuts?499Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSchools, Vocational Education and Training10—The legislation to which the EBA is tied went through this very chamber—it went through the Senate. Can I also say that it was part of the 1996 budget announcement. So there has been nothing clandestine, nothing covert. It is something which has been debated, passed and accepted. We have also discussed this with the states. There is no intention to bleed the government sector. We are spending more money on government schools. We believe in a strong government sector.499499Murphy, Sen ShayneSenator MURPHYFX5TASALP00—My question is to the Minister for Communications, the Information Economy and the Arts. Do you recall that, after cabinet decided your policy on CD imports last year, you stated publicly that you would be strengthening the copyright laws by increasing penalties and reversing the onus of proof? Do you recall, for example, stating on radio 2BL on 10 October, `We'll be tightening the rules, increasing the penalties, reversing the onus of proof'? Minister, when and how do you propose to reverse the onus of proof?499Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, the Information Economy and the Arts10—I am not quite sure what that means—`when and how do you propose to do it?' You would make changes to legislation which would put in place a mechanism—4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—You are supposed to be a lawyer, Richard!LD4Senator ALSTON—I am just explaining what I think he means. It is not done person ally by a member of parliament or the minister. You would move an amendment that would enable a court to make a judgment by reversing the onus of proof. In other words, in a civil dispute, instead of having to establish that something was imported from a jurisdiction where there were no copyright arrangements—and therefore was pirated—the onus would be on the importer to show that it was not illegally imported. That makes one very big difference. Otherwise, you have to go offshore, gather evidence and prove what the law might be in that particular jurisdiction. If you simply put the onus on either the retailer or the importer, then it is their responsibility to ensure that, before they put the CD on sale, they have satisfied themselves that it is not a pirated import. Therefore, their records would be part of their satisfying the onus of proof and meeting that test. That is what I had in mind and that is the way in which I believe we are still proceeding.500Murphy, Sen ShayneSenator MURPHYFX5TASALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question, given what the minister has just said on what seems to be his view of onus of proof now. Minister, how do you reconcile that with what the Attorney-General's Department stated to the communications and arts committee the other night—that the government has never stated it will reverse the onus of proof either in parliament or to the public? How do you reconcile that position with your public statements?500Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, the Information Economy and the Arts10—I presume you told them where they were wrong because you have just confirmed that I did say it on radio. To the extent that they were saying I had never said it in public, I presume you pointed that out to them and drew it to their attention and they apologised to you for any misunderstanding.500500Crane, Sen WinstonSenator CRANEUW4WALP10—My question is to the Assistant Treasurer. I refer the minister to the current problems in the Asian economies. Will the minister outline how the government's prudent budgetary policies will enable Australia to continue to record high levels of growth notwithstanding the problems in Asia? Will the minister also outline the adverse consequence if these policies were not maintained into the future?500Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Thank you, Senator Crane, for that important question. The Asian crisis will have a significant impact on the Australian economy, and that has been stated before this. The impact was incorporated into the mid-year economic and fiscal outlook, with growth slowing to 3¼ per cent in 1998-99 from 3¾ per cent in 1997-98. I stress that the fact that Australia is expected to continue to record high growth levels in 1998-99 despite the Asian turmoil is a result of strong domestic demand. As my colleague Senator Parer pointed out, this is a high growth economy compared with other countries.9L6MACKAYSenator Mackay—No, it isn't.WW4Senator KEMP—It is a high growth economy. Let there be no doubt that the government's responsible budget policies provide investment confidence to maintain high growth, low inflation and low interest rates. If it were not for these responsible policies, if we had maintained the budget deficit policies of the previous failed Labor government, the economic situation in this country would be worse—far worse. What would happen if by some mischance Labor were returned to office? We can judge somewhat from what is already on the public record. We know Labor would spend, spend, spend. Labor would run up the deficit—Honourable senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! There is far too much noise in the chamber.WW4Senator KEMP—There is no doubt, and we have this on the record, that Labor would spend, spend, spend. In fact shadow minister after shadow minister has gone around this country saying that there will be further additional spending policies. We all know that if spending rises taxes will rise and, ultimately, we know from the Labor experience that there will be substantial rises in deficits. They are the record government for running up massive deficits while in office.Mr Martin Ferguson has said that the government ought to be digging into its surplus. That is what Martin Ferguson said. Michael Lee wants to spend more money in the health area. And so it goes on. Simon Crean wants to spend more money in the R&D area. We are quite entitled to ask where this money is coming from. A blank look collectively goes over the Labor frontbench. Where is this money coming from which Labor has started to promise? It is the same old story. What we are seeing again is a re-run of the old Labor story—promising spending and at the same time pretending they will not raise taxes. We all know from bitter experience what the effect of a Labor government is.I also point out that the current Leader of the Opposition, Mr Beazley, racked up massive deficits when he was the Minister for Finance. So for Mr Beazley to be going around the country talking about surpluses is a joke to any person in this country who has any memory whatsoever of the experience of the Labor government. Senators may be interested to know what Senator Cook said when asked what Labor would do in response to the Asian crisis. (Time expired)501Crane, Sen WinstonSenator CRANEUW4WALP10—I would particularly like Senator Kemp, the minister, to outline further Mr Beazley's performance in terms of his years as Minister for Finance and the impact that had on the Australian economy in terms of the deficits that were brought down.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—That supplementary question is very nearly out of order. You should not canvass matters which ought not to be raised within it.501Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—To expand on the point, when asked what Labor would do in response to the Asian crisis on Australian jobs, growth and inflation, Senator Cook's first response was this—and I had to read it twice to make sure I had read it correctly:We have made quite clear over a long period of time what Labor would do, we would have moved earlier to recognise the extent of the crisis.and then we waited breathlessly to see what Labor would have done, and Senator Cook went on:We would have conducted seminars around Australia . . .That is what Senator Cook said. Like his colleagues, Senator Cook then announced some further spending programs, again uncosted. But, I must say, what a fantastic idea! The shadow minister for trade, in order to deal with the Asian crisis, would go around this country conducting a few seminars. It is truly pathetic. (Time expired)BH4HILLSenator Hill—Madam President, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper .Miscellaneous50150115:01:00501Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPMinister for Justice10—I wish to move a censure motion against Senator Bolkus. I want to do it straight after question time, and I have the appropriate motions in front of me. I do not want to do that if there is another matter that you, Madam President, need to deal with first, but I do want to deal with it before taking note of answers.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—If you wish to move a suspension of standing orders, you may do so.UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—Why didn't we get the call here then?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—I have not called on motions to take note of answers. The procedure is that, at this point, I call ministers who stand up, who usually are giving additional answers and information to questions. I called Senator Vanstone. She now says that she wishes to move a censure motion.RF4COOKSenator Cook—I rise on a point of order, Madam President. Senator Vanstone is the only minister on her feet. Surely, before you accept that Senator Vanstone can bypass any minister who wishes to add to their answer, you should first ascertain whether any minister wishes to do so. There is a clear case that one minister, Senator Kemp, at least should do so after that despicable display a moment ago. Surely you should establish that fact first.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! There is no point of order. No other minister stood up other than Senator Vanstone.UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—I will raise another point of order. You yourself have said you called Senator Vanstone because you thought she was going to add to an answer. That is the reason for her getting the call.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—True. Correct.UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—Normally you would take the noting of answers and then, if a minister wished to move a suspension, you would recognise and call them then.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Correct.UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—Senator Vanstone has the priority over Senator O'Brien, who was on his feet to take note, on the basis that, in your own mind, she was going to add to an answer.7E4Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE—On the point of order, Madam President: I sought the call and received it. I indicated at that point that I would immediately move the motion. You would have had no option but to accept that motion. I simply did you a courtesy in indicating that, if you had something you wanted to say in relation to question time or whatever, you could go first. But the facts are that I was on my feet, I had the call and I wish to proceed.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—If there is a contingent notice of motion that permits the minister to do so, she may proceed at any time.7E4Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE—Pursuant to contingent notice of motion No. 1 standing in the name of the Leader of the Government in the Senate, I move:That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent Senator Hill moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter, namely a motion to give precedence to a motion of censure of the shadow Attorney-General (Senator Bolkus) for his unauthorised disclosure of a confidential court document relating to proceedings concerning Mr C. Skase.Opposition senators interjecting—7E4Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE—I am happy for them to speak to it, but I am conscious that people, on the other side especially, say that they would like to run this place efficiently. I am giving them the opportunity to agree to suspend standing orders and move straight to the substantive motion. If they do not want to do that, I will debate it.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—There are 30 minutes in which to debate the motion for the suspen sion of standing orders, during which senators may each speak for a period of five minutes.7E4Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE—It appears that that offer has been rejected, so I will speak to the motion. This is a very serious matter. Mr Skase left Australia under the Labor administration owing millions of dollars to small investors all around Australia. Labor, I have no doubt, did its best to get Mr Skase back, but it failed and failed spectacularly. Now we are in government, and we have confirmed that we are also pursuing Mr Skase's assets.We have a situation where a member of this place, the would-be alternative first law officer of the Commonwealth, who had the opportunity over the last few days to admit this, has quite clearly used improperly or illegally obtained court documents. That is the first charge against him.Not only has he used them, he has not revealed inconsequential material from these documents. He has revealed material which was relevant to the proceedings, and it is quite clear from the material that has been led through the chamber this week that he did so knowing the damage he might cause. The affidavit from Mr Donnelly that was in the Federal Court from which Senator Bolkus read to the media quite clearly indicated that Mr Donnelly wanted these proceedings to go ahead without Mr Skase knowing, and the Commonwealth was backing Mr Donnelly and making every attempt for these matters to be dealt with without Mr Skase knowing.Nobody can deny that there is always a Skase story in the paper. Someone just has to think of a few million dollars, attach it to Skase's name and it will get in the paper. The reason for that is the Australian community are sick to death of people like him doing that sort of thing, and they are interested in it.But I know of no journalist who ran a story—prior to Senator Bolkus releasing these details from illegally or improperly obtained material—with any of the detail that Senator Bolkus released. What the journalists have done has been responsible. Some have indicated—and Senator Bolkus has indicated—that journalists have had this document, but the difference between Senator Bolkus and the journalists is that he used the document, he encouraged the details of it into the public arena, but the journalists did not.In doing this, Madam President, he tipped off Skase's advisers in Australia, and not only that we were after his assets. Mr Skase knows we are always after his assets. He has a trustee in bankruptcy. Mr Donnelly has been quoted as saying something like he thinks he will be Mr Skase's trustee in bankruptcy until one or other of them dies.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Vanstone, this part of the debate should be focused particularly on urgency.7E4Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE—Madam President, what I am trying to do—and I will come to the point—is indicate to you, with the background material, why it is urgent. We have over the last four days set out this case for all to see. At no time has Senator Bolkus taken the opportunity to apologise to Mr Donnelly. At no time has he apologised to the Senate. He has just proceeded as though he was on a decent footing.The urgency is, Madam President, that we have a senator who has behaved outside of this place in a way that nobody in this place would ever let him behave. And he purports to be the alternative first law officer. In a democratic system where you have two major parties and sometimes other key players—in the Senate there are always key players—the alternative first law officer holds a position of some significance. By behaving in the way he has, he has brought this place, himself and his party into disrepute.It is appropriate for this chamber to indicate to the community at large that we do not accept this sort of behaviour. It is not the way that senators should behave. It is not the way that first law officers should behave. If we do not deal with this today, if we do not make it abundantly clear, after all that we have heard this week, which has not been refuted by Senator Bolkus, that these are not the standards that this place will accept—not Liberal-Labor but this place as a whole—then the Australian community takes it that we nod to Senator Bolkus and say, `Oh, it's okay.'Madam President, the pursuit of Skase is a matter that the government has an interest in, that all Australians have an interest in, and they do not think it is okay. They are looking to this chamber to make that abundantly clear to Senator Bolkus as soon as is practicable, and that is today.15:10:00503Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—Thank you very much, Madam President. I oppose the urgency motion that has been moved by Senator Vanstone.Madam President, if we ever needed any evidence of the coalition's inability and incapacity to adapt to the responsibilities of governing Australia, then I believe this stunt is it. Most people are aware that, traditionally in the parliament, censure motions have been weapons for opposition. They are not weapons for government. You are making a habit of it.What we are told time and time again is that this government has more important things to deal with—perhaps like getting on with governing the country. But that, of course, as we know, Madam President, is beyond the capacity of those opposite.I have to say that probably the government has made a tactical decision—`We need a bit of a confidence builder for Senator Vanstone because she was sacked from the Howard cabinet.' I have to say, Madam President, there are many decisions that Mr Howard has made that I do not agree with, but that is one he got right. Senator Vanstone was a failed minister; she deserved to be sacked, and this is just a confidence builder for her.BH4HILLSenator Hill—Could I take a point of order, Madam President? I respectfully urge you to remind Senator Faulkner that this is a debate where he should be arguing against urgency.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—We are dealing with the question of urgency at the present time, Senator.5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—I am making the point, Madam President, that one of the reasons this is proposed by the government now is that it is a confidence builder for Senator Vanstone who has had such a miserable and pathetic ministerial career for the past two years.This is the same government that carries on, day in and day out, about alleged Senate obstructionism. This is the same government that whinges about their incapacity and inability to get their legislation program through the Senate. But what do they do? They bring yet another time-wasting stunt. They decide to run this particular censure motion on a Thursday afternoon, deliberately to take away from the small amount of time in the Senate routine of business—that is, general business—for opposition and minor parties, non-government senators, to build a case around important issues of public policy. Perhaps it is because of the issue that was proposed for debate today. Perhaps that is another reason why Senator Vanstone decided to put forward this very cheap stunt.I have to say to the Leader of the Government in the Senate and the Manager of Government Business in the Senate that, after this, there can be no more of their usual carping and whingeing about the government's legislation program in the Senate. No more can there be any suggestions at the end of the sittings program that we should be putting our efforts into longer sitting days and more sitting weeks for the Senate.If you are willing to put the Senate's time into this sort of time-wasting stunt from a failed minister for employment, education and training, then, on behalf of the opposition, I say to you, `Well, let the consequences be on your head because this is a cheap, miserable, political stunt developed by a failed minister to try to retrieve a bit of ground after an abominable performance as an office holder, as a cabinet minister, for which eventually even the Prime Minister of Australia caught up with her.' This is a pathetic, time-wasting stunt. The opposition will not support this suspension of standing orders. (Time expired)15:15:00504Abetz, Sen EricSenator ABETZN26TASLP10—We have just witnessed a half-baked excuse by a half-baked Leader of the Opposition as to why this matter should not be brought on. What is the urgency in this matter? Very clearly, it is this: there is no more serious allegation that can be made against a senator, let alone the would-be Attorney-General of this country, than to accuse him of leaking Federal Court documents for no apparent reason other than what he perversely sees as his own personal aggrandisement.The allegations that have been made each question time this week against Senator Bolkus have never been denied by Senator Bolkus. He has now had all week to come clean or make a denial. Therefore, this Senate is confronted, I would suggest, with a very strong prima facie case that Senator Bolkus has behaved in a manner which is completely unacceptable to the standards of this Senate. Therefore, we should deal with this matter by way of a censure motion as soon as the case has been built up to the extent that it now has been built.One of the telling points of the half-baked contribution by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator Faulkner) was that he failed to comment on the integrity of Senator Bolkus—not a single word of defence in support of Senator Bolkus. I must commend him on this: this is a tactic learned from Senator Ray. When he refuses to support a colleague, he will bag the government and hope that we forget about the colleague who is under fire. Let me say this to Senator Faulkner: we saw through that little tactic because you do not quite do it as convincingly as the should-be Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, Senator Ray.We on this side accuse Senator Bolkus of acting somewhat deceptively in this matter. Senator Faulkner, in trying to make out his case, has also misled the Senate, because he asserted that the tactic we are using today is a tactic that should only be allowed to be employed by the opposition—rules that ought to be applicable only to the Labor Party and not to the government.But how short his memory is. Do you recall the censure motion against my colleague former Senator Michael Baume? Senator Faulkner, you voted for it. Was it that you just forgot—a convenient lapse of memory, like Dr Carmen Lawrence's—or were you deliberately misleading this Senate, which your colleague who sits behind you is so blatantly guilty of doing?In the past, the then Labor government in the other place also censured the now Prime Minister (Mr Howard) and the now Minister for Health and Family Services (Dr Wooldridge). That was in 1995. So the only part of Senator Faulkner's contribution that had some ring of confidence about it was this allegation that it should be used only by oppositions. That argument has fallen flat because of the facts that I have just laid before this place.What are we confronted with? We are confronted with a very weak argument by Senator Faulkner. The one area that had the potential for substance has been utterly destroyed and, as a result, there is no support for the arguments being put by the Labor Party that this is not a matter of urgency.We will undoubtedly hear from Senator Ray in this debate. It really is sad that somebody who had the esteem and the seniority is now only ever making contributions in this place when there is mud to be slung or when trying to sledge a minister.As I said at the outset, there can be no more serious matter than an allegation that a senator in this place, let alone the would-be Attorney-General, deliberately leaked information from confidential Federal Court documents, against the rules of the Federal Court, which had the capacity to sabotage and prejudice the taxpayer-funded pursuit of Christopher Skase. Senator Faulkner and the Labor Party are only seeking to defend Skase's mate.15:21:00505Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAYUI4VICALP00—Over the years, censure motions are supposed to have been a very serious matter in this chamber. But one would have to say that their effectiveness has been debased by those on both sides of politics in the last 15 years when they have been thrown around like confetti. I have always had a great regret in my political life: I have never been subjected to one. Every time I go to my preselection panel, I have to say, `I appear as a failure before you yet again. The Senate has failed to censure me.' If only you blokes opposite would get your act together, clean me up, slap me on the wrist and censure me, at least I could walk tall before my own preselectors.BE4NEWMANSenator Newman—This isn't a joke, Senator.UI4Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAY—Of course it is not a serious matter by those opposite; otherwise their behaviour today would not have been so puerile. It has been absolutely political and puerile behaviour from the government. But, if it were a matter of urgency, why wasn't it raised when Senator Vanstone answered a question three days ago? I can tell you why: that was a government business day. When it was raised yesterday and we were given the same repetitive answer, why wasn't it urgent then? Of course, it wasn't urgent then.I will tell you why it is urgent today: because today is the day there is little government business left. Today is the day we have general business which is the time allocated to us, the Democrats, the Greens and others in which to put forward our views. So, cynically, this government has thought, `Not only will we jump into a puerile, opportunist censure motion, but we will also make it at the expense of the opposition, using their time.'Senator Vanstone, I think in a previous answer, said this matter was in the hands of the Federal Police. Senator, have you not said at some stage that the leaking of matters associated with Skase is in the hands of the Federal Police? If so, have they reported or have you jumped the gun into an operational matter and want to prejudice their investigations here in the Senate by making a cheap, opportunist censure motion? Is that the case, that you as a government refer something to the Federal Police for investigation, that they have not in fact reported, but once again you jumped the gun with a censure motion associated with this? I wonder. We might hear one of your later speakers respond to whether this is before the Federal Police and whether you are jumping the gun in the Senate, doing your own lynch-mob mentality job, not leaving it to the professionals to investigate properly and establish the facts.This government never hesitates to put leaks in the hands of the Federal Police, be it a leak from PM&C, as occurred recently, or a supposed one in DoFA. But when a key report goes missing, such as the Kennedy report, it is not put in the hands of the Federal Police; it is referred to the internal fraud people to cover up. When two crucial documents disappeared from the Prime Minister's office on 11 April 1997, was there a police investigation? Was there any investigation? No, there was not. So we can have a Prime Minister get up in the House of Representatives and talk about the perverters of the course of justice only on the basis that his own office has deleted two critical aide-memoires that would clear the people he accused. They are the people who should be censored in this place.This exercise is about precisely what Senator Faulkner said. We have a justice minister here whose portfolio responsibilities, whose staffing and whose image in politics have been massively reduced—not by us. We did not demote Senator Vanstone. We did not say to Senator Vanstone that she was no good. Her Prime Minister did so. Her Prime Minister demoted her out of cabinet. Her Prime Minister cut the then duties of the Attorney-General in about half and gave half to Senator Vanstone. She is suffering from deprivation of publicity and role in politics because she has gone from the second biggest spending department in the country to doing nothing. She is bored and she is demoted. So she gets into what I assume is a South Australian thing, a little South Australian feud, so that she can get her kicks over this particular issue.If you want to waste the time of this parliament, you will be repaid in kind. If you want to take up our general business time, we will start moving urgency motions and MPIs every day. We have been responsible in giving you time, but if you want to waste the time allocated to us, you will get it back in kind.15:26:00506Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—Madam President, the timing of this urgent censure motion is indeed cynical, but I believe that it is an important issue. It is about whether or not a senator of this chamber, in their conduct as a minister, deserves the censure of the Senate. So whilst the timing is cynical, I am prepared to support the suspension of standing orders to hear the arguments. I hope we get more arguments than some of the politics back and forth that we have had so far. I hope it can be done in such a way that it does not impinge on any current police inquiries. I think that should be possible. I am prepared to listen to the arguments of this important censure—in my opinion it always has been important; the Labor Party has not always considered that censures are important, but I believe they are—to find out what the case is really about.15:28:00506Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—I am going to vote against the suspension of standing orders. How I vote will not make any difference, of course, but I believe that there has not been a case made out for the suspension of standing orders today. If it was to be made out today, why was it not made out two, three, four or five days ago when the details were known?N26ABETZSenator Abetz—We have had a Federal Court letter today.6H4Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE—Well without getting the Federal Court's letter, you know precisely what the rules are. Other honourable senators who are interested would as well. I wanted to make that point. No doubt it is necessary now for me to listen to the arguments. I am reserving my view on the subject until I have heard the arguments. I am just disappointed that the matter is coming on today. I had heard around the traps that there was something going on, but I have been otherwise engaged in connection with legislation and thus I will be voting against the suspension.15:29:00506Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—The Australian Democrats will be supporting the suspension. We do so because we believe this is a serious matter and we are anxious to hear the arguments which we believe should have a hearing. We are not really interested in the political debate but we are interested in the legal debate. We are concerned though that, if the government does have a number of censure motions in future, they might give consideration as to when these take place—especially if it is a Thursday afternoon, which is of course our only opportunity to have general business. That is our main reluctance to support the suspension. But we will do so, in order to give what we consider a serious matter a hearing, and we will be listening to the arguments and then deciding on the issue.15:30:00507Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—No case has been made out this afternoon for an urgency motion on this matter at all. The speeches that have been given by the government have been speeches attacking Senator Bolkus. They have not been speeches about why this matter is allegedly urgent. Nothing that has been put forward says, for example, that the nation is in peril. We are not talking about the Gulf War or something of that level of magnitude. Nothing that has been put suggests urgency. Nothing has been put to say that if we deal with it exactly now something that is about to happen will change or be stopped. There is no urgency in terms of time. This is not a question that, if we do not act immediately, something will change. No case whatsoever has been adduced that that is true. Indeed, what Senator Harradine said before ought to weigh heavily with the minor parties and the government. If it is urgent, why wasn't it done sooner? Why did you wait until now? There is no case before this chamber that, if we act now, we will stop something. We will not.Of course it is idle to pretend that there is something urgent. There is nothing that is leading the news tonight, nothing on the front page of any newspaper, nothing out there that is publicly notorious, that indicates urgency or significant importance. It is a joke and a political fix. That is what it is. We ought to call it by its real name and not engage in humbug and pretence that there is something urgent. It fails on all of these dispassionate tests. Is the nation imperilled? No. Is there something we can do to stop something? No. Is there something that is publicly notorious? No. Can we act to change events? No. None of these things suggests urgency. Everyone in this chamber knows that.What do we have? We have a series of dorothy dixers this week to Senator Vanstone, so that she can have an unguarded rave against Senator Bolkus because Senator Bolkus annoys her. That is part of politics, Senator Vanstone. If you can't stand it, get out of the joint. That is what politics is about, in part.And why is the government concerned about Senator Bolkus? Last week a High Court judge stepped down from hearing a major case, because Senator Bolkus put in the public domain information that the government knew about and would not make available. As a consequence of that, a High Court judge stepped down. And who is the proponent in this case? Who is taking it? The government. That is, of course, a major setback for the government in that case. That is why Senator Bolkus must be stopped now—not because of any other matter of public urgency, but because he has acted in the public interest to make information available to the judiciary that the government knew about and did not reveal.So let us cut out all this cant, humbug and pretence of urgency or of a substantive issue here. There is no substantive issue here. The matter should be dealt with on the voices and dismissed, and this chamber should go about its business. What the Leader of the Opposition said is true: the most frequent refrain from the government is obstruction. Who is obstructing now? The government. The business of the Senate should proceed normally and not be obstructed. If we hear another peep out of you lot about obstruction, we will quote back to you, chapter and verse, the events of today, because that is exactly what you are doing. I know the vote is coming shortly. I think we are just about out of time. I ask those that have declared themselves to pause again and think: what is urgent; what cannot wait until next week; what cannot take its place in the normal batting order? Nothing here is in that category. Do not lend yourself to a slimy, grubby manipulation of the program.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! The time for this debate has terminated. Question put: That the motion (Senator Vanstone's ) be agreed to.15:39:00The Senate divided. (The President—Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid)45Abetz, E. Allison, L.Bartlett, A. J. J. Boswell, R. L. D.Bourne, V. Brown, B.Brownhill, D. G. C. Calvert, P. H. *Campbell, I. G. Chapman, H. G. P.Colston, M. A. Coonan, H.Crane, W. Eggleston, A.Ellison, C. Ferguson, A. B.Ferris, J. Gibson, B. F.Heffernan, W. Herron, J.Hill, R. M. Kemp, R.Knowles, S. C. Lees, M. H.Lightfoot, P. R. Macdonald, I.Macdonald, S. MacGibbon, D. J.Margetts, D. McGauran, J. J. J.Murray, A. Newman, J. M.O'Chee, W. G. Parer, W. R.Patterson, K. C. L. Payne, M. A.Reid, M. E. Stott Despoja, N.Synon, K. M. Tambling, G. E. J.Tierney, J. Troeth, J.Vanstone, A. E. Watson, J. O. W.Woodley, J.27Bishop, M. Bolkus, N.Campbell, G. Carr, K.Collins, J. M. A. Conroy, S.Cook, P. F. S. Cooney, B.Crowley, R. A. Evans, C. V. *Faulkner, J. P. Forshaw, M. G.Gibbs, B. Harradine, B.Hogg, J. Lundy, K.Mackay, S. McKiernan, J. P.Murphy, S. M. Neal, B. J.O'Brien, K. W. K. Quirke, J. A.Ray, R. F. Reynolds, M.Schacht, C. C. Sherry, N.West, S. M.Alston, R. K. R. Collins, R. L.Minchin, N. H. Denman, K. J.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.508Motion (by Senator Vanstone) proposed:That a motion of censure of the shadow Attorney General (Senator Bolkus) may be moved immediately and have precedence over all other business today, including general business and consideration of committee reports and government responses, until determined.15:42:00508Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—I would like to address this motion, which the opposition will not be supporting. Why should this Senate give precedence to Senator Vanstone when the Prime Minister has shown what precedence she deserves by sacking her from the cabinet? Why should we give precedence to this absolutely incompetent minister? I think I can make a very strong case to you, Madam Deputy President, as to why precedence is not warranted on this issue.Let us look at the record of this failed and miserable minister. Do you remember this? As soon as Senator Vanstone came into office, she refused to set targets for unemployment. As background for anyone who might be silly enough to listen to this absurd debate and as background for my colleagues, I have got to say that this was, of course, before she was sacked. So that we are clear, it was when she was the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs, before Mr Howard refused to give Senator Vanstone precedence.She refused to set targets to deal with unemployment. That is one of Senator Vanstone's great achievements. Who could forget the political time bomb that she then handed her leader, Mr Howard, who subsequently sacked her? The political time bomb was this: Senator Vanstone puffed herself up on a television program on a Sunday morning; she went on television and said, `If a government fails to get unemployment down, then a government does not deserve to be re-elected.'That was the second major foul-up by Senator Vanstone, the minister who is moving precedence on this motion to give her an opportunity to peddle lies about Senator Bolkus. The minister who has asked for precedence is the same one who, in question time in May 1996, said to the Senate:The reason you will not have some information is that we will not give it to you if we don't want to.That is what she said in response to a question asked of her ministerial responsibilities in this chamber. That is what Senator Vanstone thinks about responsibilities: we will not give you any information if we do not want to. That was her view of what being a minister of the Crown was about.It ill behoves Senator Vanstone, with an attitude like that to ministerial responsibility, to be criticising anyone in the opposition in relation to the conduct of their duties in public life. We should not forget that the minister who wants precedence to deal with this politically motivated stunt is the same minister who is single-handedly responsible for building the most powerful coalition of opponents imaginable in higher education. This is the minister—the first in Australian political history—who managed to unite vice chancellors, students, university staff and the public against her higher education policies.TH4KNOWLESSenator Knowles—Madam Deputy President, I take a point of order under standing order No. 194(1) which says:A Senator shall not digress from the subject matter of any question under discussion, or anticipate the discussion of any subject which appears on the Notice Paper.I refer to the first part of 194(1), in that Senator Faulkner has not yet talked about the issue that is before the Senate, and that is the question of Senator Bolkus's behaviour, not Senator Vanstone's. Senator Bolkus's behaviour is the question before the Senate, and I ask you to rule accordingly.UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—On the point of order: Senator Knowles, what is before the chamber at the moment is whether this matter should have precedence—not Senator Bolkus at all. On the question of precedence, we are entitled to argue, in terms of priorities, what should have alternate precedence.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Thank you, Senator Ray. There is no point of order Senator Knowles, because the question that Senator Vanstone moved relates to whether or not this should have precedence, and I am sure that Senator Faulkner is debating whether precedence should be given to this and not the censure motion.5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—As I was saying, we will not be voting for any motion to give precedence to Senator Vanstone when the Prime Minister demonstrated his approach in terms of the precedence he gave to Senator Vanstone by sacking her. Do not forget the coalition that developed in the higher education sector. On that occasion, you had the Prime Minister—10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Point of order, Senator Knowles.TH4KNOWLESSenator Knowles—I know you are sounding exasperated, Madam Deputy President, but I would prefer that you just listen to the point of order that I am about to take, without the exasperation. That point of order is on standing order 194(1) again—10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator Knowles, I caution you on some of your word choice because I find that it is going very close to reflecting upon the chair, and I do not appreciate it. Would you please continue with your point of order.TH4KNOWLESSenator Knowles—Madam Deputy President, I still say that I would prefer that you did not call me in such a way as to express your exasperation. On a point of order: I am raising standing order 194(1). I ask your guidance as to how the disparaging comments by Senator Faulkner about Senator Vanstone relate to the subject of precedence or anything else in the current debate before the Senate. I sought your guidance. You have ruled accordingly, so I now ask you to tell the Senate why you have ruled that his comments about Senator Vanstone are in order in this debate.RF4COOKSenator Cook—On the point of order: Madam Deputy President, you are being asked to bring Senator Faulkner to order because a senator opposite does not like the way in which Senator Faulkner is addressing the subject of precedence. On the question of precedence, it is entirely appropriate for this chamber to have canvassed before it the competing issues of what could have been on the agenda and what could have been dealt with.I submit that it is also entirely appropriate, when looking at that question of precedence, for it to be canvassed on the issue of motive: what is the justification for displacing a particular item on the program with a new item? That goes to the motive of those people who wish to place that matter on the program, and to some extent that is what is being dealt with here.YW4MACDONALDSenator Ian Macdonald—What absolute rubbish!RF4COOKSenator Cook—Senators opposite can interject and disparage as much as they like, but nonetheless it does not go to the point, and the point is that in a debate on precedence there is a wide-ranging opportunity for all elements attaching to the issue of precedence to be canvassed. That is what is being done here. I think that the Leader of the Opposition is entirely in order.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator Knowles, in this particular debate, senators are being asked to justify why they think precedence should or should not be given. I ask all speakers who are speaking in this debate on the current motion to speak to that particular motion.5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—As I was saying in relation to the issue of precedence before the chair, why does this particular matter deserve any more precedence? The opposition did not come forward and move a censure motion when Senator Vanstone was responsible for the hike in HECS and when science enrolments dropped across Australia. That was the time when Senator Vanstone and also the then science minister, Mr McGauran—remember him?—blamed the schools. Neither blamed themselves, but the opposition blamed Senator Vanstone. We did not ask for precedence at that time to come in and talk about Senator Vanstone's incompetence.Then we got to the budget in 1996, when Senator Vanstone went forth as a minister with an eye to the bottom line but not to any of the social and economic repercussions of her policies. She savaged her department to the tune of $1.8 billion of cuts.RF4COOKSenator Cook—How much!5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—There were cuts of $1.8 billion with the destruction of labour market programs, the destruction of skillshare and other mechanisms that the Labor government put in place to ameliorate long-term unemployment—and particularly youth unemployment—in this country. This was the minister that was responsible for that course of action.TH4KNOWLESSenator Knowles—Madam Deputy President, I raise a point of order: you ruled a moment ago that under standing order 194 senators' comments should be constrained within the area of debate on precedence. Senator Faulkner has deliberately defied that ruling and is now continuing to talk about Senator Vanstone and education funding, and everything else that is irrelevant to this debate. I ask you again: I take the point of order on standing order 194(1) and ask you to make a ruling accordingly.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—You are an idiot.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—My ruling is that Senator Faulkner is giving reasons why he thinks it should not be given precedence and is quoting other examples when he thought it could perhaps have been used.UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—Madam President, I raise a point of order: I distinctly heard Senator Conroy call Senator Vanstone an `idiot' and I require him to withdraw it.Senator Conroy interjecting—10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator Conroy, would you please withdraw.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—Was it the tone that I called her an idiot or the actual fact that she is an idiot that you would like me to withdraw?10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—The fact that you have used unparliamentary language, Senator Conroy. Would you please withdraw it.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—I withdraw.5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—If we were not debating this motion, we would be dealing with serious issues before the Senate—UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—Federal-state relations. 5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—Yes. Senator Carr has placed on notice this motion—I might say that at lunchtime the Manager of Government Business in the Senate moved that we deal with this issue this afternoon—which reads: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—I interpolate to say, the very issue I have just been speaking of—the Australian National Training Authority—another issue I have canvassed—Legal Aid and the Commonwealth/State Housing Agreement.These are important issues, and they deserve precedence over this mindless political stunt that has been proposed by Senator Vanstone. I recall, as some other senators might, when Senator Vanstone slashed her own department's budget by $1.8 billion—do you remember what she said about it? I do. I just remember that a `mere nick' is what she said about those cuts.But that all pales into insignificance compared with her efforts on the Wright family. It is not as if we proposed to up-end Senate business to deal with the issue of the Wright family. The creation of the fictitious Wright family was an infamous performance by this minister. Senator Vanstone is criticising Senator Bolkus for alleged leaks to the media. This is the same minister that allowed a story to go on the front-page of the Daily Telegraph in Sydney uncorrected and who had to be exposed again by the opposition in estimates committee hearings. I remember that the Sydney Morning Herald on 18 October that year said:Mr Howard is wrong to be tolerant about (Senator Vanstone's) performance. Ministerial heads have rolled for less than Senator Vanstone's folly.This is the same minister that has asked this Senate to give precedence to this political stunt and asks the opposition to support it.An issue that I wanted to raise in the debate this afternoon, when I have an opportunity to speak on Senator Carr's motion, is the fact that Senator Vanstone misled the Senate over projections for unemployment reductions when she—UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—Don't forget the Wright family.5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—Senator Ray, you were not listening. I have mentioned the fictitious Wright family.UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—I wasn't!Opposition senators interjecting—5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—Senator Ray will be disciplined for not hearing that very important part of the contribution that I have made.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator Faulkner, would you like to address the chair please.5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—Madam Deputy President, in a general business debate before the chamber this afternoon, we would have been able to mention the fact that Senator Vanstone misled the Senate over her projections for unemployment reductions when she claimed that the Labor government did not have departmental advice that a five per cent unemployment rate could be achieved. Senator Vanstone also misled the Senate, and I might say no censure motion was proposed or moved.7L6HOGGSenator Hogg—No.5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—No censure motion was proposed or moved.BH4HILLSenator Hill—Madam President, I raise a point of order—3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—You have remembered to come! You have turned up. Very good!Opposition senators interjecting—10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order!BH4HILLSenator Hill—I would like to thank you for that welcome. Madam Deputy President, I raise a point of order on the irrelevance of the contribution made by Senator Faulkner. What is happening here is quite transparent: it is a filibuster to avoid the debate of the substantive motion which is a censure. One can only ask what Labor has to hide and what Senator Bolkus has to hide. Why is it necessary to filibuster rather than face the music? Why can't the Australian people hear Senator Bolkus's explanation so that judgments can be made.UNKNOWNOpposition senatorsOpposition senators—What's your point of order?10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Hill, would you care to address the chair, please, instead of debating the issue.BH4HILLSenator Hill—I am sorry, Madam Deputy President. That should happen so that judgment can be made as to whether or not he should be censured. Isn't that what the Senate should be debating this afternoon?FX5MURPHYSenator Murphy—What's your point of order?10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Murphy.BH4HILLSenator Hill—The point of order is that Senator Faulkner is filibustering and not arguing precedence at all. He is not arguing it because the next item of business was taking note of answers from question time. He is not arguing that that should take precedence, but he is filibustering because the Labor Party clearly has something to hide. Clearly Senator Bolkus has something to hide, otherwise Senator Bolkus would be in here prepared to answer the case. Why won't he answer the case? One can only assume guilt.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator Hill, you are beginning to debate the issue.5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—Madam Deputy President, on the point of order, I do think that I have been making a persuasive case, but that is in the eye of the beholder. If the Senate were not debating this—what I consider to be a political stunt proposed by Senator Vanstone—we would soon be dealing with general business matters. Of course, if precedence is given to the censure motion, then the Senate will not have an opportunity to deal with the sorts of issues I am speaking about. I submit to you that my comments are directly relevant to the motion before the chair. I would appreciate the opportunity not to be interrupted by members of the govern ment as I continue to make what I believe is a strong case.YW4MACDONALDSenator Ian Macdonald—Madam Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. The Leader of the Opposition is quite clearly not addressing the motion before the chair. It is obvious that he and the Labor Party are simply filibustering. One can only ask why that is. Why won't Senator Bolkus answer the charges that are against him? Why are they trying to stop debate on this very important issue? If you were to rule that Senator Faulkner should get on with the substantive part of this motion, then we could get on to the debate about Senator Bolkus and give Senator Bolkus the opportunity to answer these allegations. Why is it that the Labor Party do not want this done? Why don't they want debate on this? That is the point to be considered in dealing with this point of order.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—Madam Deputy President, on the point of order: Senator Faulkner, for those of you who are actually listening, has already talked about taking note. He is now talking about the general business items. If necessary, I am sure he will be talking about the committee reports and government documents that are being taken away by the government's stunt.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—There is no point of order. We are debating the reasons why precedence should or should not be given. People have the right to have 20 minutes to speak. We will continue this debate until the time has expired.5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—If we were not dealing with this slimy and sleazy political stunt that Senator Vanstone has proposed, we would be able to deal in general business with the fact that Senator Vanstone misled the Senate over the level of university fees charged in overseas institutions. Again, that is something that we did not move a censure motion on, though I believe it would have been successful if we had. I am glad Senator Stott Despoja is in the chamber at the moment, because she would probably recall the misleading of the Senate by Senator Vanstone over a Democrats Internet e-mail question. That was during a half-smart dorothy dixer from the government. So this is the record of Senator Vanstone. These are substantive issues that we would be dealing with if we did not have this slimy, sleazy stunt from Senator Vanstone about Senator Bolkus.Frankly, I think that Senator Vanstone, instead of trying to argue for precedence for this motion, would be much better getting her office organised. She has the worst record of any minister in relation to answers to questions on notice.7L6HOGGSenator Hogg—Not even Dom Perignon overcomes it.5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—It might have been Dom Perignon one Christmas, but the next Christmas it was strychnine.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator Faulkner, would you please address the chair and relate your comments to precedence.5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—Some of the answers to questions on notice from this minister have taken nearly a year to answer. We could be dealing with those issues and not providing precedence for this slimy stunt. Senator Vanstone ought to be concentrating on these other issues. That is what she should be doing. She should be getting her office into order. It should not be hard. She has hardly got any—3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—She has a lot less staff.5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—She has hardly any staff left since she has been sacked. It is not as though she has much work to do any more. It should not be hard to get the old questions on notice churned out, but she does not seem to be able to do it.I wanted to have the opportunity—and I hope I will get it this afternoon in the general business debate—to raise the issue of Senator Vanstone's blunder in relation to the Austudy actual means test, which I am sure everyone remembers. That went on for a couple of months. Senator Vanstone did not do a thing about it. Then, of course, she announced the changes when university students had actually decided to quit university because they could not afford to go. Her policies and her administration caused genuine hardship amongst young Australians and heartache amongst poorer families. They got caught out by the botched means test administered by this hopeless minister over there. I think 7,000 or 10,000 families and students were affected by this.I am reminded about the ship of fools. I had intended to raise this also in the general business debate because it is an important point to make. Did the opposition come into the Senate and move a censure motion on the ship of fools, the botched South Pacific Cruise Lines issue? This minister deserved to be sacked for her incompetence in the administration of her own department. Did the opposition move a censure motion against this incompetent minister? No, we did not.We are offended. The minister responsible for those foul-ups and botch-ups was sacked by the Prime Minister, who will not give her precedence. The Prime Minister does not given Senator Vanstone precedence, so why should we? That is the real point. This is the minister who after she was dumped and handed back the bottle of Dom Perignon became the Minister for Justice with no staff, hardly any responsibilities, nothing to do with her time and plenty of time to do the odd fuzzy media interview and the like.However, this is the same minister, as the Minister for Justice, who has been responsible for presiding over the extraordinary cuts to the Australian Federal Police. I do not think any senator should forget that.UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—And the NCA—no, not that one. You can't blame her for that one.5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—But I do, Senator Ray. There was the $8.9 million cut when an AFP minute dated 28 January showed that the AFP has a funding shortfall of $18.1 million this year alone.We would have raised this under the general business item on Commonwealth-state relations, but this is also the same minister who accused Victoria of not honouring the agreement on uniform national gun laws by moving to remove the 28-day waiting period for second and subsequent gun licences when Western Australia has not put this measure in place since 1996 and when neither Senator Vanstone nor her predecessor, the then Minister for Justice, Mr Williams, did anything about it.This is the same minister who comes into this chamber and seriously tries to move a motion that we should give her precedence when her own party, her own government and her own Prime Minister show what they think of her by properly dumping her to where you deserve, dumping you right down the bottom of the list of the outer ministry because you are incompetent, because you are an embarrassment to your government and your colleagues—10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Faulkner, please address the chair.LI4PATTERSONSenator Patterson—Point of order, Madam Deputy President. Did I just hear you asking him to address his comments through the chair? If you did, that was the point of order I was going to bring up.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Yes, I did.LI4PATTERSONSenator Patterson—Thank you. I ask that you insist that he does that.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator Faulkner, would you please address the chair.5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—The point I was making through you, Madam Deputy President, is that this minister is hopeless. She asks for precedence when her own Prime Minister has shown what precedence she deserves—AW5CARRSenator Carr—Shown her the door.5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—He has shown her the door. He has dumped her. He has sacked her and she deserved it. She is one of the most incompetent ministers in the history of Commonwealth administration. For all those reasons we will not support the motion to give this matter precedence.16:12:00514Abetz, Sen EricSenator ABETZN26TASLP10—Precedence should clearly be given to this motion. There is a huge number of reasons—UNKNOWNOpposition senatorsOpposition senators—Huge; huge reasons.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order on my left!N26Abetz, Sen EricSenator ABETZ—And the substance of the motion has been set out.AX5EVANSSenator Chris Evans—Really, really big ones? N26Abetz, Sen EricSenator ABETZ—Unfortunately, Senator Evans, absolutely huge. You ought to be doing the right thing by Senator Bolkus and cut him loose now because he is swinging in the breeze.I remind this place of the importance of parliamentary standards. On one occasion a shadow minister in the Howard shadow ministry—one Mr McLachlan—was the recipient of some confidential documents that were delivered to his office. He was not aware that they were of that nature, but as soon as it was pointed out to him that they were of such a nature, what did he do? He resigned. That is all that Mr Beazley needs to do in relation to Senator Bolkus.Senator Bolkus has been peddling a leaked document. What is more, unlike Mr McLachlan, he did so deliberately and knowingly. How do I make that allegation? From the words spoken out of Senator Bolkus's own mouth, from the transcript that was taken where he says, `I can't give this document out, but maybe'—ZS6QUIRKESenator Quirke—Point of order, Madam Deputy President. I draw your attention to standing order 194(1), which says:A senator shall not digress from the subject matter of any question under discussion, or anticipate the discussion of any subject which appears on the Notice Paper.Certainly the first part of that is very appropriate in this instance. The good senator has not yet addressed the question of precedence.UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—On the point of order: Madam Deputy President, I urge you to be consistent. I believe Senator Abetz—unfortunately, Senator Quirke—is well within his rights with what he is going to. You have let a fairly wide debate as to the interpretation of precedence. I think Senator Abetz is absolutely in order and you should dismiss the point of order.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—There is no point of order. I am sure Senator Abetz will, as Senator Faulkner did, get to relating it back somehow.N26Abetz, Sen EricSenator ABETZ—Except I will do it with more style and more grace. Senator Bolkus is on record as saying in relation to these peddled documents that were confidential:I can't give this document out, but maybe if I just read it out off the record.He knew what he was doing. He knew that he could not deal with these documents on the record. So, as I asserted before, he deliberately and knowingly peddled documents which he knew were confidential and should remain confidential.Why should this matter be given precedence? There were four courts around the world that held that the matter which was the subject of this affidavit was of such an important nature that it should remain confidential. Those courts were in the Cayman Islands, in Spain, in London and our own Federal Court. Four courts around the world said it should remain confidential. Senator Bolkus admits to as much in the transcript of the interview when he tells the assembled media:In terms of secrecy, four courts across the world have deemed it appropriate for the proceedings to be in secret.Yet he deliberately went out to seek to divulge and peddle this information despite the ruling of four courts around the world—and that from the would-be first law officer of this country! If Kim Beazley were ever to become Prime Minister, the person who peddled these confidential Federal Court documents, who peddled this information to absolutely prejudice the case against Skase would become the Attorney-General of this country. I have to say to you that, when you look at the standards of the opposition as we then were, with Mr McLachlan, compared to the opposition as they now are with Senator Bolkus, the standards are in very stark contrast.FX5MURPHYSenator Murphy—What about Vanstone and the Wright family?N26Abetz, Sen EricSenator ABETZ—Senator Murphy says, `What about Senator Vanstone?' I will tell you. When Senator Vanstone received departmental confidential documents, she did not seek to use them for her own benefit. What did she do? She gave them back to the government. You see, they are the standards that we on this side abide by. When people breach those accepted standards, we should be debating it and dealing with it as a matter of precedence, as a matter of importance to the wellbeing of the parliamentary democracy in this country.Millions of dollars have escaped Australia. A lot of people are out of pocket as a result of Mr Skase's antics.Senator Carr interjecting—N26Abetz, Sen EricSenator ABETZ—I would have thought there would be a degree of maturity shown by the opposition so that we could deal with the Skase matter in a bipartisan manner. There is no benefit in the parliamentary sense in anybody getting Skase; the benefit is for the Australian people. You have to ask yourself: why did Senator Bolkus seek to divulge this information to the media? Might I add, to their great credit they did not use it. Even the journalists had a higher standard of propriety than the would-be Attorney-General of this country. That is saying something.The journalists refused to peddle the information that Senator Bolkus was seeking to peddle. If journalists will not write something for the purpose of a good story—and they usually do—if even they desist, doesn't that reflect on the would-be Attorney-General's behaviour and integrity? Indeed, it shows up the sort of character that he is. It is a clear example of undermining the authority of the Federal Court. If we believe in the rule of law in this country, if we seek to believe in the proper administration of justice in this country, then we ought be very concerned about the behaviour that has now been outlined chapter and verse and not denied by Senator Bolkus.I turn to the assertion as to whether or not this is a matter currently before the Federal Police. We do not know whether it is or not other than that the matter has been referred, and that is in relation to the leak. Especially for the Australian Democrats, the Greens and Senator Stott Despoja, who I note is returning to the chamber, if you read very carefully the wording of the motion, it does not accuse Senator Bolkus of leaking the information but simply of revealing certain contents of a confidential Federal Court affidavit.What is Senator Bolkus's defence? He said, `Well, I knew it was confidential. I knew I shouldn't do it but it was already in the public domain, so it was okay.' That is like saying, `Well, somebody else has committed this crime so it's okay for me to commit it as well.' What a terrible set of standards for the would-be Attorney-General of this country. That is the only defence that Senator Bolkus has proffered to this place or indeed to the people of Australia.Let us not be fooled by that assertion that we might be prejudicing a police investigation. Indeed, if the Labor Party were genuinely concerned about prejudicing investigations and legal processes, why on earth did they allow their shadow Attorney-General to peddle confidential documents from the Federal Court? You cannot have it both ways. You clearly are trying to, but you have been exposed.I have to say that not a single member of the Australian Labor Party today, in this chamber or the House of Representatives, has sought to stand by Senator Bolkus and say that what he did was right, that it was full of integrity, that it was acceptable behaviour within the appropriate standards and within the sort of conduct one would expect of a shadow Attorney-General. There has not been a single word of defence; just a bucketing of the previous conduct of people on this side.The only conduct on this side that goes anywhere near what occurred is the example I set out at the very beginning of my contribution. That is, when Mr McLachlan did so inadvertently, he did the decent thing and resigned. Senator Bolkus did an indecent thing knowingly—he knowingly and deliberately divulged the information—and he still continues to refuse to resign. What is more, his leader is too weak to force him to resign or to sack him.This matter ought be taking precedence over all other matters because we are talking about some very fundamental principles here of the behaviour of the shadow Attorney-General. If a terrible fate were to befall this country and Kim Beazley were to become Prime Minister, Senator Bolkus might in fact become the Attorney-General and the first law officer of this country—a very serious matter indeed. Somebody who would peddle in confidential, Federal Court documents knowingly and deliberately—2M6COONANSenator Coonan—If he were a practising lawyer, he would be struck off.N26Abetz, Sen EricSenator ABETZ—Indeed, as Senator Coonan has just interjected—and it ought go on the record—if a practising solicitor were caught doing something like that, there is a very fair chance they would be struck off the register of legal practitioners, yet Mr Beazley is too weak to strike him off the front bench. That is the telling point in this debate. That is why this matter ought be taking precedence. Senator Coonan has made a very telling point by that interjection. If the Law Society would strike off a lawyer for doing something like that, the question remains: why doesn't Mr Beazley strike off Senator Bolkus?16:25:00516Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAYUI4VICALP00—I was very pleased to hear from Senator Abetz, the Bristow of the Liberal Party, 23rd in line for Attorney-General on their side of the house. This was all an exercise to prevent us from noting answers today. After a devastating question time when we had them on the back foot, they invented this at the last moment because we had some serious matters to note. We were going to almost bring the government down, and what happens? This brilliant, machiavellian Senator Vanstone, coming to the aid of the embattled Senator Hill, decided to move a censure motion.She argued the urgency of this and why it should have precedence. Even though she raised it on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, it suddenly should have precedence on Thursday. Guess what, Senator Vanstone. There have been two censure motions contemplated and under way against Labor members, both on a Thursday. You never do this on a Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday when you will impair government business. You do it on a Thursday. Let me say that we should have been able to note answers today. I think that should have higher precedence, and this is the nub of my argument. This matter should not have precedence over noting of answers, nor do I think it should have precedence over general business.Let me digress for a moment. One of my colleagues is terribly distraught over this. One of my colleagues had expectations, had his hopes up, that the Ballast Water Research and Development Funding Levy Collection Bill 1997 may have been considered this afternoon. He had put hard work into it. He had put emotional time into it, and there sits a forlorn Senator Forshaw, unable to pursue this. He alone requires precedence for that particular matter, let alone Senator Vanstone.But today, if we had been able to pursue Senator Hill, we would have wanted to know why he will not answer the question of who in his office directed the re-evaluation of some rejected proposals under the Natural Heritage Trust. That is what we would have wanted to ask. Who was it in his office?H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—Who in your office couldn't even check up the directors of companies?UI4Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAY—Senator Campbell, the ex-campaign director in Stirling, wants to interrupt and broaden the debate—H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—I've never been a campaign director in Stirling.UI4Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAY—Never been a campaign director in Stirling? Oh, obviously some other investigation was not accurately reported. We would have wanted to ask Senator Hill who suddenly from his office, without his knowledge apparently, directed that these grants in Victoria and Queensland—not, note, in Western Australia, South Australia, Tasmania or New South Wales—should be reopened. Then we would have wanted to know what lobbying efforts went in. It is not wrong, by the way, having reopened them for someone like Mr Entsch or anyone else to lobby to get these failed projects—because they were not bad projects in the main—back on the agenda. There is nothing wrong with that. Where the crux of this comes is where you have ministerial discretion. It is who has the ability to talk to the decision maker that becomes critical. If it is only limited to certain cronies to do so, like Mr Entsch—Senator Lightfoot interjecting—UI4Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAY—Senator Lightfoot is talking about stolen documents. Senator Lightfoot, why don't you go back and read the evidence of what happened to the two aide-memoires that disappeared out of the office of the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) to protect the Prime Minister when he accused Mr Beazley and Senator Evans of being perverters of the course of justice—when he, his staff or someone disappeared the very documents that argued to the opposite? Why don't you go and have a censure motion on that, Senator Lightfoot, if you are so keen? If you are the Inspector Javert out of Les Miserables of the Liberal Party—and it is a good role for you—why don't you go and pursue that particular matter?656FORSHAWSenator Forshaw—Inspector Clouseau.UI4Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAY—No, he is not Inspector Clouseau. That is going just a little beyond. I know your disappointment has got to you, Senator Forshaw, but I can assure you that we will get to the Ballast Water Research and Development Funding Levy Collection Bill 1997 , and you will be able to give that scintillating speech that is just waiting to break out.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! It being 4.30 p.m., the Senate will now proceed to the consideration of general business notice of motion No. 937.Miscellaneous51716:30:00517Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEALB36NSWALP00—I 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.The motion before the Senate draws attention to severe difficulties that seem to have developed between the Commonwealth and the states. I suppose you would have assumed that that could have been expected between the Commonwealth and states like New South Wales where there are Labor governments, but I certainly do not understand why a Commonwealth government, dealing with its political brethren in the other states, should have so much of a struggle as it seems to have had.The only conclusion that can be made about this particular government, this coalition government, is that it does not cooperate very well with other people, and it certainly does not cooperate well with the state governments. That might be something that could be seen to be amusing. You could have report cards saying, `Does not play well in the playground.' It could be funny, except it has extraordinarily severe consequences for most of the Australian people because most of the arrangements that make the situation of the Australian people unbearable arise because of the arrangements that are made between the Commonwealth and the states.Some of the difficulties in areas are shown here in this particular motion, but I have to say that it is evident in all sorts of arrangements that normally would go on between the Commonwealth and the states. In every area, this government does not understand what `negotiation' really means. This government does not understand what `consultation' really means. In every area where it actually has to consult and negotiate, this government believes that walking into the room and saying, `This is what we're going to do. Take it or leave it,' is negotiation and consultation.The area that I am particularly concerned about today and would like to spend some time on is the Commonwealth-state housing agreement. This agreement is an agreement between the Commonwealth and the states and is a particularly longstanding arrangement. In fact, these agreements have been in place since 1945. It is quite astonishing that an agreement that has been negotiated by various governments—both coalition and Labor governments—seems to be causing a great deal of trouble for this particular government. But, of course, this is not the only area of concern. Later we will be looking at the areas of health and disabilities where this government has been quite uninterested and, I think, quite reckless in dealing with the rights and entitlements of disabled people in the community.The failure of this government to finalise a lot of Commonwealth and state agreements has meant that services that everyday, average Australians rely on are essentially falling apart. When this coalition government was elected, there was an existing Commonwealth-state housing agreement in the housing arena. Essentially, a new agreement should have been negotiated almost immediately, but this government was unable to achieve that.It struggled on until November of last year where it essentially did not actually negotiate a new agreement because that was beyond its capacity. But the government told the states that it would provide funding for a further 12 months on similar lines but with some additions and, of course, that level of funding was not at the same level that it has been to date. It is quite interesting to look at the coalition's election policy, which states:The Commonwealth-state housing agreement has provided a framework for establishing public and community housing stock. It remains the most appropriate vehicle for achieving the Liberal and National parties' goals in the efficient provision of public and community housing.I wonder how that sits comfortably with a coalition government which is uncommitted to a Commonwealth-state housing agreement. In fact, at the last estimates when I was questioning the department about the housing agreement, I was advised that, in fact, this latest interim agreement, which I suppose is what you might describe it as, which is for a period of one year, is likely to be the last agreement ever to be signed.So after 50-odd years of having a Commonwealth-state housing agreement, this government is no longer able to achieve a uniform provision of housing services across Australia because of its incompetence and incapacity in consultation and negotiation. In fact, the government has said that it will negotiate—I think a word unknown to this government—with each state individually and will work out on an ad hoc basis what sort of funding will be provided for housing and what the benchmarks and key indicators will be.This is an extraordinarily sad development. It is sad for the Commonwealth and for the states, and it is also sad for the large numbers of public housing tenants who rely on some sort of certainty in the arrangements to ensure that they have security in their housing.In fact, the previous government decided that there should be a three-year agreement so that there could be some certainty and so that the states could develop a more long-term strategy to adequately fund public housing. This, of course, has been an ongoing criticism in all areas. But particularly in housing, a short-term funding arrangement—finding out each year how much funding will be provided for housing—has meant there is a lack of long-term strategies and a deterioration in housing stock.Senators on both sides will acknowledge that in many areas there has been a vast deterioration in the quality of housing. I am advised as I travel around that, particularly in the state of South Australia, there is a crisis occurring in the standard of housing that presently exists. I have to say in passing that, I suppose because of a bit of a hangover from the days of Don Dunstan in South Australia, in terms of the proportion of population that has access to public housing, South Australia has done particularly well.When I was advised by officers of the department that in fact there might never be another Commonwealth-state housing agreement, I was very concerned because, in recent times, one of the ideas that have been embraced is that wherever you live in Australia, whatever your circumstances are in terms of your geographic location, you should be able to rely on the same quality of housing and have the same access to housing, bearing in mind your age, your employment situation and, in general, your need. But that is no longer the case. If a general agreement that covers the whole of Australia is no longer applied, if you are a young unemployed person of 18 years and if you live in South Australia, then you might access housing, if you live in New South Wales you might not, and if you live in the ACT you might access it if you wait for a couple of years. It is extraordinarily important for people within Australia—which is one nation, not six—to feel that they can rely on one criterion, that they can rely on a particular standard of housing and that they can have security of housing.In 1995, before the election, the Labor government had already done most of the legwork for another Commonwealth-state housing agreement. It had already negotiated with the states pretty much what the new agreement would look like. In fact, the states were quite desperate to sign an agreement as soon as the election was over. It seems quite extraordinary, in light of that situation, that in fact it took until November 1997 for this coalition government to get around to signing what was in reality, I suppose, a short extension rather than a completely new agreement.But that is very much in accord with the general view of this government. It is not about governing for the general good of the community; it is about enhancing conflict, it is about playing off one party against another—in this case, one state against another state. It is not at all concerned about ensuring that there is high quality housing available for public housing tenants and that the states are adequately funded to provide it.This also happened in relation to state-Commonwealth agreements on legal aid. There was a debacle, a slanging match, between the Commonwealth and each state Attorney-General about exactly how much would be provided. The Commonwealth was trying to pick off one state individually and then pick off another. It asked the states to accept fairly large cuts and told them that, if they did not accept fairly quickly, the amount of funding provided would be even less than was initially offered.As I understand it, after just under 18 months of slanging matches between the Commonwealth and the states, agreements in relation to legal aid were signed with all states except New South Wales. That is not terribly extraordinary bearing in mind that, on a proportionate basis, New South Wales was being told—I will not say `asked' because there is no negotiation in these sorts of arrangements with this present government— that they were to bear the largest proportion of all cuts in legal aid.Senators may remember the sort of distress expressed in the community regarding those cuts in legal aid. We had a situation where the Commonwealth said, `We will only fund those sorts of legal matters that arise directly from federal legislation.' On the face of it, I suppose that could be seen as somewhat attractive and perhaps even fair but, when you look at the detail of it and examine what it really means, it is very far from adequate and very far from fair.There are some very serious areas that come strictly within state legislation that I believe the federal government should be funding. One such area is domestic violence. How the federal government can say, `Because domestic violence actions arise under state legislation, it is not the responsibility of the federal government to support women who are trying to protect themselves from violence in their own homes', I find quite extraordinary. That is only one of many examples of areas where the Commonwealth shrugged its shoulders and, despite the protests of the states—and I mean all states—failed to provide adequate funding and negotiate a reasonable agreement under the Commonwealth-state legal aid arrangements.It goes on and on, because they failed under the Medicare agreements as well. Senator Forshaw will be talking about that. They failed under the disability agreements; they failed in relation to enrolment benchmarking and the schools policy. In all those areas, this government has failed to reasonably negotiate any Commonwealth-state agreement which has the wholehearted support of the states, because they do not believe that it is reasonable to have regard to the rights and needs of every Australian. They think it is just about cutting back the dollars and making sure that the states fund more than they do.16:46:00520Knowles, Sen SusanSenator KNOWLESTH4WALP10—Today we are debating a rather remarkable motion moved by Senator Neal on behalf of Senator Carr. It deals with what he claims is the government's inability to work cooperatively with the states, as evidenced by its failure to negotiate certain agreements. It is interesting that such a claim should be made and it was interesting to hear Senator Neal's contribution a moment ago, as a senator for New South Wales. I was waiting for her to refer to the predicament and circumstance surrounding her own Labor government in New South Wales and the health minister's position in that state.The New South Wales Labor Deputy Premier and health minister, Dr Andrew Refshauge—he is also the Chairman of the Australian Health Ministers Conference—gave a very fascinating interview on the ABC back in February. It gave a very, very good insight into the confusion of the Labor Party at a state level, and also probably the confusion that is so often demonstrated by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Beazley) at a federal level, about the issue of funding. Dr Refshauge said:Well, I think it has got to be really for John Howard and Peter Costello and the others in the Cabinet to recognise they're predicting a two and a half billion dollar surplus this year, (so) what is their interests? Are their interests the preservation of Medicare and the treatment of patients in this nation, or are they interested in having a two and a half billion dollar deficit? We are saying—`we' being the Labor Party—that some of that deficit should be spent on looking after patients in this nation.Isn't that fascinating? Your own Labor minister in New South Wales is advocating spending money that is not there—spending money on the deficit. He does not know the difference between a deficit and a surplus. His maths are simply as bad as Mr Beazley's.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—It is the only state in Australia with a deficit.TH4Knowles, Sen SusanSenator KNOWLES—That is exactly right, Senator Campbell. People will recall that Mr Beazley, as Finance Minister and Deputy Prime Minister in the Keating government, told Australians before the last election that we were operating in surplus. He said, `Our projections are for surpluses in the future.' They were the words of Mr Beazley prior to the last election. He did not know and understand the difference between deficit and surplus either, because he told the Australian people, prior to the last election, that we were operating in surplus.656FORSHAWSenator Forshaw—Madam Acting Deputy President, I raise a point of order. Is it in order for the senator to make such an outrageous untruth in respect of a state minister? She alleged that Dr Refshauge had called on the federal government to draw health funds from a $2½ billion budget deficit. I have here in front of me a press report of Dr Refshauge's comments. His comments specifically refer to a surplus, not to a deficit.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—If you want to join the debate, put your name on the list. Don't debate it. What is your point of order?656FORSHAWSenator Forshaw—The point of order is that the honourable senator should at least have the decency to tell the truth.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—Sit down, you stupid fool.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Crowley)—Senator Campbell, that is of no assistance to the deliberations in this place either. Senator Forshaw, there is no point of order.TH4Knowles, Sen SusanSenator KNOWLES—I remind the Senate that the words I quoted were not mine. They were Dr Refshauge's.656FORSHAWSenator Forshaw—They are wrong. There it is. You are wrong. Someone has given you the wrong quote, my dear.TH4Knowles, Sen SusanSenator KNOWLES—They were from a transcript of an interview that Dr Refshauge undertook. Therefore, I am simply quoting Dr Refshauge's words in the same way I am quoting Mr Beazley's words when he said, `We are operating'—`we' being the Labor government—`in surplus and our projections are for surpluses in the future.' They were his words. The honourable senator can rabbit on all he likes about his version of events. I am simply repeating the words.At the time when Mr Beazley was making those comments, he knew—as the rest of Australia now knows—that the budget was actually in a $10.3 billion deficit, not a surplus. The coalition has had to work hard and take a lot of difficult decisions to repair this awful black hole in the Commonwealth budget.Dr Refshauge demonstrated that the same confusion about the difference between surpluses and deficits exists in the New South Wales government. If the Commonwealth budget were in deficit—which, thankfully, it will not be in the coming budget, but no thanks to the Labor Party in the state or Commonwealth arenas—you could justify some of his comments as being a mistake. But he knows that that is not true. You could understand how he could be so confused.Why did not a senator from New South Wales talk about the fact that New South Wales will not come to the party? The situation in New South Wales is absolutely and utterly appalling in every area.One of the other things that is listed here—it is not just the Medicare agreement—is the Commonwealth-state disability agreement. While talking about New South Wales, I would like to ask the honourable senators from the Labor Party whether they can give the Senate some justification as to why the New South Wales Labor government failed to keep pace with other state and Commonwealth moneys in increasing funding for disability services over the last six years? Why is its per head funding only half of that of Victoria? Why does New South Wales say that the Commonwealth should put in more funds when Commonwealth increases in that state over the last six years were much larger? They were 84 per cent against 50 per cent.The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare says that an increase in funding of $294 million is needed in areas which are a state government responsibility. What sort of increase in funding does New South Wales plan over the next four years? None of this was covered by a senator from New South Wales. It will be interesting to see whether another senator covers it. Will it at least guarantee to keep pace with population growth? Will it at least guarantee not to reduce its present levels of funding over the next four years?It has to also be said that accommodation support for people with disabilities is, and always has been, a responsibility of the state governments. Funnily enough, when Senator Neal and Senator Forshaw et al were in government, they never actually made that point; but now that they are in opposition, they are quite clearly saying that it is the Commonwealth's responsibility.The Commonwealth has a very small involvement, but it has provided substantial increases in funding. The Commonwealth is offering an increase in funding of 14.2 per cent between now and the year 2001-02. Yet Senator Neal just continues to spread these furphies around. This funding is on the table and guaranteed in each year.The New South Wales Labor state government will not promise any increase. It will not promise that there will be no cuts. It will not even declare what its funding will be over the next four years. Why does the New South Wales state government say that unmet need is the Commonwealth's fault? The Commonwealth is offering New South Wales $56 million extra over current funding levels over the five years. So why is New South Wales refusing to take this money if unmet need is so bad?I wanted to put those particular issues on the record because the only Labor state government in this country is cutting back funding year by year and trying to shift that funding back onto the Commonwealth, and the Labor opposition in this place is aiding and abetting it. The 1997-98 budget estimate for Commonwealth payments to the states under the Medicare agreements is $4,900 million, an increase of $175.5 million. That is on the 1996-97 estimate. Now 99.9 per cent of this is for payments to the states with the remaining $7.2 million going to national projects.Since the budget, hospital funding grant estimates have been updated, including for revised data on the number of people living with AIDS, variations to the agreements which have been accepted by the states relating to funding for adult heart and liver transplants, drug therapy for AIDS patients and 1996-97 actuals. The current approved estimate for 1997-98 is $4,997 million dollars, bringing real growth over the five years to about 15 per cent.Here we have the Labor government in New South Wales cutting their funding and we have the Labor opposition in this place saying that we should increase the funding. If they think that is the correct course of action, why did they not do that? They simply did not, but now that they are in opposition they are so politically expedient that they could not care about the way in which this country is run, and that is why we were confronted with a $10.3 billion deficit—not a surplus—when we came to government.The need for flexibility and service delivery options is being considered in the context of the next agreements. This is something that the Labor government did not do. The Commonwealth intends to work cooperatively with the states and territories to achieve reform within the context of our commitment to retain Medicare in its entirety.The issue of increased pressure on our public hospitals will be addressed constructively through the implementation of reforms in the context of the agreements. On that point, it is worth noting that one other issue that the Labor Party refuses to acknowledge is the fact that the coalition government will provide up to $120 million for action on waiting lists, with $4 million released each week commencing on 16 March. What they are saying is that the funding is constantly being cut. This is a genuine offer to the states and territories to help them reduce waiting lists and is additional assistance that they have been seeking for some time.When talking about waiting lists, it is always worth remembering why there is a waiting list problem in the first place. What happened under 13 years of Labor was that private health insurance membership went from between 60 and 70 per cent down to 30-odd per cent. Therefore, the demand on public hospitals increased enormously. What did the Labor Party in government do about that problem? Absolutely nothing. So now that a coalition government is in office, it has decided to try to address some of the problem that Labor created by giving the states $120 million to help resolve the problem of waiting lists. In preliminary discussions with the state and territory health ministers last year, the government was able to agree on a vision for the health system into the next century and the principles that should underlie the agreements and support worthwhile reform of the system. The Commonwealth's offer is consistent with these principles and supports the reform process with both structure and dollars. It is important to know that in terms of structure the offer would allow funding to flow between sectors and support improved integration of care and better patient outcomes. They should surely be priorities with which Labor agrees. But no, their political partisan nature will not allow them to say that that is an acceptable, sensible and desirable course of action.In terms of dollars, the offer includes half a billion dollars to be spent on projects to improve the system, including devising means to improve integration of care—particularly for the aged—improving the use of information technology so that patient data goes with the patient instead of following them around, and implementing alternative treatment modalities that do not require expensive acute hospitalisation.It is clear that the current agreements, negotiated by those opposite, did not deal adequately with changing levels of private health insurance. They just ignored it. They just let it slip. What is now being proposed will actually address this issue by making automatic population-based adjustments to funding as private health insurance participation rates fluctuate.The Commonwealth this year will provide 19 per cent more funding in real terms for public hospitals than it did in 1992-93 under Labor. I would be very interested to hear what senators who are following in this debate will say about the increase in funding for waiting lists, the increase in funding that I have just referred to for public hospitals, and the other increases in funding. They are grizzling and grizzling, and yet they chose to do nothing.The fact is that the agreements that were negotiated by Labor also overlooked the fact that states themselves reduced their funding for the first couple of years of the agreements. Did they do anything about making sure that the states rectified that? No, they did not, because quite frankly they thought they were going to be out of government soon after the agreements were signed anyway. The Commonwealth is to make available that $120 million this year, as they sign the new agreements, to help that immediate problem of the waiting lists created by Labor. This government will not repeat the mistakes of Labor, which increased funding by 10 per cent in the first year of the current agreements, and then stood by while the states reduced their funding by an equivalent amount.On the question of the Commonwealth-state disability agreement, that is even more breathtaking, as I say, because New South Wales in particular is the main state that has decreased its funding right across the board. Questions really need to be answered as to why its per head funding is half that of Victoria, and why the Commonwealth should put in more funds when the state itself is cutting its funding.The Commonwealth has offered more money to the states for disability services than has ever been offered. So if anyone hears from this point on in this debate that we have cut funding in terms of the CSDA, the Commonwealth-state disability agreement, it is wrong. More money has been offered than ever before. The Commonwealth offer recognises the needs of people with disabilities and provides a substantial increase in the base funding over the next five years. It includes a commitment from the Commonwealth to strategically identify and target resources to areas of unmet need.This area of unmet need is something that the Labor Party totally ignored. They simply put all the money into a pot and said to the states, `You just spend it however you want.' We are trying to identify different areas of unmet need from state to state, because the Labor Party does not understand that the need and unmet need differs from state to state. Labor's CSDA agreement never acknowledged the extent of unmet need. They should hang their heads in shame that, after 13 years in government, the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare report should identify such an unacceptable level of need—which was 13,400 people that you left without anything.We know that repairing this mess will take time. The new agreements with the states will allow unmet need to be specifically identified and, through a process of joint consultation between all levels of government and the disability sector, resources will be strategically harnessed for the benefit of people with a disability. All of this will occur while current services are maintained and enhanced. Once again, if there is any argument in this debate at any time that we are grinding down services, it is wrong on two counts: all current services are to be maintained and enhanced; and we have offered the states more money than has ever been offered before. I wait to hear the apology from the Labor Party in their contribution to this absolutely and utterly false debate.17:06:00524Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—I am delighted to rise now and speak after Senator Knowles, because it gives me the opportunity to refute many of the falsehoods that were contained in her remarks. My experience on a couple of other occasions has been that I have not had that opportunity because I have preceded her in debates on these issues. Firstly, I want to go to one of the glaring falsehoods contained in her remarks—her supposed quotes from Dr Refshauge, the New South Wales Minister for Health. Senator Knowles quoted from some transcript that, apparently, she has in front of her, and argued that Dr Refshauge had called on the federal government to fund increased expenditure to public hospitals in the states out of a budget deficit. I do not know what document she is reading from, but she had better go and check the source and the accuracy of it, because it is totally inaccurate.The word `deficit' is wrong. She can wave a piece of paper around—I do not know whether she wrote it herself. She can do a Chamberlain act, but it will not get her off the hook. Let me go to the report of the meeting that took place between the federal minister and the state ministers for health not so long ago. I refer to an article in the Weekend Australian on 17 January this year. It states:Federal Health Minister Michael Wooldridge yesterday snubbed a State ministers' Medicare crisis meeting as they rejected a $100 million federal lure and demanded a new deal from the Commonwealth.The States—I emphasis the plural `states'—all states, not just New South Wales—also warned the Howard Government it risked fighting an election without a public hospital agreement unless it came up with an offer better than the current $1.7 billion. The States have demanded an extra $5.5 billion.NSW and the federal Opposition called for John Howard to personally intervene and ensure a realistic public hospital funding proposal was put to Cabinet as early as Monday to break the deadlock.NSW Health Minister Andrew Refshauge, Victorian Minister Rob Knowles and Tasmanian Minister Peter McKay were forced to hold their own meeting and press conference after Dr Wooldridge refused to meet them yesterday.Why don't you stay, Senator Knowles, and hear the truth for once? The article went on to say:The latest row erupted after the ACT broke ranks to sign an in-principle, five-year Medicare agreement. The States—Plural—the states. All the states: the five Liberal-National Party states and New South Wales—rejected a $100 million waiting list bonus designed to reward those who signed by March.I would like to stress the following words from this article, because they put the lie to the absolute falsehoods that were perpetrated by Senator Knowles a moment ago. The article states:At the press conference in Melbourne, Dr Refshauge called on federal Cabinet to draw health funds from the $2.5 billion Budget surplus expected for this financial year.The first point is that the public knows—because the government keeps crowing about the fact—that, on the government's estimate, they will achieve a surplus of $2.5 billion this year. We will wait and see, but that is their claim, their expectation. The second point is that, clearly, the reporters who were present at the press conference when Dr Refshauge made his remarks correctly heard what Dr Refshauge said. It is as plain as the glasses on your face, Senator Heffernan, that Dr Refshauge called for the government to fund increased health funding out of a budget surplus. For Senator Knowles to start her remarks by claiming that Dr Refshauge said the word `deficit' instead of `surplus' shows, firstly, the depths to which they will descend to try to distort the truth and distort what state ministers such as Dr Refshauge have said and, secondly, shows the puerile nature and paucity of their argument.Having put that furphy to rest, let us get back to the crux of this issue, which is that there is no agreement between the states and the federal government on health funding under the Medicare agreements. The Medicare agreements have been due to be re-negotiated for some time. Negotiations have been taking place, but no agreement has been reached. Dr Herron, who is present here in the chamber, knows what I am saying is exactly true. Senator Knowles talked as if there was an agreement, but there is no agreement. All the states and the Northern Territory have rejected the proposed offer from Dr Wooldridge and this federal government because they say that it is totally inadequate.VW4HERRONSenator Herron—The ACT have accepted.656Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW—Dr Herron interjects and says the ACT government accepted the agreement. Let me remind you, Dr Herron, that the reason the ACT government caved in and signed the agreement is well known—it has been asserted by some of your own political colleagues in other states. The reason the ACT government signed the agreement was, firstly, that they were offered an extra $2.5 million a year and, secondly, there was an election on. The Chief Minister, Kate Carnell, and Dr Wooldridge did a sleazy little deal and got the ACT to sign up. Indeed, the ACT government has been criticised by all the other states. The Queensland government, the National Party, the South Australian Liberal government, the Western Australian Liberal government, the Tasmanian Liberal government and the Northern Territory Liberal-Country Party government have all criticised the ACT for breaking ranks on the totally unanimous position that the states and territories have adopted so far.Let us look at what representatives from states other than New South Wales have said. Senator Knowles talked about New South Wales and attacked the performance of Dr Refshauge and the New South Wales government on health and public hospitals. She spoke as though New South Wales was the only state where there is a problem with public hospital funding because this government has ripped over $800 million out of the public hospital system since it came into office, and it has also ripped out $400 million in terms of public dental programs.Senator Heffernan interjecting—656Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW—For your benefit, Senator Heffernan, I will quote what has been said by other leaders about the federal government's offer in the latest round of Medicare agreement negotiations. What did Mike Horan, the Minister for Health in Senator Herron's home state of Queensland, say about the government offer? He said that it was a `cynical bribe, little more than a sweetener, and neither here nor there'. That is what your Liberal Party colleague said about Dr Wooldridge's offer.VW4HERRONSenator Herron—He's a Nat—he's not a Liberal Party colleague.656Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW—National Party colleague—my apologies. Dr Napthine, the Victorian acting health minister, said—and Senator Conroy will be interested in this—that `the offer did not come close to the amount needed by the state to meet rising health care costs'. That is what the Liberal Party acting health minister in Victoria said about Dr Wooldridge's offer on Medicare.I will go back to what was said by Mr Horan, because that seemed to raise some interest in Senator Herron. As I said, he referred to it as `a cynical bribe'. On the subsequent offer of an extra $100 million if they all signed up by March, Mr Horan said:The first we heard of this is when The Courier-Mail put it to us. One would have thought that Minister Wooldridge would have put this to Minister Horan rather than announce it to a press conference.What a way to conduct negotiations over health policy in this country. Dr Wooldridge has a track record of not attending meetings when he should, and then calling meetings that no-one goes to.What did Denis Burke, the minister for health in the Northern Territory, say? He said that `millions of extra dollars were needed in the Northern Territory to continue the high level of health care and that the Territory is in very bad shape to maintain its services'. This is the minister in the Northern Territory—not some Labor state like New South Wales; it is one of your lot.Let us travel across to Senator Knowles's home state of Western Australia. What did the Western Australian health minister say about Dr Wooldridge's offer on Medicare? Mr Kevin Prince said that the offer `was not worth while because the state would lose $30 million in the first year of the new Medicare contract'. That is what the Western Australian health minister said about Dr Wooldridge's proposal. Is it any wonder that there is no agreement and that there is unlikely to be any agreement?All the states and the Northern Territory—and originally the ACT, but it was bought off because it had an election around the corner—are saying that this government's record on health is atrocious. While we are talking about Western Australia—and it is a pity that Senator Knowles is not here, although Senator Bishop has just come in, and he is from Western Australia—what did Premier Court say about the performance of Dr Wooldridge in respect of the private health insurance incentive scheme—the $1.7 billion scheme that this government introduced that is designed to increase private health insurance coverage?When the scheme was introduced, at the same time as they ripped pretty close to $1 billion out of public hospital funding, Dr Wooldridge said in the budget papers that levels of private health insurance would increase to 34 per cent by the end of this financial year. As of December last year, they had dropped to their lowest level ever of 31.6 per cent, and there are now only three months to go. It is not going to improve, and Senator Herron knows it is not going to improve.This is a great waste of taxpayers' public money. A subsidy is being paid to the private health insurance companies, supposedly to try to improve the level of participation in private health insurance to take the pressure off public hospitals. You are paying this huge subsidy to the private health funds, and yet the private health funds are still increasing their premiums—and they have increased them by in excess of 30 per cent since you came to office.VW4HERRONSenator Herron—It went up 200 per cent under Labor.656Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW—If you do not believe me because I happen to be a member of the Labor Party—a Labor senator—and you do not like what I say, listen to what Premier Richard Court says.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—Is a he a Liberal?656Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW—He is a Liberal. What does he say about this private health insurance scheme? He says, `It is a dud deal.'C16HEFFERNANSenator Heffernan—A done deal!656Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW—A dud deal. There is no misprint in this one. He said that it is a dud. The Australian Medical Association has also said that this is a dud scheme. It is not working and it has told you to go away and completely re-look at it. Why is this happening? It is happening because this government, notwithstanding its solemn promise at the last election that it would maintain Medicare, is still bent on undermining Medicare.When you went to the election in 1993, at least Dr Hewson told the truth. He went to the people with his GST and they threw that out. But you also went to the people at that time and said that you were going to undermine, dismantle and destroy Medicare, because you have never liked Medicare. The people rejected you in 1993 because they were not prepared to risk a government that would destroy Medicare.At the last election in 1996, John Howard put his hand on his heart and said to the people, `Don't worry, you can be relaxed and comfortable, I will maintain Medicare,' because he recognised that the people of Australia wanted Medicare. But what has happened since you have come to office? You have ripped out over $1.2 billion from public health funding; you have abolished the dental scheme; you have ripped $800 million out of public hospitals; you have given a subsidy to the private health insurance industry and that scheme has not worked; and you have allowed them to put up increases of in excess of 30 per cent in their private health insurance premiums.Then you come up to the states to negotiate a new Medicare agreement. You put $1.7 billion on the table and the states say, `You're a long, long, long way short.' The states have rejected it and they will continue to reject it. You have a unanimous position across all of the states, with one Labor state and five conservative states all telling this government that its proposals on the Medicare funding agreement are totally unacceptable. The motion that has been moved today in general business is absolutely pertinent to the circumstances. It is clear that on the issue of health—and particularly in respect of renegotiating the Medicare agreement—this government and this minister, Dr Wooldridge, have totally failed. When they have to stoop to the extent of having Senator Knowles come in here and try to defend a totally indefensible position, then all I can say is that I rest my case. This government has been exposed for the falsity of its health policy, and the people will certainly give them the message at the next election.17:24:00527Heffernan, Sen BillSenator HEFFERNANC16NSWLP10—I would like to remind the Senate of the motion that is before the chamber, given the 20 minutes of rubbish that we have just had to put up with which would have misled our listeners out there. The motion reads: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 . . .It is ironic that that great Kremlinist, Senator Carr, should put this motion before the Senate, when the coalition government has spent its first two years in government fixing the result of Labor's 13 years of mismanagement and neglect. Labor could not do the numbers—the difference between zero and $10 billion is a great expanse. When they cannot tell a difference between a deficit and a credit budget, there is not much to be said for them.Because of Labor, the state public health systems are stretched to the limit. In my own state of New South Wales, we have had to put up with Bob Carr's fraud on the waiting lists. When Labor was in federal government, they could not see the importance of putting a handbrake on the decline in the membership of private health insurance. They could not see that, for every person who is capable of helping himself or herself, governments are able to help more of those who cannot.The former Prime Minister, Mr Keating, was one of those people who might have been a member of the private health system. Senator Forshaw, you should have encouraged your Prime Minister Keating to join up in the private health system instead of using a system that could have been better used by those who could ill-afford it.Labor let the private health system run down. When they came to government in 1983, nearly 65 per cent of Australians were covered by private health insurance but, by September 1995, this proportion had plummeted to 34.5 per cent. The proportion was falling by two per cent a year and they could not give a damn about it. This placed intolerable demands on the public health system and on the waiting lists.In my own state of New South Wales, the waiting lists—as Senator Forshaw well knows—are bulging. One of the reasons they are bulging is that, when the Premier, Bob Carr, came to government, he said that he would resign if he had not halved the waiting lists after the first year in government. Well, the waiting lists have doubled, and the fraud that he has perpetrated is that he is still in power.This is the government that will be known not as the weak Labor government but as the great U-turn government. Instead of a healthy hospital system, the Carr government has given us 10 per cent of the world's poker machines. These are the guys who did a U-turn with the tax on clubs, so they decided to best way to square off would be to allow more poker machines and put more misery into the lives of people out there in every man's-land with more poker machines and gambling. What a great statistic New South Wales now has: 10 per cent of all the poker machines in the world are in New South Wales! What a disgrace!Going back to health, Dr Wooldridge, on the other hand, is making available $120 million this year to the states to help address the immediate issue of waiting lists—waiting lists that have doubled under Bob Carr. This is a genuine offer to the states and territories to help them reduce waiting lists and is additional assistance that will give them time. Health ministers from the states and territories will be meeting next week to discuss current health funding issues. Dr Wooldridge has worked with his state and territory colleagues to secure a national vision for our health system into the next century.The Commonwealth's offer before the states is consistent with this vision and supports the reform process with both structure and dollars. In terms of structure, the offer would allow funding to flow between sectors and support improved integration of care and better patient outcomes—making more efficient use of the money in the system. In terms of dollars, the offer includes $½ billion to be spent on projects to improve the system, such as devising means to improve integration of care, particularly for the aged; improving the use of information technology so that patient data goes with the patient instead of following them around; and implementing alternate treatment modalities that do not require expensive, acute hospitalisation.Kate Carnell has recently had that magnificent victory. Despite the perceived hard times in Canberra, Canberra decided not to bury itself and re-elected Kate Carnell, the longest-serving health minister. She has taken the lead and indicated her government's in principle agreement to the Commonwealth's proposal. Working together, we can turn back all those years of Labor's mismanagement and neglect.Thirteen years of Labor failed the nursing home sector and older Australians, who deserved better. In the last four years of the Labor government, capital funding for nursing homes was reduced by 75 per cent. What a disgrace! They ignored their own report by Professor Bob Gregory on the urgent need for an upgrading of nursing homes. In fact, they did not have the guts to do anything about it. Their neglect particularly affected service delivery in rural and regional Australia.Thirteen years of Labor failed our youth. Thirty per cent of school students have inadequate literacy and numeracy skills. We have seen the great debate occurring now, with Dr Kemp trying to bring that to order. There is the worry in some sectors of the education system that they might fail the test themselves. Apprenticeship opportunities under Labor also declined. As at 30 June last year, the number of apprentices and trainees in training was 175,354, which represents an increase of 11 per cent over the previous year—the highest ever achieved.Through the Workplace Relations Act, the government has reformed apprenticeships and traineeships that meet the needs of business. The government's new apprenticeships initiative is reforming the delivery of workplace based training and making it a much more attractive option for business. Labor—the people who allegedly look after the workers—just let the apprenticeships scheme fall apart. Regulation is being simplified and the training and qualifications will be much more relevant to industry as well as being nationally recognised. Labor made it hard for employers to take on apprentices and trainees. Employees had to go to the states, the Commonwealth, training providers, and the list goes on. It was an endless paper chase. There was no real equivalent to the new apprenticeship centres under the old CES system.Senator Carr, that great Kremlinist, the truth is the contrary of your motion. This government is moving ahead, working with the states to find solutions for the best possible delivery of service in areas of health, education and housing. I am sure, in view of this motion, that all the Liberal premiers around Australia will be pleased to know they have Senator Carr on side. Senator Carr has assumed a strong and healthy federalist position. He has abandoned his long-held position on Kremlin-like centralisation of all government services and now embraces the wisdom of federation as identified in the Australian constitution.Unfortunately, Senator Carr's analysis of the current state of Commonwealth-state relationships is sadly distorted. Senator Carr is confusing the right for two parties to engage in a genuine negotiation process with failure. There is nothing wrong with a bit of argy-bargy. Senator Carr is confusing the Howard government with the Keating government—you know, the former Prime Minister who attempted to intimidate, harass and bully state governments on a regular basis, and who, when speaking against giving the states a fixed share of revenue, wooed the states with statements like the one he gave on 9 November 1995:The Commonwealth is the shock absorber in the national economy. The Commonwealth budget is a shock absorber, the state budgets are not.Real diplomacy! He had a wonderful negotiating capacity. Of course, that was well recognised at the last election.I simply advise Senator Carr that he should take it easy—go and have a lie-down and a Bex or a valium. With respect to the Australian National Training Authority agreement, Senator Carr raised the status of ANTA agreements in estimates only last week. He was told by the minister that we now have a new ANTA agreement in principle. Queensland, Victoria and the ACT have signed up. Western Australia and South Australia have indicated their agreement subject to some queries being satisfied. The opposition would keep pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into TAFE and make an even bigger budget black hole when the national statutory authority, ANTA, has reported on the scope for efficiencies in the system. Under Labor, the opportunity to take advantage of those efficiencies was ignored.Under the current ANTA agreement, the Commonwealth has provided additional funding to the states and territories every year up to, and including, 1997. Since 1992, Commonwealth funding has increased by 37 per cent in real terms, with the Commonwealth funding most of the total growth in vocational education and training over this period. Under the revised ANTA agreement, 1998 funding will be maintained in real terms up to the year 2000. There has been no such increase in state and territory funding. In addition to making the system work more efficiently, the federal government continues to support the sector as a premium option for young people leaving school and will provide a total of more than $1.3 billion for vocational education and training in 1997-98. This is an increase of $144 million, or 12 per cent, on funding provided in the last year of Labor.The opposition neglected the potential of the apprenticeships scheme and allowed it to decline. They never addressed the needs of business. They were too busy with artists-in-residence and such glamorous outfits for the various unions who then, of course, had the opportunity to donate that money back to the Labor Party for the election.As I mentioned earlier, at 30 June 1997 the number of apprentices and trainees in training was 175,354—11 per cent higher than the previous year. According to figures issued by the National Centre for Vocational Education Research, this is the highest ever achieved. Through the Workplace Relations Act, the government has reformed apprenticeships and traineeships. The new apprenticeships scheme, which addresses the real needs of industry and real jobs, is making a more attractive option for us all. Regulation is being simplified. Some $265 million has been allocated by the Commonwealth in 1997-98 for more than 100,000 new apprenticeships.Labor made it so hard for employers to take on apprentices and trainees. There was no real equivalent to the new apprenticeship centres under the old CES scheme. From 1 May 1998, employees, apprentices and trainees will be able to obtain these services directly from the new apprenticeship centres. These centres will provide a streamlined service, cut through the red tape, respond to the needs of industry, save time and effort for employees, apprentices and trainees, provide ongoing assistance for the same people, and create growth in numbers and types of new apprenticeships. In conclusion, Kim Carr with his Kremlinist option today is nothing but a fraud and a waste of time in this chamber.17:37:00530Gibbs, Sen BrendaSenator GIBBS6L6QLDALP00—The disability services industry in Australia is in a state of confusion and chaos, and several non-government service providers are on the brink of collapse. After a series of paltry offers by the Commonwealth to the states, the Commonwealth-state disability agreement has still not been signed and disability service providers are now unable to plan for the future.There is evidence of secret negotiations between the Commonwealth and individual states. The presumption to be drawn from these hidden discussions is that the Commonwealth is plotting to disband the multilateral nature of the Commonwealth-state disability agreement in favour of bilateral agreements with individual states. If this were to occur, it would be hard to see how the lack of uniformity between the states is going to help people with disabilities in Australia. In fact, it will make the situation manifestly more untenable.The Commonwealth would lose the capacity to require each of the states to pass legislation that is consistent with the Commonwealth's. The national peak body for disabled people and their families, the National Council on Intellectual Disability, is uncertain if this complementary legislation requirement exists in the recent Commonwealth offer. One can only speculate on the Commonwealth's real agenda if this complementary clause is not explicit. Perhaps the Howard government is contemplating changes to federal legislation in the area of disabilities.One of the worst features of a bilateral agreement is that it throws the whole multilateral framework out the window and in the process puts in jeopardy over a decade of uniformity practised by various levels of government in this area. For example, under this potential system it would be quite possible for a person with a disability who receives funding support in the Australian Capital Territory not to receive the same level of support if he or she were to decide to relocate to Queensland. Why should these people be denied the right to freely move between the states as the rest of us do?The Minister for Family Services, Warwick Smith, in his media release of 26 February 1997, fails to see any potential problems with bilateral agreements. He said, `People with disabilities will benefit more from bilateral agreements.' Maybe the minister could explain how a person who moves to another state fails to have his or her previous provisions transferred benefit. Perhaps an explanation is beyond this minister who has created chaos and confusion in the aged care and child-care communities and is clearly not up to explaining the benefit of this situation.Bearing in mind the appalling provision of social services in Queensland under the present coalition government, it is safe to say that any person with a disability moving to Queensland would experience difficulty accessing services that may exist elsewhere in Australia under a bilateral agreement structure.The Howard government's inaction over the Commonwealth-state disability agreement is a recipe for several tiers of care arrangements and a backward step for all stakeholders. It is clearly a sign of a government struggling to come to terms with its role as a government for all of Australia, not for the sectional and sometimes selfish agendas of cash-strapped states.The Howard government recently requested the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare to report on the level of unmet need in disability services. The report estimated that the Howard government needed to inject $294 million into disability services immediately in order to address unmet need in this country. It found there were 13,500 people with disabilities not receiving their requirements in relation to accommodation services. It found there were 70,000 people with severe disabilities who require a meaningful day support program. It also found that 7,700 people with severe and profound disabilities are cared for by parents who are aged over 65 years.The same government-commissioned report found that there were 30,000 people with disabilities who do not get the employment assistance that they require. As the shadow minister Jenny Macklin has commented in the other chamber, this figure is likely to get worse as a result of the forthcoming changes to employment service providers. It is highly unlikely that new large private providers will put the same commitment and tenacity into finding employment for people with disabilities—a role that was previously performed with distinction by many not-for-profit community organisations and smaller private operators—as they will for others.Last week the National Council on Intellectual Disability labelled the Commonwealth's latest offer to the states as part of the Commonwealth-state disability agreement as miserly and inadequate. This organisation said it felt that the Prime Minister had let down all people with disabilities and that his government had failed to live up to the promises that were made to this sector of the community. The National Council on Intellectual Disability should not be entirely surprised by the actions of this Prime Minister and his government.This is the same government which has ripped $174 million from the disability services budget over the past two years. It is also the same government which is planning to pilfer a further $25.3 million out of the disability sector by excluding 8,000 recipients of the child disability allowance by changing the definition of who is considered to have a disability. This is the same mob who abolished the Disability Discrimination Commissioner and have taken this sector back to the dark period prior to the early 1980s, before the groundbreaking legislative reforms of the previous Labor government.This is a government whose latest offer starts at $8 million in the first year and rises to $60 million in the fifth year contrasting with its own commissioned report by the AIHW which estimates that there is $294 million in unmet need in the first year alone. Clearly, this is a government which not only has no commitment to the disability services sector due to its ideological predilections against funding the social services, but also is without compassion and understanding for the disadvantaged in our community.My fear is that, if this Commonwealth-state disability agreement is not signed, my own state of Queensland, which has an appalling record on funding disability services, will revert to the bad days before the Commonwealth started to assert some authority in this area. I fear for the consequences this will have for people with disabilities, for their families and for the many hundreds of non-government organisations that provide support to people with disabilities.I recently visited a respite centre in Rockhampton. The organisation responsible for its operation were despairing about the huge task they had in catering for families from the Central Queensland coast stretching west to the Northern Territory border. These people are permanently on call to provide respite support for this vast region where there is a desperate need for another such facility. Despite the strain and the effort to continue operating, they have a first-class facility which is testimony to their unfailing enthusiasm and commitment.It is an unfortunate fact that in Queensland the number of days available to families already accessing respite has been reduced by 70 per cent over the past few years. In 1996-97 in excess of $40 million worth of funding applications were received by the Queensland Department of Families, Youth and Community Care from non-government service providers on behalf of people with disabilities. Amazingly, only $1.7 million was made available to these organisations. This poor result is all the more staggering when you consider that many of these providers had their hopes raised by the coalition during the 1995 state election.Mr Borbidge and Mrs Sheldon promised they would provide an additional $34 million per year over three years to assist Queenslanders with a disability. But the big promise never eventuated and Mrs Sheldon's second budget allocated only an additional $1.9 million over three years to address the existing unmet needs of the disability sector. This resulted in there being no funding round this year for the first time since the implementation of the Commonwealth-state disability agreement and many priority applications have been put on 40-year waiting lists, which is absolutely disgraceful.At the same time the Queensland Treasurer, Mrs Sheldon, could find the money to pay off a $200 million toll road which just happened to pass through her electorate. This, of course, was an election promise. I might add there is a toll road in the electorate in which I live, but our toll road was not paid for by the state government. We still have to pay the toll. Maybe that is because it is a Labor electorate. The government could also locate another $14.5 million to fund a politically motivated and biased inquiry which attempted to close down the Criminal Justice Commission. Is it any wonder I have concerns about the priorities of the Queensland coalition government to do the right thing by the disability sector?What needs to be realised is that it is the rural and regional areas of Queensland—the same areas which coalition governments at the state and federal levels claim so ably to represent—that are the communities hardest hit by the lack of a multilateral disability agreement. There is an endless list of unmet demand services in regional Queensland. The Endeavour Foundation in Toowoomba has 58 people on an accommodation waiting list over the next three years. The Queensland Deaf Society has 120 people on waiting lists. In my home town of Ipswich there are 28 adults and children in inadequate respite arrangements and a further 96 people have unmet therapy needs.In closing, I urge the Howard government to reconsider its offer to the states in relation to the Commonwealth-state disability agreement. It can only be through a multilateral framework that governments can be in a position to provide to this sector of the community fair and equitable care, which it rightly deserves. I support this motion.17:50:00532Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4NTCLP10—Whatever Senator Carr hopes to achieve with this ridiculous motion is very similar to one he put on the books last September which was debated in this place at that time. Again on the day of the debate Senator Carr's motion was not supported by his own participation or rhetoric. On that occasion he spoke for about 15 seconds and today he has allowed others from the Labor Party to stand ahead of him in the queue. He has not even spoken on his motion today, which just goes to show how poor the information on it is.What is he seeking to achieve? Can we imagine him updating his earlier paranoia on some sort of a thesis that is based on bad blood that he thinks exists between the Commonwealth and the states? His motion refers to `the inability to work cooperatively with the states'. I am going to comment very particularly on that aspect of the motion that refers to the Commonwealth-state housing agreement.I am interested to know what constituency Senator Carr sought to represent on this occasion. Is he going to photocopy his Hansard and distribute it around to the premiers and the chief ministers with a covering note saying, `Look what a good job I did representing your interests in federal parliament'? I hardly think they will buy that, because the states and territories would soon write back—including the Labor Party Premier from New South Wales, Bob Carr—saying, `You don't represent our interests.'What about the claims about the Commonwealth-state housing agreement? This motion is very clearly out of step with the views of the states and Senator Carr's own federal party colleagues. The government successfully negotiated with the states and the territories a Commonwealth-state housing agreement which came into force on 1 July 1996 and has a year and three months until it expires on 30 June 1999. In addition, all state and territory governments accepted the offer of the Prime Minister in May 1997 of funding certainty for the final two years of the Commonwealth-state housing agreement.In relation to service delivery, the government has successfully negotiated and agreed strategic plans with the states and territories for the provision of housing assistance which outline agreed targets and strategies. Negotiations are shortly to commence on the targets for 1998-99, the final year. During the life of the agreement, the government has worked collaboratively with the states to produce a more efficient and effective public housing system. At the housing ministers' meeting in June last year, a range of proposals in regard to pricing, tenure arrangements, eligibility and wait list management were discussed. As a result, significant reform is now under way in the states which will direct assistance to those in greatest need. Let me quote from the communique issued at the housing ministers' conference in Perth on 6 June 1997, which included the participation of Labor housing ministers. The final sentence of that communique reads:All ministers agreed that the reform agenda is progressing steadily and that this is the right approach to ensure that good outcomes are achieved.The government is keen to see the future arrangements evolve in the current context of cooperation, and housing officials are meeting—there is one meeting here in Canberra next Thursday—to provide the opportunity for informal discussions about the Commonwealth's objectives for housing funding after the expiry of the current agreement. These matters will then be further discussed at the housing ministers' meeting to take place on 27 March, and I do not think they will be shrouded with the sort of pessimism that Senator Carr would have us believe.What about the goodwill that exists between the Commonwealth and the states? Is Labor just trying to drive a bitter wedge between the two? There are good working relationships between the states and we need to look at them very carefully. But it is also important that we look carefully at a Senate committee report on housing assistance which, I would point out, Labor Senators Bishop, Forshaw, Neal and O'Brien signed off and approved recently. It was the report of the Senate Community Affairs References Committee of December 1997, entitled Report on Housing Assistance. As I said, a majority Labor membership—Senators Bishop, Forshaw, Neal and O'Brien—signed it off, and what did they sign to? Let me give some quotes. Chapter 3.1 said:The 1996 CSHA represents a considerable change on earlier agreements—From 3.2:The 1996 Agreement removed many of the restrictions on the States— From 3.3:The aim of the changes in the 1996 CSHA was to allow the Commonwealth to monitor outcomes and agree on strategic directions while giving the States maximum freedom over provision of assistance.From 3.4:The 1996 CSHA also requires each State and the Commonwealth to agree on a strategic plan for housing assistance.From 3.14:There was support from a number of the submissions for the broad framework of the 1996 CSHA—From 3.16:Queensland, Western Australia, and the Northern Territory all expressed, in their submissions the view that Commonwealth involvement in the provision of housing should be to reduced to the minimum possible.From 3.17:They all argued that CSHA funding should move towards an outcome-based funding model—From 3.18, very importantly:The New South Wales Department of Urban Affairs and Planning expressed general support for the changes introduced in the 1996 Agreement.And what about the recommendation of this important issue relating to Commonwealth-state housing? Recommendation 5 states:The Committee recommends that on its expiration on 30 June 1999, the 1996 Commonwealth State Housing Agreement be replaced by a new Agreement which retains the specification of performance and the strategic planning processes which are in the existing Agreement measures and addresses the issue of State accountability.A majority of Labor senators signed that report in just December of last year and are now totally out of step with this motion that, for some perverse and political reason, Senator Carr has moved.There were over 400 submissions to that inquiry from various advocacy groups, state and territory governments, the Commonwealth and the general public, and they developed proposals that were educated and informed, unlike the debate we have heard here today. So Senator Carr should take a leaf out of the book of his peers. He should acknowledge the good work of the Commonwealth-state housing agreement for what it is. There is really no merit in trying to do what he is doing today with this motion. He is playing the politics of the issue, rather than offering some sort of positive contribution like Senators Bishop, Forshaw, Neal and O'Brien did back in December.We all know the environment in which the Commonwealth-state housing agreement is negotiated. It is always a difficult one. Each party has its own individual, very different expectations. The demands and the circumstances are certainly different in each state. From this environment, the Commonwealth must steer a common course.If we look very carefully at the particular motion that we are being asked to consider today, we have to ask the reasons for it. What is the motivation behind it? Why did Senator Carr put up such a motion in which he sought to drive wedges between the Commonwealth and the states on issues where there is no major disparity? There are consistent and very good motives.In the community at the moment, the fact that there are so many Liberal, National and Country Liberal Party governments at the federal and state level is very important and it runs contrary to the motion that is currently before us and how it has been presented. This motion should, of course, be totally rejected. There is no way that we would want to see any success for this particular motion. It certainly does not endorse the action of the federal government.Debate interrupted.Committees53453453418:00:00534Heffernan, Sen BillSenator HEFFERNANC16NSWLP10—On behalf of Senator Hill, I wish to inform the Senate that, following the retirement of the Right Hon. Ian Sinclair as chairman, the members of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade have met and elected Senator David MacGibbon as the new chairman. I am sure all honourable senators will join me in congratulating Senator MacGibbon and wishing him well in this important position.Ministerial Statements534534Debate resumed from 4 March, on motion by Senator Newman:That the Senate take note of the statement.18:00:00534Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—by leave—Yesterday the Minister for Trade and Deputy Prime Minister of Australia, Mr Fischer, tabled his second outcomes and objectives statement for the trade portfolio. I have described this statement as a bland and visionless document. I will demonstrate why that is so in a moment.But, first of all, can I say in reply to Mr Fischer's statement yesterday, the leader of the Labor Party in the House of Representatives, Kim Beazley, did say that he regarded Mr Fischer as being at least one of the people on the government's side who was trying his best to open markets for Australia and congratulated Mr Fischer for the work that he was doing. I would like to join with the Leader of the Opposition on those personal remarks about Mr Fischer.The problem for this statement, however, is that, for the first time, it is an admission by the government that the Asian currency crisis will affect the level of economic activity in Australia. Page 25 of the statement says:Lower export earnings will affect domestic activity through their impact on sectoral incomes (eg, lower corporate profitability and higher input costs). This will flow on to domestic spending. The consequent slowing in output growth will affect employment, though not until later in 1998-99, given the lags between output variations and employment. Any reduction in employment growth will adversely affect household incomes. In addition, both the direct impact of developments in Asia and the associated impact on sectoral incomes could affect business and consumer confidence, though these effects can be difficult to quantify.So there we have the first official statement by the government about the types of effects the crisis will provoke in this economy. We do not have any detail about the timing except that it will be 1998-99. We have no detail about the depth of those effects on corporate profitability, on economic growth in the nation and on household incomes and the contraction that this report foreshadows will occur there, making life more difficult for Australian families. We do not have any figures from the government about how many jobless will be created and added to the long queue of unemployed in this nation because of its inability to deal with the impact of this crisis.We have asked the government to make that information available. They have not. It is important that they do move quickly in this area. We know from figures tabled by the Australian Bureau of Statistics just this week that, over the last 12 months, the current account deficit in this nation blew out by 23 per cent—23 per cent in the current account deficit in 12 months. We know from the same figures that the foreign debt this nation holds now is a record. We hold $222 billion in foreign debt, the highest level of foreign debt this nation has ever had.We recall, though, that during the last election campaign the government ran the debt truck up hill and down dale and saw it break down in promising to the Australian community that they would rein in foreign debt. It is now at a record level. It has never been as high, and the forecasts are that it is expected to balloon further.We know as well from the national account figures published yesterday that economic growth has undershot the forecasts that were anticipated. Already, before the Asian currency crisis hits this economy, the growth levels for Australia are much lower than anticipated, and the levels of economic growth for the nation for the two years thus far of Liberal government are below the average for the entire 13 years of Labor government.So we have a situation in which the promise of growth, employment, higher profitability and the reining-in of foreign debt is not being kept by the government. That is why it is important that we get on the record what the impact of the Asian currency crisis will be so that Australia can form in its mind the right policies and apply an action, the appropriate measures, for dealing with the impact of that crisis. While this report admits it, it does not give the detail. It is important that the government answers those questions and does so swiftly.Let me turn to some of the things in this report that I have criticisms of. In the area of trade promotion, this report does not adequately report to the people of Australia, as the minister promised it would when he said that he would impartially and fairly present the facts. This report does not refer to the fact that the government has not done a number of things, which has undermined trade promotion in Australia.Last year we saw the Howard government decide that it would not fund Australia's presence at the year 2000 World Trade Expo in Hanover, although that is the Olympic Games of world trade promotion. In the end it gave in. Sir Llew Edwards, who is promoting the Gold Coast for the venue for the year 2002, managed at last to persuade the government that, if we are to encourage Australian exporters to get into the international marketplace and display their wares, they should at least be at the premier world event and that Australia should be an active bidder to attract that event to Australia.We saw as well just last month that Australia did not participate in Milia 1998, the multimedia expo held in France on 7 February. Over 50 countries were represented at the expo. Over 10,000 potential buyers did attend, and Australia was not present in any official way. We did not have a stand. This is in the area of IT—information technology.It is not as though we are running a surplus in information technology exports. The deficit in IT&T for Australia currently stands at around $4 billion, and it is predicted to blow out to a level of $20 billion by the year 2000. This is the biggest industry for the future. Australia chose, however, not to be in the biggest event in which we could display our wares to the world marketplace and pick up important custom for our struggling IT&T sector in Australia. That is not referred to in the report either.One of the other things that is not referred to in the report is the National Trade and Investment Outlook Conference. This was a stunning success. In 1995, the National Trade and Investment Outlook Conference succeed ed by independent audit in attracting $1.04 billion in new investment for Australia and $2.02 billion in new export potential. In 1996, it succeeded by independent audit in attracting $592 million in new investment and $3.4 billion in new export potential. Why would you not hold that event, given that we know that we are losing markets in Asia because of the downturn in those economies? Why would you not strive to attract more industry to Australia and more investment and export opportunities for Australian companies?The National Trade and Investment Outlook Conference was cut for budgetary reasons. We spent $1.3 million on it to attract $3.4 billion in exports, but the government made it as a budgetary cut and handed it over to the private sector. There will be an International Herald Tribune event run next month. We know from internally leaked documents from the Department of Industry, Science and Tourism that that event is proposing to charge the Minister for Industry, Science and Tourism $125,000 for a speaking spot at that conference and participants up to $900 to attend. So much for the promotion of Australia. The report does not refer to that. These are opportunities forgone and chances to build our national income and trade profile.In the area of exporter support the government in its slash and burn budget of 1996-97 cut the export market development grants back quite dramatically. It topped them up a little in its industry statement before Christmas, but still this nation will lose up to about $30 billion because of the amount of support cut out of industry in promoting Australian small business overseas. The export market development grants are the premier way in which that is done. These grants have been independently refereed by respected econometricians to see what the earning rate is. For every public dollar put on the barrel head, how many dollars do we win in the private sector in new markets? We know that this is the single most effective way of attracting small business into the international marketplace.It is vitally important they be there to defend the markets that are going down on them in Asia. It is vitally important that they be there to find new prospects. It is vitally important that they travel to places like South Africa, India, Russia, the Czech Republics, Latin America, Mexico and others where they need to find more markets. Is the money there to support them? No, the scheme is capped so that they cannot use that chance to win access.There is a range of other matters that could be properly canvassed. The big gap is the vision for the future. Where do we want to take this nation in trade? The routine things are talked about. The big challenges are ignored. There is a lot more that could be done. It is a poor report in that respect. (Time expired)18:11:00536Brownhill, Sen DavidSenator BROWNHILLRD4NSWNP10—by leave—I want to make a few comments regarding the statements made by Senator Cook in relation to the Trade Outcomes and Objectives Statement tabled yesterday by the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade, Tim Fischer. We have already acknowledged, Senator Cook, that there will be an impact from the Asian currency correction. Offsetting that currency correction is strong growth in our domestic economy, with private investment and consumption at healthy levels.The reason for that is that we have corrected the $10½ billion hole in the budget that you gave us when we came into government. Had we not corrected that we would have actually been more vulnerable than we are now to the Asian currency crisis. If we had not tackled that deficit our exporters would not have the secure base now in which to operate. If we had not restored the economic fundamentals, our exporters would not have been as competitive as they are—a fact that exporters in Australia acknowledge.It is not just on the domestic front that the government has been active and successful in improving Australia's trade effort. Indeed, 1996-97 was a record year for the export of Australian goods and services with exports totalling some $105 billion—an increase of 6.2 per cent on the previous year. It was not 2.5 per cent as stated by you, Senator Cook, or the Leader of the Opposition in the last few days.The reason the government has been so successful in leading Australia to record export success is that it has actively pursued trade strategies at the bilateral, regional and multilateral levels. Unlike your government, Senator Cook, this government has aggressively pursued bilateral trade strategies which have opened up new markets for Australian exports of rice, sugar, citrus and financial services. It is a fact that we have done it. It is on the record. The market development task force established by this government will continue to be a key element of our bilateral strategy in 1998.On a regional level, Australia will continue to advocate economic reform and open trade policies which will be even more important in light of the economic developments in Asia. The government will continue to play a leading role in APEC in pushing hard to accelerate the early liberalisation of the 15 priority sectors in which we have vital trade interests. The government has also made substantial progress on the multilateral front. Next month, Australia will be hosting a major meeting of the Cairns group in Sydney to advance multilateral agricultural reforms and build momentum for a new comprehensive round of trade negotiations by the year 2000.Contrary to your comments, Senator Cook, and the statements that you have made, the government and its agents have acted quickly and effectively to support Australian exports to the region. I will remind you of these measures, because you know we have done them; you know in your heart of hearts that we have done the right thing. We have had involvement in the IMF's support packages for Korea, Thailand and Indonesia. We did that very quickly. We are providing up to $300 million in short-term credit insurance for exporters to Korea and similar assistance on a case by case basis for Indonesia.We are tightening the anti-dumping laws—something that you did not do anything about. We are doing something about labelling products so that the Australian people can buy, and know that they are buying, Australian made products. We are continuing to push for further trade and investment liberalisation to open up new markets for Australian exporters. Through Austrade's branch of trade exporting facilities, we have helped Australian firms to hold their positions in the affected markets and increase penetration of new markets outside the region. We have established an Austrade Asia help line for Australian exporters. Just for your benefit, and for the benefit of any listeners, that phone number is 1300 368 225. That was done quickly, and it helps.We have increased trade with Iran by about 71 per cent; with Egypt by 51 per cent; with South Africa by 31 per cent; and with Mexico by 24 per cent. They are not bad figures when you think about it; not bad figures at all. You said also in one of your media releases—and I think you might have said it in question time today—that we should be conducting seminars for Australian businesses to help them to understand the impact of the developments in Asia. That is exactly what the government is doing. We are holding Austrade seminars on the Asian situation in all major capitals. We are having trade round tables for exporters from rural and regional areas all around Australia. They have been very fruitful and very fulfilling, having regard to the feedback we have had from exporters on how they have seen the situation.Another mistake that you made in your assertions here today concerned the National Trade and Investment Outlook Conference. You said that it does not exist. It does still exist. It has been renamed as an Australian summit. So it does continue to exist.RF4COOKSenator Cook—It doesn't.RD4Brownhill, Sen DavidSenator BROWNHILL—I am afraid it does, Senator. I take you up again on another area where I thought that you would have given a little more thought to things. You said on 3 March, in your criteria for the second statement, that it must satisfy certain credentials to be credible. I am pleased to say that the statement meets the criteria for your standards of credibility. Look at your media release of 3 March and see what this statement says—it satisfies everything you asked for. In a press release on 4 March, Senator Cook, you said that the government should have reformed the EMDG scheme. You made mention of it again tonight. You said it should benefit small and first-time exporters. You know—you took part in putting through the legislation—that that is exactly what we have succeeded in doing. We have brought down the level of the criteria to get into the scheme to $20,000 instead of the higher level which you had implemented. That has been helpful. If you had read page 7 of the transcript of Mr Fischer's statement which was tabled yesterday, you would have realised that that was exactly what the government did when it amended the EMDG Act last year.This government has been creating an environment for Australian exporters to be winners, not trying to pick winners, as you always tried to do. It is only through putting in place a competitive domestic economic framework that Australian exporters will be competitive and our exports will grow. We have low interest rates, low inflation and an economic climate which allows labour market reform and reform of the waterfront to occur. This means we can compete with others in the world who are competing against us.If you read the Trade Outcomes and Objectives Statement put out yesterday by the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade, I think you will find that the right things are being done for the trading environment in Australia and for our exporters.Committees538538538UNKNOWNThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Chapman)The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Chapman)—The President has received a letter from the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate seeking a variation to the membership of a committee.Motion (by Senator Brownhill)—by leave—agreed to:That Senator Neal be discharged from the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties and Senator Reynolds be appointed to the committee. Documents53810000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—There are 219 government documents listed for consideration on today's Notice Paper . There is a time limit that takes us to 7 p.m. for their consideration. To expedite consideration of the documents, I propose, with the concurrence of honourable senators, to call the documents in groups of 10. Documents called in each group to which no senator rises will be taken to be discharged from the Notice Paper. Documents not called on today will remain on the Notice Paper .538Debate resumed from 21 October, on motion by Senator Schacht:That the Senate take note of the document.18:21:00538O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—With regard to the annual report of the Department of Industry, Science and Tourism, I note that, because of the way in which the estimates were conducted last week and, indeed, this week, very little of that department's business was able to be dealt with. One of the matters which took up the time of the Senate Economics Legislation Committee during the estimates hearings was the evidence of Mr Gillespie, who is an officer of the Department of Workplace Relations and Small Business.As a result of that evidence, I have caused a letter to be sent to the Clerk and he has responded. In that letter I drew the attention of the Clerk to certain responses that were given to questions by Mr Gillespie and the Clerk has recommended a certain course of action. I have forwarded the correspondence to the secretary of the committee with a view to the committee reconvening, subject of course to its own decision, to allow matters of conflict between evidence previously given by Mr Gillespie and evidence which was given last week to be further tested. I understand I have agreement and I now seek leave to table the correspondence which I sent to the Clerk on 4 March and his response on the same day.Leave granted.Question resolved in the affirmative.539539Debate resumed from 21 and 23 October 1997, on motions by Senator Cooney:That the Senate take note of the documents.18:24:00539Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEYSF4VICALP00—The reports by the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner, namely Report for 1996-97 on the operation and effect of the Native Title Act and Report for 1996-97 , were both signed off by Michael Dodson. It is a sad thing that he is no longer the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner. Indeed, it is a sad thing that his brother Patrick Dodson has also lost the position that he held at the time that these documents were prepared. The Dodson brothers have great genes within their bodies. They are both outstanding Australians. I want to talk about Michael Dodson and explain why it is sad for Australia that he is no longer in the position he held at the time of signing off these documents.I remember at the bar there was a great advocate, Ted Laurie, who was a person with an incisive intellect and a great understanding of human nature. He knew the minds and souls of people and knew them well. In addition, as he told me one day, he had the ability to cry. What he meant by that was, not only did he have great learning, a great mind, a great intellect and insight but also he had the ability to feel compassion and empathy and had a deep sense of wanting to help others. He had a real hunger for justice, if I can use the language of the beatitudes.Michael Dodson is a man like Ted Laurie was. He knew Ted Laurie. Michael was at the Victorian bar when I was there and when Ted Laurie was there, and he would understand the reference. Michael Dodson is a man who has connections with Victoria. He went to school there, played football there and was at the bar there. On this occasion, on the basis of the two reports which he signed off and have come before the Senate tonight, I want to acknowledge him and his great contribution to Australia.Question resolved in the affirmative.539Debate resumed from 21 October 1997, on motion by Senator Hogg:That the Senate take note of the document.18:27:00539Hogg, Sen JohnSenator HOGG7L6QLDALP00—The 1996-97 report of the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal is certainly not a bagatelle of complaints. If one looks at the report, it really draws to one's attention the problems that we are going to be confronted with now that there are jurisdictional problems with the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal. In chapter 4, it highlights that there were 1,383 written complaints and 10,447 telephone inquiries received by the tribunal. That is a significant number. It goes on to point out that there were 694 written complaints, which represents 42.5 per cent more than the 487 complaints received in the previous year. We have a serious issue now because of the jurisdictional problems that we have with the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal.One certainly should not whiffle at the seriousness of the issue that is before us. If one looks at the nature of the complaints that appear throughout this report, one sees the necessity to protect the rights of people in respect of the superannuation that many of them look forward to in either retirement or as part of a total and permanent disablement claim. There is also a need to protect rights in respect of a death claim. It is interesting that at page 37 the report notes that, of the complaints received by the tribunal, 24 per cent were in respect of death claims and 27 per cent were in respect of disability. That is by far and away the majority of claims that were received. More importantly, one needs to look at the analysis on page 39 where it is drawn to our attention that clearly employer sponsored funds are far more likely to be complained about to the tribunal than are any other types of funds.If the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal is now, in effect, hitting the wall, where are the people going to register their complaints? It is drawn to our attention in the report that complaints are six times more likely against employer sponsored funds than the next highest category of funds, which is industry funds. Clearly, this is an opportunity for people to have their superannuation rights protected by being able to lodge their complaints with the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal. Some of the complaints that are outlined—particularly with the likes of TPD time limit complaints, time limits and valid lodgment of claims complaints—provide excellent examples of real protection being given to those people who are at odds with either the superannuation fund or the life manager, who may well be in charge of the fund.This should not be treated in a marshmallow fashion by the government; it should be addressed in a serious way. The complaints mechanism is very important indeed for the future protection of people and their life savings in the superannuation area. I commend the report to the Senate.18:31:00540Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRYZW4TASALP00—Like my colleague, Senator Hogg, I wish to make a few comments about the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal. This is an important document, because it deals with an area of financial supervision that affects almost every Australian.The report on page 7 firstly makes reference to a report of this Senate in June 1992, the first report of the Senate Select Committee on Superannuation, Safeguarding super. It refers to the demographic, social and economic forces that have given superannuation greater prominence over recent times. It then goes on to note the passing of the superannuation guarantee legislation in July 1992.I think most senators, most members of the other place and certainly most Australians are aware that superannuation in this country is compulsory for all employees. When I last looked, two weeks ago at a meeting of the superannuation committee, there were some 16.8 million superannuation accounts in this country. The amount of money in superannuation is gradually increasing. Last time I looked, about this time last year, there was an average amount of approximately $36,000 or $37,000 in a superannuation account.One important feature of modern superannuation, as established by the Labor government, is that most funds now provide for insurance cover in the event of death or disability. That is a very important aspect. With the advent of the superannuation guarantee, now six per cent of ordinary time earnings and increasing to nine per cent by 2001-02, superannuation will form—within 20 or 30 years, I suspect—a very significant financial asset, which will be greater than the family home in the case of many Australians. So it is therefore necessary to have a strong effective complaints resolution mechanism.The tribunal which was established by the Labor government and commenced on 1 July 1994 does that. It cannot deal with all disputes. As my colleague Senator Hogg has referred to them earlier, I will not go into the statistics. But I will draw the Senate's attention to the nature of complaints that can be dealt with by the tribunal: disclosure, fees, death and disability, surplus distribution payments and matters relating to administration, statement area, trustee misrepresentation and malpractice. I think it is fair to say that this is the major disputes tribunal dealing with issues relating to superannuation.One of the reasons that the then Labor government set up the tribunal was to provide a cost-free and user-friendly forum to persons who have complaints about decisions on the conduct of trustees, insurers, RSA providers and superannuation providers.As I said earlier, the amount of money in superannuation accounts is not a mere bagatelle. The amount of money is increasing slowly and steadily, due to the very strong, proactive and visionary outlook of the Labor government in the passing of SG legislation.Senator Hogg has also referred to the recent Federal Court decision with respect to the legal ability of the tribunal to deal with complaints. Regrettably, the teeth have been taken away from the tribunal. Some would say, `It is now a mere lemon.' Perhaps `marshmallow' is a more apt description. We should not treat that Federal Court decision as a whiffle to glow lightly in the dark. It is a very significant Federal Court decision, which has regrettably left many Australians wondering who is going to determine the very important issue of disputes with respect to superannuation. We can look forward to more disputes. The government's announced so-called `choice' I refer to as deregulation of the superannuation industry. (Time expired)Question resolved in the affirmative.54118:38:00541Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY3L6VICALP00—by leave—I rise to speak on the report of the Department of Industry, Science and Tourism for 1996-97.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator Conroy, Senator O'Brien has already spoken to this document and did not seek leave to continue his remarks later. If you wish to speak on it, you will need leave to do so.Leave granted.3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—This document shows the abdication of the government from the tourism and industry sectors. The figures on page 43 show the reduction in staffing and appropriations for tourism. It used to be a whole department. One of the first decisions this government took was to collapse the department. The government has decided that the economy is fine. They flattened it when they first came to power. They ripped billions out of it, claiming that there was a problem. That saw growth drop from 3½ per cent to 2½ per cent and unemployment go up. They were complacent this year, and this document shows it.We have got an economy that is like a marshmallow. It is soft. The growth is not there. The government is pretending, even yesterday, that everything is still on track. Their strategy has been to have the economy, on their claims, `steaming into 1998'. This economy is barely whiffling along. It has dropped from 1.7 per cent in June to 0.5 per cent in this quarter. That means that what they were hoping to do—get this economy over the hump of the Asian crisis—will fail. We have got growth, but barely a bagatelle. We see a government that has lost the plot.This document shows that the Department of Industry, Science and Tourism needs more funds and an industry strategy. If we do not take up the challenge in the coming budget and restore the cuts which are shown in this document, unemployment numbers will go up further. As the former Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs said, `If we don't get unemployment down, we deserve to lose.' That will be the judgment of the Australian people.This document is an indictment on a complacent government that is not interested in job growth and not interested in promoting the tourism industry. You just have to talk to people in the tourism industry to know this—they are screaming. There was a story recently from your area, Senator O'Chee. A whole refit of windows in one of the resorts was cancelled. The company that was scheduled to do the refit of the windows has laid off its glaziers as a direct result of the Asian crisis.EU4O'CHEESenator O'Chee—But the government is not responsible for that, Senator.3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—No, but the government is irresponsible if it does not do something, Senator O'Chee.EU4O'CHEESenator O'Chee—What does it have to do—employ the glaziers?3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—No, you are supposed to recognise the problem, have an industry strategy, talk to the tourism industry and get together.Senator O'Chee interjecting—3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—It is not enough—that is my point.EU4O'CHEESenator O'Chee—Where are you going to get the money from?3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—Taxing family trusts would be a good way to start.EU4O'CHEESenator O'Chee—And death duties. Where are you going to find the money to balance the budget?3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—If you are worried about where the money is coming from, let us start with negative gearing. Let us start with taxing trusts if that is where you are saying we are going to get the money from. The tax office has said there is plenty of money out there.EU4O'CHEESenator O'Chee—Trusts are taxed now.3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—I suppose you are going to say part 4A fixes the tax avoiders too—chance would be a fine thing. (Time expired)10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Chapman)—We are dealing with document nos 1 to 10. Senator Quirke, I will be interested to hear whether you make `marshmallow', `bagatelle' and `whiffle' relevant to your remarks.542Debate resumed from 23 October, on motion by Senator Margetts:That the Senate take note of the document.18:42:00542Quirke, Sen JohnSenator QUIRKEZS6SAALP00—Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. I do not know why you raised the point of whether I can make `marshmallow', `bagatelle' or `whiffle' relevant or not. In your first sentence you fixed one of the main problems I have had since coming out of a committee meeting some time ago—in fact, I was wondering how I was going to do this. So I want to thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. You have solved one of the fundamental problems of the age.My remarks tonight are to do with the National Nuclear Safety Bureau's 38th quarterly report for the period 1 January to 31 March 1997. This well run organisation has reported that all problems are under their control, including the chances of a nuclear discharge either from ANSTO's facility at Lucas Heights, other smaller stockpiles of nuclear material or a nuclear powered ship. If there was any discharge at all, it was from the ANSTO facility, but the bureau tells us that the monitoring that they did during that period indicates it was well below those levels required under the various regulations under which that organisation operates.It is very important that these things be monitored properly. It was only a whiffle in Eastern Europe in 1986 when there was that terrible problem because a Soviet reactor at Chernobyl effectively melted down one of the main containments. It has got to be said that it is only the marshmallow apologists for nuclear accidents who would get up and say that that was not a major thing.I was very concerned about Chernobyl when it happened. As the Senate knows, I have a very balanced approach to nuclear energy. I cop it every time somebody brings up the question. I have very strong views about what happened in the former Soviet Union. It has to be said that this was not a bagatelle or a trifle. Some people said that what happened at Chernobyl was a bagatelle or a trifle. That is not so.I am please to report that we have not had a marshmallow, bagatelle or a whiffle in this report that could be said to concern us at all, at least for the first three months of last year. I am not sure that any nuclear propelled ships actually came to Australia during that period—I cannot remember any. I quite often get invited to go out on them, as I am that sort of person who is interested in that level of technology.I am very happy when the invitation is extended to visit a ship, and I know that lots of other senators have been on nuclear powered ships. Even though they come in here and say something different, they obviously do not mind the possibility of glowing in the dark if things go wrong. At the end of the day, having a marshmallow, bagatelle or a whiffle in respect of glowing in the dark is something that I would be very concerned about. I believe that this report is a very worthwhile document. I commend it to senators, and I thank you again, Mr Acting President, for giving me the opportunity to say `marshmallow', `bagatelle' and `whiffle'.Question resolved in the affirmative.542Consideration resumed from 21 October 1997. 18:46:00542Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEYSF4VICALP00—I move:That the Senate take note of the document.I was prompted to speak to the Australian Law Reform Commission report by the address given earlier by Senator Hogg, who spoke on the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal. His speech prompted me to speak to this report because there is forever a need in any society for the law that operates in that society to be kept under supervision by appropriate bodies, to be monitored and, when there is need for change, for change to be made. Clearly, there is a problem in the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal area which ought to be looked at.For years, the Australian Law Reform Commission has performed a great task in looking at issues in Australia where there is need for reform or alterations in the law for the betterment of everybody in society. I acknowledge the part that the commission plays in the all-important task of law reform. I wish it the best and hope that it has at least satisfactory funds in the future to operate as it should.I was, as I said, impressed by what Senator Hogg had to say, and also with what was said by Senator Sherry, who had so much to do with the successful establishment of superannuation in Australia. When superannuation was being looked at to make it effective for everybody within the community, Senator Sherry played an important part in getting that movement going. Another Tasmanian on the other side, Senator Watson, has also done great work in that area, but Senator Sherry should certainly be praised. I make those remarks in the context of the Australian Law Reform Commission, and I wish it well in its future work.Question resolved in the affirmative.543Consideration resumed from 21 October 1997.18:50:00543Murphy, Sen ShayneSenator MURPHYFX5TASALP00—I move:That the Senate take note of the document.I address my remarks to the National Museum of Australia report 1996-97. This is a very important report about a very important building which will hopefully be constructed in the not too distant future. The report starts out with the letter of the chairman, Mr J.G. Service, who sets out the process for the construction of the museum, pointing to the site selection and the commitment of the now government to its construction.Mr Service, who is the chairman of what is known as the Construction and Coordination Committee, has often been described as a marshmallow, but I would certainly reject that. He has a real task ahead of him to get this job done. He appeared before the Joint Standing Committee on Public Works and said that he is totally committed to doing that. That remains to be seen.Construction of the National Museum of Australia is very important; so much so that the Public Works Committee, which is a joint standing committee of this parliament, has already had three days of hearings on this matter. It has found that the department responsible, the Department of Communications and the Arts, has, in what can only be described as monumental terms, made a complete mess of the process of getting the National Museum constructed. The government initially committed $133 million, which is not an amount that could be described as a bagatelle; these are huge dollars. But it was not long after that that it was increased by a further $18 million, and the opposition asked what the $18 million was for.I have to go back a couple of steps to address some things set up by the Minister for Communications, the Information Economy and the Arts, Senator Alston, who, along with the Prime Minister, Mr Howard, announced that they would have an international design competition for the National Museum. However, they did not conduct the international design competition in accordance with international design competition rules. The coalition government made up its own rules, but it still announced that it was an international competition.What else has gone wrong with this process? As recently as this morning, I received yet another design as part of the Public Works Committee information. All of the competitors in the design competition were given a brief which contained a minimum area of around 16,000 square metres of floor space to house all the icons, goods and chattels that we would want to house for the people of Australia in our National Museum.When the National Museum is built, it will be, I hope, a tremendous building and one that will serve as a very important asset for Canberra. Building it in Canberra is the right thing to do. From the opposition point of view, we want to ensure that, when the museum is built, it will be a building that Australians will be able to be proud of, because that is important. It really should not come down to the question of whether it costs $133 million or $150 million; it really should come down to getting a building in place that can function as Australia's National Museum for the next 50 years. Mr Service along with his committee members from the Department of Communications and the Arts seem to have made a right royal mess of this. Indeed, as late as December last year, they had to head off to the United States to talk to people about exhibit space because they did not really know about it. I have to say that this is no whiffle of a process. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted; debate adjourned.544Consideration resumed from 21 October 1997.18:55:00544Murphy, Sen ShayneSenator MURPHYFX5TASALP00—I move:That the Senate take note of the document.This 1996-97 annual report of the Department of Communications and the Arts covers a range of issues. One of particular interest to me is the government's policy relating to the removal of the parallel importation restrictions. Today I asked the Minister for Communications, the Information Economy and the Arts, Senator Alston, a question on reversing the onus of proof. The minister, as I recall, stood up and said, `I don't really know what you mean.'But the minister seemed to know plenty about it as he has gone around the country speaking on radio interviews and saying that the government will reverse the onus of proof. He had plenty to say about it. So one would assume that he would know what the reversal of the onus of proof actually means. To the layman I suppose—for those less experienced than Judge Roy Bean who often sits over there—it means that you take the onus of proof from the plaintiff and put it on the defendant. That is pretty much the layman's explanation. It is about as good as I can do because, unlike Judge Roy Bean, I am not a barrister—7L6HOGGSenator Hogg—You are a lay person.FX5Murphy, Sen ShayneSenator MURPHY—Yes, I am a lay person. It is the lay persons within this country that deserve a proper explanation from the minister on the onus of proof. If you read the minister's statements as he has gone around the country, it has been fairly clear that the minister does mean taking the onus of proof from the plaintiff and placing it on the defendant. But unfortunately for the minister, who is in El Desperado straits to try to get something right—he promised Australia the review of the print media ownership laws and failed there—this is his last stand. This is like Richard Custer's last stand: he has to get the parallel import restrictions up.8O6O'BRIENSenator O'Brien—General Custer.FX5Murphy, Sen ShayneSenator MURPHY—General Custer's last stand. The problem for the minister, Senator Alston, is that the Attorney-General's department came before the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee last week and said in their submission, both verbally and in writing, that `the new section 130A'—which the minister seems to place so much credence in—`will not reverse the onus of proof. The government has not asserted to the parliament or to the public that it will.' That is very clear. Yet the minister today said, `Oh well, Attorney-General's has got it wrong.'I am sure the legal and constitutional committee will be very keen to hear about that because this whole process is not only a mere bagatelle show. I have often heard Senator Alston described as a doormat. Well, in this case maybe marshmallow might be more applicable. He is just whiffling up a long, dark alley in this case because he is not going to get parallel import restriction legislation up.The minister will not get it up by trying to deceive the Australian public by telling them something that he cannot do. Attorney-General's has clearly put the case before the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee in legal terms—which may be a little bit above the minister—but at least they have tried to do it for the lay people. They have made it categorically clear that the onus of proof will not be reversed as a result of the introduction of their legislation. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted; debate adjourned.545Question resolved in the affirmative on the following orders of the day without further debate during consideration of government documents:Australia New Zealand Food Authority—Report for 1996-97Civil Aviation Safety Authority Australia—Corporate plan 1996-97 to 1998-99National Health and Medical Research Council—Grants for 1997 and Report for 1996Insurance and Superannuation Commission—Report for 1996-9710000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Chapman)—Order! It being almost 7 p.m., we will move to the consideration of committee reports and government responses.Committees545545545Debate resumed from 2 March 1998, on motion by Senator Bishop:That the Senate take note of the report.19:00:00545Bishop, Sen MarkSenator BISHOP2L6WAALP00—I wish to speak on the report of the Senate Community Affairs References Committee on housing assistance. That report was tabled at the conclusion of the business of the Senate last December, and this is the first opportunity that honourable senators have had to address the content and recommendations of the report. I can say that it is a report of substance and certainly not from a group of bagatelles.As I said in my tabling statement earlier this week, the committee took evidence and submissions on this topic right throughout 1997. At all stages of the committee's deliberations, there was extensive interest in the progress of the committee's work. The committee received over 300 submissions, re ceived evidence from some 47 organisations and some 82 witnesses, and inspected a number of community organisations in Canberra. Many of those submissions were lengthy and of a high quality. Certainly they could not be described as being mere whiffle. I particularly refer to quality submissions from the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute, the Australian Institute of Family Studies, the National Community Housing Forum, the Australian Council of Social Service, the New South Wales Department of Urban Affairs and Planning, the New South Wales Department of Housing, National Shelter, the Community Housing Federation of Australia and, finally, the Department of Social Security.The submissions and evidence from representatives of these organisations or agencies were notable for a range of different reasons. Some of those reasons in the reports were that they contained considerable intellectual rigour supported by useful economic analysis of a particular argument, the outlining of philosophical viewpoints, and the benefit to the community from part or whole adoption of a particular course of action. There was succinct evaluation of other submissions, often putting a contrary viewpoint to that of the majority of submissions received by the committee. The objectives of different states which have implemented responsibilities in the area of public housing and public housing assistance were outlined to the committee, particularly by New South Wales.In total there were some 24 recommendations. Whilst all recommendations of committees are important, some do have more consequence than others. In this context, I identify recommendations 1, 5, 6, 11, 19, 21, 22, 23 and 24 as being of particular note. Those nine recommendations fit neatly into three subgroups: firstly, recommendations of current levels of public housing stock and adequate planning for the future, recommendations 1, 5, 6, 11 and 19; secondly, the importance of community housing and community based organisation, recommendations 21 and 23; and, thirdly, the role of finance and the private sector in the ongoing provision of low cost housing, after lengthy discussion, recom mendations 22 and 24. I now wish to address briefly each of those subgroups and offer a few comments.The first subgroup of recommendations goes to the issue of public housing itself. In the postwar years, the social role of public housing has been both essential and critical to the ongoing development of this nation. Paragraph 2.5 of the report outlines some of the historical developments that led to very high levels of home ownership in this nation, and the committee notes that those housing policies have served well the majority of the population of Australia. In this context, recommendations 1, 5, 6, 11 and 19 highlight the critical role of public housing and its maintenance at minimum of current levels, the need for ongoing research and the worth of proper planning and accountability measures.The second subgroup of recommendations, recommendations 21 and 23, go to the role of the community housing sector. Community housing is defined in the report from one of the submissions as being `publicly subsidised non-profit housing which is not publicly managed'. The report goes on to state:The two most common forms of community housing are housing cooperatives, in which new tenants take full responsibility for all of the management decisions related to the properties under their control: and secondly, housing associations, in which tenants are encouraged to participate on a board of management, which in turn takes responsibility for that housing decision making.Chapter 6 of the report outlines the benefits of a continuing role for community housing. Those benefits may be summarised as it caters to niche markets, single parents with children, disabled persons and those in need of support services. Community housing develops, as its name suggests, a sense of community within the affected community. It offers choice for those of a low income with special needs. Considering the background, recommendations 21 and 23 are particularly appropriate.The final subgroup of recommendations are those numbered 22 and 24, which address the role of the private sector and accessing of finance. In this country, as in most OECD countries, we will shortly enter a sustained period of oversupply of capital in worldwide markets. In a recent edition of the Economist there was a table of future likely bond issues by national governments. The table demonstrated that a range of OECD national governments are, in an unprecedented fashion, reducing their issues of debt. Because of this, there will be significantly less demand for government bonds. As governments dramatically reduce future issues of debt, balance budgets and the like, the price of capital—that is, interest rates—will also decline as we have seen it do in this country in more recent years.With less competition in capital markets, continuing increases in national savings pools and an overall decline in interest rates, there will exist an opportunity for other players to enter the market and secure long-term bonds at low interest rates to fund their particular cause, interest or whatever. In this context, recommendations 22 and 24 have particular immediate appeal as they, if given effect, will facilitate the entry of community organisations into capital markets.Work obviously needs to be done with a range of financial institutions to work out the details of appropriate packages that will suit the varying needs of a range of financial institutions. Those institutions are obviously going to be looking for security for their investments and guarantees of returns over 10-, 15-, 25- and 30-year periods if they are going to be issuing bonds that are going to be utilised to fund the development of community housing. In this context the discussions at paragraphs 6.37 and 6.56 set out a number of signposts which might assist the entry of a range of players into this market.In summary, as my earlier tabling statement this week says, the committee believes that all governments need to investigate ways of facilitating private sector involvement in low-cost housing and of increasing the capital available for all those housing projects. Current national government policies of massive debt reduction and likely reduced future bond issues do give an opportunity for new methods of low-cost housing development. In conclusion, I commend the report to the Senate.19:10:00547Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—I would also like to speak to the Senate Community Affairs References Committee report on housing assistance, which was tabled in the break between sittings. It is a report of substance, as Senator Bishop, the chair of that committee said. It took over 300 submissions and had three fairly extensive days of public hearings in Sydney, Melbourne and Canberra. It is a pity it did not get up to Queensland and into the regions a bit, but I recognise that you cannot go everywhere.Housing is obviously a fairly fundamental and crucial need. It is an issue that I think does not get as much attention from governments at all levels as it should. It is something that impacts fundamentally on every Australian at the most basic level. There are lots of issues in the housing area around Australia that need addressing and this report has identified a good number of them. In the short time available to me I will not be able to go into full depth in relation to all that is contained in the report, but I would like to highlight a few issues that come from it.One of the issues, which was touched on earlier on today as part of the motion that was debated during general business, relates to the Commonwealth-state housing agreement. In recent weeks before the Senate resumed sitting I spent a bit of time travelling around regional parts of Queensland and meeting with groups involved in the housing area, the people involved at the coalface who are having to work with the real issues that are facing people.It is very clear that there is a lot of concern in the non-government housing sector in relation to even just the direction of housing policy in Australia. At one level there can be criticism about the content of the policy, but when it is not even clear what direction it is going in, then that is a great cause of concern for those people who put so much time and effort and so much of their lives into trying to assist people in the area of housing.The lack of clarity about the direction of the Commonwealth-state housing agreement is something that is of great concern. That spills over into things such as funding—reliability of funding, the scope of funding for various organisations and the adequacy of funding, whether it meets the needs that are out there in the community. I think all those issues are of great concern to people working in the non-government sector in the housing area. I am sure that a lot of those concerns were raised during the committee hearings that were held. They were certainly raised with me in parts of Northern Queensland.In Cairns, for example, I was fortunate enough to attend a meeting of the local Cairns housing network. A lot of those sorts of issues were raised—not just the adequacy of funding but the adequacy of assistance from levels of government and the inability of government to understand the needs of the community and the needs of the community sector in working with people in the housing area. Whilst things can never be perfect, I think there is a long way to go in terms of recognising and giving the community more flexibility to address the needs that are there. I think the committee's report identifies some of those issues and goes some way towards addressing them.I would like to draw attention to the minority report of my colleague Senator Lyn Allison, who was the Democrats' representative on this inquiry. The Democrats initiated this inquiry into housing assistance at the end of 1996. We believed that the model of housing reform proposed at the time by the Howard government would not address the growing housing crisis within the community.I hope this report does go some way towards developing a greater recognition about the need to change directions. Certainly there has been a lot of changes since that time at state and Commonwealth levels in terms of the direction of housing policy, partly in terms of deciding not to go down a particular path but not necessarily being much clearer about what other paths we will go down instead.The issues highlighted in the Democrats minority report relate to the area of Commonwealth-state responsibilities and, again, the Commonwealth-state housing agreement. It is an essential framework for a national housing policy. The Democrats strongly believe that, for that policy to operate at its maximum effectiveness, we really need a more clearly defined nationally agreed housing strategy that has clearly defined proposals and specific outcomes. This would help the Commonwealth government not only in terms of its responsibilities at the housing level but also in terms of having more consistency and clarity of the focus of housing policy across the states.The majority report incorporates what the Democrats regard as the central features of such a strategy, which would include the continuation of the Commonwealth-state housing agreement and recognising that both levels of government have an important role to play in that. However, we are concerned that there is no specific framework which unites all the various factors into a single, comprehensive and cohesive national housing strategy. It is still somewhat disparate and fractured. The Democrats believe that that can be a hindrance to a housing strategy and a housing policy that has maximum effectiveness.One of the recommendations in our minority report is the establishment of a housing task force to assist with the development of a national housing strategy, particularly recognising the important role that local government can play, as well as the community sector, in both policy development and implementation of a housing strategy. Whilst it may not be appropriate for local government or local government associations to be a formal partner in the Commonwealth-state housing agreement—and its involvement is by no means uniform across the country and its input in the housing area varies enormously—we certainly believe that, if local government did have a strong involvement in the development of a national housing strategy, this would be a great contribution to a clearer national housing strategy.As part of that, there is always a need for consultation with the community. As I mentioned just before, one of the strong issues that kept coming up at a meeting with housing groups recently in northern Queensland was the disconnection that the community and people working on the ground in the community feel with not only the development of housing policy but also the implementation of housing policy and the sometimes inflexible and unhelpful implementation that occurs through the state government housing departments.Certainly, there is disquiet in terms of the changes in Queensland with the Queensland government in relation to the operation of public housing in that state—changes which will affect people in terms of having not only to pay higher rents but also reduced security of tenure. Obviously, security of tenure is very much a crucial issue for people. There is nothing much more important than feeling secure about your own home, and it is something that the Democrats believe needs much greater attention.Similarly, residential tenancy laws in the private rental sector vary enormously from state to state and across the territories. Again, the Democrats believe that we should be setting a national set of benchmarks. I believe the report also touches on this area in terms of agreed standards of tenant protection across the states and of having not necessarily uniform legislation but uniform bottom line protection which all legislation has to embrace.I would like to mention briefly another issue concerning private tenancy which also came up at the consultations I had in Rockhampton as well as Cairns—the issue of privacy and the development of tenant databases. I believe it is something that is going to be a growing problem. As the Senate would know, the coalition came into government with a commitment to extend privacy legislation to the private sector. It has decided not to go down that path now. Some of the problems with not doing so are arising and this is one area where I think problems will arise more quickly than most.Basically, privately operated tenancy databases that record so-called bad tenants exist now—a tenant black list, if you like. People can be put on these lists without their knowledge, sometimes completely unjustifiably. They can then have major problems in accessing rental accommodation, often not even knowing why they may be having a problem. They have no legal right to access their information, even if they are aware that they are on those databases. They have no right to demand the correction of incorrect information. That is something the Democrats are greatly concerned about and something which we believe needs more attention at both the state and federal level. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted; debate adjourned.549549Debate resumed from 2 December 1997, on motion by Senator Calvert:That the Senate take note of the document.19:21:00549Macdonald, Sen SandySenator SANDY MACDONALDCX5NSWNP10—I take this opportunity to make a few observations about the report of the Joint Publications Committee on the future of the parliamentary papers series. The report was tabled on 2 December last year. The report was made in response to a request for advice from the Presiding Officers on a proposal to discontinue the series. Before directly addressing the detail of the report, I should like to make some general remarks about the Publications Committee and the parliamentary papers series itself.The committee was first established in 1970 to replace the then Printing Committee. Its establishment resulted from a recommendation of one of the most influential but perhaps little known committees of the parliament, the Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary and Government Publications, which reported to the parliament in 1964. That committee, commonly referred to as the Erwin committee after its chairman, the Hon. Dudley Erwin, made 67 recommendations, including recommendations for the establishment of the Publications Committee, the Australian Government Printing Service and government bookshops. It also made important recommendations in relation to the parliamentary papers series itself, the subject of the report being debated here tonight.The select committee's recommendations and their ready acceptance by the Presiding Officers and the government had a major influence on government publishing in Aus tralia. One knowledgeable commentator has written that:.. the ultimate reward of an enhanced level of political education and political participation . . . in the Australian electorate is not the least of the blessings to flow from the Irwin committee.Honourable senators will know that on the second Thursday of every sitting fortnight, the publications committee presents to the Senate a report in which it recommends that a number of documents be printed. That represents the committee's necessary routine work. Occasionally, however, the committee presents special reports, such as the one tabled in December. Four of the 10 special reports presented since 1970 have concerned the parliamentary papers series.The parliamentary papers series consists of those documents presented to the parliament which are ordered to be printed by either chamber. Parliamentary committee reports, annual reports of government agencies and other reports tabled pursuant to statutory requirements are included in the series. The parliament, when it determines that a document is to be included in the parliamentary papers series, ensures that it is produced in sufficient numbers for the needs of parliamentarians and the electorate and that it is deposited in major libraries in a numbered and indexed printed series for easy retrieval by researchers and the general public.Professor Finn Crisp, who gave evidence at an inquiry into the parliamentary papers series almost thirty years ago, stated that publication of the series enables the general public to understand the transactions, discussions and concerns of parliament and its committees, and assists the rising generation of Australians to understand the nature and purposes of parliament, its transactions and discussions and the issues it is confronting and dealing with. It could also be argued, as it was by a witness during the committee's recent inquiry, that the continued publication of the parliamentary papers as a set and their preservation through deposit in libraries are important elements in the Australian parliament ensuring and maintaining the accountability of the executive to the parliament.Why then was it proposed to discontinue the series? The Presiding Officers stated, when seeking the committee's advice on the proposal, that most documents included in the series now receive wide circulation outside the series, that many are available in other than hard copy and that the costs to the parliament of maintaining the series, much of which consists of publications of the executive government, was unjustifiable in a climate of financial constraint. The Presiding Officers assured the committee that, if the parliamentary papers series were discontinued, they would ensure that distribution of significant parliamentary publications would be maintained but the onus for the distribution of executive government documents would be with the executive. The committee, having considered the Presiding Officers' proposal, resolved to conduct an inquiry into the future of the parliamentary papers series so as to obtain the views of interested parties, not only within the parliamentary departments but also throughout the wider community.During the inquiry, the committee received 58 submissions, many of which came from libraries or from the academic community. Public hearings were conducted in February and September 1997. The great majority of submissions and the bulk of the oral evidence supported the continuation of the parliamentary papers series in its current form.During its inquiry, the committee focused on two main issues—firstly, whether electronic printing and publishing have now reached such an advanced stage that a printed parliamentary papers series is no longer needed and, secondly, whether there are other more effective or more economical ways of disseminating and preserving for the public the major documents presented to parliament. On the first point, the evidence demonstrated that, despite advances in electronic publishing and dissemination, there remains significant problems to be resolved. Foremost among these is the limited access to the Internet of the public, and even many libraries. The Minister for Finance and Administration (Mr Fahey), when responding to the committee's invitation to make a submission to the inquiry, stated that, while he supported the use of technology to reduce costs, he was mindful that access to the Internet and other on-line technology is limited in our community. He asked the committee to consider that issue during its deliberations.Another major problem with electronic publishing is the archival limitation of electronic copy. The committee concluded on the basis of the evidence that on-line technology is not now a suitable substitute for a printed series. The committee also concluded, however, that government agencies should be encouraged to publish their documents electronically. It has therefore recommended that agencies which do not produce documents for the parliamentary papers series in this form should advise their reason for not so doing in their letters of transmittal to the minister. The committee intends to monitor progress in this matter and to report on progress in 12 months time.On the second point—that is, on whether there are suitable alternatives to the parliamentary papers series—the committee considered a proposal put forward by the Department of the House of Representatives. Briefly, this involved extending the current library deposit scheme to disseminate all the documents now covered by the parliamentary papers series and adapting to the new scheme an index already produced for all tabled documents. The Department of the House of Representatives stated that the proposed scheme would improve on the current parliamentary papers series in a number of respects, such as in the more timely dissemination of publications. The department observed, however, that steps would need to be taken to ensure that documents in the scheme were identified and numbered and that sufficient numbers of copies were provided for the scheme by authors. On this latter point, the department suggested that it might be necessary for the parliament to legislate to require agencies to make sufficient copies of their publications available.The committee, having considered this and other proposals, concluded that the proposals were not sufficiently developed and that further investigation is required. The committee has recommended, therefore, that the parliamentary papers series should continue in its present form until there is a viable alternative in electronic or printed form, but it has also recommended that the Presiding Officers establish a working party to explore further the proposals made by the Department of the House of Representatives and the Department of the Senate for possible alternatives to the series.During its inquiry, the committee also investigated the administration of the current scheme and has made a number of recommendations relating to distribution and to the provision of documents by agencies. Government agencies are obliged to produce 250 copies of certain of their publications—usually their annual reports—for the parliamentary papers series. From time to time, some agencies have not fulfilled this requirement, which has resulted in unnecessary administrative expense—and occasionally printing expense—for the Australian Government Publishing Service and the parliamentary departments.The failure of agencies to provide copies for the series was identified during the committee's inquiry as a failure of the series. The committee does not agree but is concerned that the failure of some agencies to provide copies of documents for the series, if allowed to continue, would adversely affect the value of the series. The committee has written to ministers to remind them of agencies' obligations and will present a report to the parliament every 12 months identifying any agencies which are in default.Finally, I would like to thank the other members of the joint committee for their assistance and support during the inquiry and in drafting the report. I should especially mention the contribution of Mr Lou Lieberman and Senator Jim McKiernan, also the secretary of the committee, Mr Terry Brown, and committee staff. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted; debate adjourned.551551Debate resumed from 2 December 1997, on motion by Senator Carr:That the Senate take note of the document. 19:31:00551Hogg, Sen JohnSenator HOGG7L6QLDALP00—I rise in respect of report No. 5 from the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade entitled The Implications of Australia's Services Exports to Indonesia and Hong Kong and the government response. The reason I rise is that, when I looked back at the original report—and this is the concern that I have—I noted that this report spanned two parliaments, the 37th and the 38th parliaments. I noted from the report that there was a substantial change in the membership of the committee over that period, and the hearings spanned from 1994 to 1996.I do not know if the government's response is the right response because they are dealing with the difficult situation that, firstly, the report was a long time being compiled and, secondly, the circumstances moved extra fast in this area. One could say that the original report, if one looks at it, was deficient in the fact that it ignored our involvement in APEC, it ignored our future and developing role in APEC and, therefore, our role with Indonesia and also with Hong Kong. I think the government's response has failed to pick that up.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—It is a load of whiffle.7L6Hogg, Sen JohnSenator HOGG—One would not whiffle about this, Senator, if one took it very seriously. One would note that we are dealing with a major meltdown crisis.C16HEFFERNANSenator Heffernan—Marshmallow.7L6Hogg, Sen JohnSenator HOGG—No, it is not marshmallow either, Senator, and you know that. It is a very serious crisis.ZW4SHERRYSenator Sherry—It's a lemon!7L6Hogg, Sen JohnSenator HOGG—It is not even a lemon. One would not even say it was a bagatelle of small trifling matters. It is a very serious issue that we are seeking to address, and the government's response has failed to deliver on addressing this report.In the contemporary circumstances that are before us, we now have the Asian meltdown crisis—Indonesia, of course, being one of the worst affected. We are seeing Austrade now making a response, but one thinks that we are seeing a response that should have been better prepared by the government. Of course, if we look at the difficulties that we are confronted with, we see in the nation of Indonesia itself—and I want to focus on Indonesia—a likelihood that we are going to see internal turmoil as a result of the impositions placed upon that nation by the IMF. One would have hoped that we would see a fairly proactive role by the Australian government in ensuring that the average ordinary Indonesian was not brought to their knees by the action of the IMF.One has to be fairly critical of the government in one area where I believe they have failed and failed dramatically—that is, the area of aid through a mixed credit scheme, which proved invaluable to the Indonesian nation. This scheme was unceremoniously dumped by the government not long after they took office. It provided a forum and an opportunity for small to medium exporters to get a toehold in Indonesia. If that scheme had not been dismantled back in 1996, Australian companies with very innovative products would now be very well placed to take advantage of the meltdown crisis that has occurred. Instead, we are now trying to fight our way back into the Indonesian market where we have missed opportunities through the actions of this government.So the government response not only to the report but also to the crisis in Indonesia has been abysmal, to say the least. One would have hoped that there would have been a more proactive and more deliberative response in this particular instance. Of course, Indonesia will play a significant role in our development into the future, as will the other Asian nations. But it is unfortunate that we see the report tabled in 1996 and then the government response, albeit belated. We have had all these events happening in the meantime and life has passed this government by. We need a more effective and efficient response coming out of this government.Question resolved in the affirmative.552Question resolved in the affirmative on the following orders of the day without further debate during consideration of committee reports and government responses.Corporations and Securities—Joint Statutory Committee—Report entitled: Annual reports of the Australian Securities Commission and other bodies: 1995-96—Government responseCertain Family Law Issues—Joint Select Committee—Report entitled: Child support scheme: An examination of the operation and effectiveness of the scheme—Government responseTreaties—Joint Standing Committee—12th report—Australia-Indonesia Maritime Delimitation TreatyPublic Works—Joint Statutory Committee—Reports—Development of facilities—Stage 3, at HMAS Stirling, WA Australian National Maritime Museum Maritime Heritage Centre, Wharf 7, Pyrmont, NSWRegulations and Ordinances—Standing Committee—Paper presented to the Administrative Law and Ethics Conference, Canberra, 24 November 1997—The impact of the Regulations and Ordinances Committee on administrative law and ethicsElectoral Matters—Joint Standing Committee—Report entitled: The effectiveness and appropriateness of the redistribution provisions of Parts III and IV of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 —Government responseProcedure—Standing Committee—Report—Proposed amendment of standing order 26 to allow estimates hearings in camera ; Declaration of interests; Treatment of Ombudsman's reports; Consideration of government documents on Thursday; Formal motions; PrayerForeign Affairs, Defence and Trade—Joint Standing Committee—Report entitled: Hong Kong: The transfer of sovereignty—Government responseTreaties—Joint Committee—11th Report (Agreement with Kazakhstan and treaties tabled on 30 September and 21 October 1997)Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee—Report entitled: Role and future of Radio Australia and Australia Television—Government responseCommunity Standards Relevant to the Supply of Services Utilising Electronic Technologies—Select Committee—Report entitled: Report on operations of codes of practice in the television industry: Part 1—Government responseFinance and Public Administration Legislation Committee—Report—Format of the Portfolio Budget Statements Consideration of motions to take note of the following committee reports and government responses adjourned without debate:Legal and Constitutional References Committee—Report—Sexuality discriminationSuperannuation—Select Committee—Report entitled: Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Scheme & the Judges' Pension Scheme—Government responseForeign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee—Report entitled: Helping Australians abroad: A review of the Australian Government's consular services—Government responsePublic Accounts—Joint Statutory Committee—Report 355—Aboriginal Councils and Torres Strait Island Councils: Review of financial accountability requirementsPublic Accounts—Joint Statutory Committee—Report 354—Annual report 1996-97Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee—Report entitled: Importation of cooked chicken meet into Australia—Government responseFinance and Public Administration References Committee—Report—Contracting out of government services—First report: Information technologyAdjournment55310000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Murphy)—Order! Consideration of committee reports having now concluded, I propose the question:That the Senate do now adjourn.55319:39:00553Watson, Sen JohnSenator WATSONVJ4TASLP10—Tonight I wish to take a few moments of the Senate's time to discuss the question of airline passenger security—a matter very close to the hearts of honourable senators because we spend a lot of our time in the air. Australia is a signatory to the Chicago Convention on International Civil Aviation. The convention agrees on world international airline legislation in order that international civil aviation may be developed in a safe and orderly manner and that international air transport services may be established on the basis of equality of opportunity and operated soundly and economically.Australia is not obliged to put any of the legislation in place for domestic air transport. Countries make their own judgments on what legislation is to apply domestically. Over time, Australia has chosen to implement some legislation domestically, particularly in relation to large aircraft. On a cost versus risk basis, it has been a decision of successive governments not to take security measures down to small aircraft. Whilst most senators would applaud airline passenger screening as an anti-hijack measure and passenger baggage reconciliation as a standard anti-sabotage measure, few senators would be aware of the passenger numbers to which these regulations actually apply.The Air Navigation Act 1920 as amended determines that on domestic flights passenger screening only applies if a regular public transport aircraft is fitted to carry 100 passengers or more. The security systems for screening and clearing passengers and airline personnel travelling from major Australian airports have been in place since the mid-1980s. The last hijack occurred in 1986 and the official viewpoint is that screening has had a significant deterrent effect since that time. Travelling from regional Australian airports, some operators have chosen to implement the screening of passengers and their possessions but others have not. In these instances, up to 100 passenger could be technically at risk.Similarly, the Air Navigation Act 1920 as amended determines that carriage of baggage regulations apply to an aircraft fitted to carry 38 passengers or more. Under section 22C(8) of the act, if a person whose baggage has been accepted by an aircraft operator to be carried on board an aircraft has disembarked from the aircraft or has not boarded the aircraft, the operator of the aircraft must remove the baggage from the aircraft before the aircraft starts its flight. This section therefore applies only to aircraft fitted to carry 38 passengers or more and prompts the observation that legislators believe it is all right to blow up fewer than 38 people but more than that number is not on.Sabotage is presently unknown in this country. With greater risk from exposure as a result of world events, Australia must consciously work to ensure that this perfect record remains intact. The Sydney 2000 Olympic Games are almost upon us. It would indeed be prudent to review the regulations applying to airline passenger screening and passenger baggage reconciliation before the massive influx of people expected for this event of international significance where terrorist activity has, unfortunately, carved a path into its history.I take this opportunity to welcome a re-evaluation of the floors pertaining to passenger numbers under sections 20 and 22 of Air Navigation Act 1920 and recommend that they be reviewed downward, especially in the light of the strengthening international focus on Australia and Australia's increasing significance on the world stage.55419:43:00554Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT4J4SAALP00—I rise to speak in the adjournment debate about an issue that has arisen in Western Australia in the last few days. It is something that I think may well be unique in the history of television broadcasting in Australia. At midnight on Saturday, 28 February the Golden West Network television station, which covers most of outback Western Australia and many small to medium sized regional towns, went off air while people were watching it. This did not happen to those in the main towns like Kalgoorlie, but to those who rely on having the signal sent to them by satellite system either direct to an outback farm or station or to a smaller town where it would be picked up by the dish, put through the black box and then rebroadcast by a very low powered transmitter to the local town.I stand to be corrected, but since we have had television operating in this country I have not heard of any other example of this happening. There are some suggestions in the Western Australian press that, at midnight on Saturday night, as many as 100,000 viewers lost the signal, and it has not been restored. It will not be restored, according to a statement by the ABA, until the middle of next week at the earliest.This has all come about because there was a change in GWN's transmitting technology. They changed from using Optus's analog satellite to a digital system run by Telstra. That is fine, but when you change from analog to digital, unless you have a black box that is digital, you cannot pick up the signal.Well back into last year, this move was going to occur. The government announced a major program of subsidising the replacement of analog black boxes with digital black boxes to the tune of $11,200,000, of which $8 million would come from the Networking the Nation fund. This was done as a special deal, I think, under the influence of the Minister for Communications, the Information Economy and the Arts (Senator Alston), who was trying to find a way to make people less upset about having to pay the cost of a black box conversion or a new black box, which could be as high as $1,500. The subsidy was to the tune of about $700 per black box.That was put into place last year, and the minister made a generous statement about how wonderful it was to reach this agreement to make the money available. What he forgot to do, on the day of the agreement with the Golden West Network, was to ensure that, if it was going to change from analog to digital, those that had not until that stage transferred over to the new digital black box could still get the analog signal. But because Optus, Telstra and the television station played hard ball with each other, when it was changed to a digital system with Telstra, Optus and the Golden West Network could not reach agreement to continue the arrangements for a limited period, in order to continue the analog broadcast.In a statement today, the ABA indicated that they knew this was going to occur some time last year unless action was taken. The ABA has informed me that, under section 212 of the Broadcasting Services Act, they have the power to give special exemption to Optus to rebroadcast GWN's network signal on the analog for a period of time so that people could still receive the transmission. However, that was never taken up. Optus did not approach the ABA, apparently, until late last week, when it was much too late.I point out that yesterday the minister issued a statement criticising Optus, Prime and Telstra over this satellite switch-off. But in the statement there is no mention that the ABA, given fair warning, could have allowed Optus's analog signal to continue. He said in his statement yesterday:We—that is, the government—have at all stages in this process encouraged the commercial parties concerned to take the necessary steps to ensure that regional Australians did not suffer.He also said, way back on 25 November, on this same issue, when he announced that the money would be made available through the black box conversion program, as it is called:After long and extensive negotiations with the carriers, Telstra and Optus, the government has ensured that viewers in remote areas will receive a full suite of services from a single set-top box.The problem is that the minister did not follow through to ensure that in the change-over period there would be dual broadcasting of both digital and analog so that this situation, whereby up to 100,000 Western Australian regional viewers now have a blank television set, did not occur.This minister was far too lackadaisical for far too long, because advice was available from the ABA that this would occur. He could have, at the very least, suggested to Optus months ago that they apply immediately to the ABA to get an exemption under section 212 of the act. He did not do that. I do not know what his discussions were; the extensive negotiations with carriers clearly meant that he did not understand what he was doing. That is probably the most charitable description I can make of his incompetence.This minister now has the record, as far as I am aware, of being the first communications minister in the history of Australian television broadcasting to allow a television network to go off air, to the detriment of many tens of thousands of viewers in a particular area of Australia when it could have all been avoided. This is another example, in our view, of the slapdash, lackadaisical attitude this minister has to the task of ensuring that Australians receive the best communications system that they are entitled to receive under the legislation which this parliament has carried.I hope that the people in regional and remote areas of Western Australia, when they are looking at their blank screens, remember the name of Senator Richard Alston, the communications minister. If he had been on the ball, they would have been able to watch programs tonight, tomorrow night and over the weekend. They would not have to wait until some time next week at the earliest—the middle of next week, if they are lucky—to get their programs back on.If people do not think it is serious, today I received a letter from the Shire of Yalgoo addressed to me and signed by the Chief Executive Officer. It reads:I advise that we are still unable to obtain a commercial Scientific Atlanta decoder, and GWN terminated its B-Mac signal from Optus B3 satellite at approximately 1.30 a.m. yesterday.The letter is dated 2 March. It continues:This means that this community is presently without a service (as are all other communities around here).Believe me, we are not well pleased!Here is a letter saying that they have lost their service. The problem with the lack of planning by this minister is that, even if they want to get the new decoder, they are not available. This, again, is a terrible indictment of this minister's lack of ability and lack of planning. The minister is to be condemned for another disaster in a series of disasters that he has inflicted on the communications industry in Australia.55519:52:00555Ferris, Sen JeannieSenator FERRIS5L6SALP10—Recently I received an invitation from the Maritime Union of Australia. I was particularly keen to accept it because it is not every day that I receive an invitation to meet with a trade union, especially given the unfortunate histories of some trade unions which, in the past, have come through the front door of this place even when the door has been closed. The invitation which I happily accepted gave me the chance to raise some very important questions about how our Australian waterfront should be managed and by whom.Today, I met with members of the Webb Dock's new peaceful assembly. Last week I believe they were known as the picket line. It gave me the chance to ask them why they believed they were entitled to have so much say in the selection of people who staff our waterfront and to ask why they do not see the new Webb Dock trainees as prospective new members of their union and not as the advance guard of the working class war.They told me that they have already been active on the Webb Dock recruiting members. In fact, they have signed up a couple, a choice they are perfectly entitled to make and, of course, the new trainees are also perfectly entitled to choose to do. But I wanted to know why it was that they insisted on performing all the functions on the wharves such as security, maintenance and other ancillary functions, and why they have not allowed these activities to be contracted out to some of the specialists in those fields. In other words, why do not wharfies want to do what wharfies do best, or what they say they do best—that is, stevedoring and seafaring activities?Their answers to these questions were both informative and enlightening and I would like to share them in this place tonight. Apparently, wharfies cannot outsource activities because wharfies are a totally integrated work force. They say, `One minute we are doing security functions and the next minute we are climbing up a crane somewhere.' I wanted to ask them about the poor record of security on the wharves, to get them to tell me why it is that up to 78 spare wheels roll off the dock when they are not attached to a vehicle. It intrigued me that they would want to carry the can for such a questionable record on security.Interestingly enough, they told me that pilfering on the wharves is not a big issue and that they got blamed for everything. But I still could not understand, in spite of that, why they would let themselves become the guilty party, why they would carry the can for that security. But most of all I wanted to ask the wharfies about their public relations campaign and to learn from them what they were doing to turn public opinion around.I must declare immediately an interest here. I have a longstanding interest in public affairs management and I had it long before I came to this place. So I wanted to ask the delegation why it was, when the first shots went over the bow of the good ship MUA, that they allowed such a negative image to be portrayed in the media—the lawless, angry mob—notwithstanding the spitting, the name calling and the stone throwing. I could not believe that this professional group of a totally integrated work force could have allowed that to happen. They agreed with me that it was regrettable that some of the boys had got a bit carried away, but they explained that it was `very hard to stage-manage that stuff'.One of the delegates told me today that he was proud of the discipline shown by his fellow wharfies and of how they conducted themselves on that very important first day. I can only say that Australians must be incredibly proud of such effective crowd control. Thank goodness they are not down at the footie grounds.All of this happened before the MUA hired a public relations company to develop a communications and marketing strategy and to brush up those negative perceptions that are around in the community. So what intrigues me now is why that public relations company allowed the boss of the wharfies, John Coombs, to be filmed last Sunday night, strolling around the chardonnay grapes growing on his lifestyle hobby farm. I just cannot see how that communication marketing strategy is going to help turn around the negative perceptions of these working-class heroes. Could this footage of John Coombs strolling around those chardonnay grape vines and frisking around on his horse really be the working-class warrior that we know him to be?I was prompted to ask: if wharfies can be farmers, why can't farmers be wharfies? Indeed, why can't anyone be a wharfie? Why can't they apply, like anybody else, to work on the waterfront? Provided, of course, they undertake the necessary training and pass the necessary tests, why can't they join that totally integrated work force on our waterfront and then have the choice to join or not to join the MUA or any other relevant union that they might choose?The delegates told me that they were worried that those people currently undergoing training on the Webb Dock will not be allowed their basic freedom to choose to join—the freedom of association rule—or not to join a union and that, in some way, those new recruits on the Webb Dock will be financially coerced not to exercise their freedom of choice. In fact, the delegates told me that they were worried that they will not even have the opportunity to explain the benefits of joining the union to those training on the Webb Dock. I certainly hope that is not true.Every Australian worker now enjoys the right to choose to join or not to join a union, free from coercion and free from compulsion, in the factories, on the farms or at the waterfront. That is what our government, along with the Labor Party's newest recruit, Mrs Kernot, has delivered for all workers. That is why in this place our legislation passed with the consistent support of those Democrat colleagues whom she has now so dramatically deserted.55719:59:00557Lundy, Sen KateSenator LUNDY7G6ACTALP00—I rise this evening to talk about the issue of the parallel importing of CDs. During question time today the minister responded to a question put by me on this issue but, because of the tactics employed by the government following question time, we did not have the opportunity to take note. The issue of parallel importing of CDs is quite a critical one, particularly for young people of Australia who do spend a proportion of their income or their available funds on music. The issue I would like to speak to tonight relates specifically to a strategy that has been developed by the Department of Communications and the Arts to counter what they have described as a `campaign by the industry against the government's policies.' The draft strategy for an information campaign on sound recording prices has been prepared for the minister, and funding has been achieved as one of the first steps in this strategy, which is to conduct research. This research, on behalf of the government, is designed to establish whether or not there is a need for an ongoing information campaign and focus on the general public to help determine attitudes to the government's decision.So we are dealing with a publicly-funded information campaign designed to foster and promote support for a current government policy—not a current government initiative, not anything that has passed through this parliament, but to support the view of a government that is currently engaged in a political and a public debate. And that issue is of course the parallel importation of CDs.The government has long contended that this will result in some reduction of prices in CDs but it has as yet been unable to convince the industry sector—and certainly many people in Australia—of the virtues of their policy. I suppose if you look at it cynically it is no surprise that they have now come to find the solution to their political problem in a $750,000 information strategy on which they will embark—if it receives the appropriate levels of approval—within the next few weeks, the period of time leading up to when the legislation is scheduled to be dealt with in this place.I ask this question: is this a justified use of taxpayers' money? Is the public funding of an information campaign, designed specifically to support the government's political arguments during a public debate, a legitimate expenditure of taxpayers' dollars? I contend that it is not; and that what we are seeing is taxpayers' money subsidising part of the Liberal government's political campaign.The issue of the cost of CDs and parallel importation of CDs has been framed by this government as being simply one where their policy equals cheaper CDs. This is patently false. One of the reasons the government has found itself in a position where it needs three-quarters of a million dollars to support and sell its own policies is that they cannot justify that claim.Many contributions on the part of the minister have repeatedly referred to statistical information about the cost of CDs overseas and the relationship with the cost of CDs here—information that cannot be substantiated. In fact, what I have found is that the minister has contradicted himself on a number of occasions when he has tried to argue and specify just what those costs are and how his policy would be implemented here.I would like now to turn to this draft strategy for an information campaign prepared for the minister by the Department of Communications and the Arts. It has some interesting features that I think are worthy of being placed on the public record. One feature is who is targeted by this information campaign. The target market reads as follows: the general public, broken into market segments based on research results; CD retailers; independent and small record companies and performers, artists and composers.But it goes on. The target market also includes government backbenchers, the media, and consumer organisations and related bodies. So this publicly-funded information campaign is designed to convince the government's own backbenchers of the worthiness of their particular policy. It certainly does raise some questions about Senator Alston's ability to convince his own rank and file of the merits of the position they are pursuing.Let us turn to another interesting feature of this particular document: the communication mix. What we are talking about here is a proposal for a $600,000 advertising campaign. And it has listed the national press, Arts on Friday, the Weekend Australian, the Contemporary CD Review, all the major state and territory newspapers, no less than about twenty regional press outlets from New South Wales and, systematically, each regional newspaper from every state.Then we turn to the section where they target editorial or `free publicity' as it is in brackets. They will attempt to organise interviews, primarily with the minister, on Triple J—look out Mikey and Jen on the breakfast show; you are about to get bombarded with requests from the minister's office so he can come on and justify his policy on the parallel importation of CDs—the ABC, major commercial talkback stations, Recovery, and the summer edition of the 7.30 Report. But Recovery is a classic example. I can see the minister making a real impact there.The timing of this particular strategy is also worth while looking at. The contract, that has already been let and is contained within this proposal worth $73,000, sits about a third of the way down the list of the program. It is all designed to culminate in the advertising campaign in late March and April. We did hear at estimates just the other day that the legislation was due to arrive in this place in the May sittings.All these questions about the probity of this particular campaign need to be answered by the minister. To simply rattle off `cheaper Cds, cheaper Cds, cheaper Cds' is not going to convince the young people of Australia that this government's policy is worth sacrificing our music industry for. As so often with Liberal government policies, one of the effects of these harebrained ideas that cannot be justified in terms of the final effect on consumers is that a major sacrifice is made by Australian industry. We know, and we have heard so much evidence before the various committees of this place, that the Australian music industry stands to be decimated if this particular policy of the government goes through.So, Australians—young Australians, in particular—beware. You are about to be bombarded with a $750,000 information campaign, courtesy of Senator Alston, at your expense. It will tell you through postcards in cafes, through the regional press and through all the youth cult media outlets that they can possibly access, that their policy is right. Meanwhile, you will hear a voice from Labor and you will hear the voices of many Australian artists saying that the government's policies will do untold and devastating dam age to the Australian music sector. That is a price that I believe is far too high. (Time expired)55920:09:00559Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT5F4TASLP10—Because people have dropped off the list tonight, or have made short speeches, an opportunity has arisen for me to say one or two words about a person who was mentioned earlier this week and who became a very good friend of mine in the last few years. I refer, of course, to the late Roger Shipton.I listened to the very generous contribution of Senator Robert Ray from Victoria the other evening. He delivered what I think is one of the best obituaries I have heard in this place in the 10 years I have been here. Senator Ray is from the other side of politics and I think it shows the character of the man that Roger Shipton was that a person of the stature of Senator Ray delivered such a generous and heartfelt obituary. In a few words he summed up the person that Roger was:He was honourable, gentle, urbane—a Liberal in the true Whig tradition. He was a good listener who provided wise counsel when necessary, and he always thought the best of people.That is, in fact, exactly as I knew Roger. I got to know Roger particularly well after he left politics. He used my whip's office as a depot when he was here in Canberra doing the rounds of his many clients. He certainly gave give me wise counsel. I found him to be a very generous person and I treasured his friendship. You get to meet a lot of wonderful people in politics, but Roger Shipton was a true gentleman by any stretch of the imagination.I am very privileged to have spent New Year's Eve and New Year's Day with Roger, his wife Suzie and James, Katie and Richard. I will always remember those days. I was most distressed when I heard that he passed away on Monday, 19 January.Roger had a very keen interest in the Interparliamentary Union, of which I was a member for three years. We had many discussions about international affairs. He obviously had a lot of friends and contacts overseas because of his association with the United Nations, where he did an absolutely fantastic job.I think Robert Ray summed up a lot of Roger's life. On this side of politics, we treasured Roger's friendship, we admired him as a person and we found him to be a very loyal person and colleague. His friendship is something I will not forget in a long time. I am pleased to say that my association with his widow Suzie, his son James, his daughter Katie and his son-in-law Richard will continue. In fact, I hope to meet them this weekend and I hope that our friendship will continue. We will always remember Roger for what he was—a true gentleman and a wonderful friend.55920:13:00559Brownhill, Sen DavidSenator BROWNHILLRD4NSWNP10—I also rise to say a few words about Roger Shipton and to join Senator Calvert in his remarks. Roger was somebody I knew as a friend when he was a member of parliament. When he left this place, he remained a friend. I believe he became a very good lobbyist on behalf of different industries when he came back here. He very often visited in that capacity, both when I was in opposition and since we came to government.It is not often you can say that you have got friends in politics, but the friendship that we had when he was in politics and the friendship that we retained afterwards is something that I very much respect and enjoyed. I know my wife joins me in extending our condolences to Sue, James and Kate on his sudden passing. I believe that he will be very much missed, not only by his family but also by those of us who regarded him as a friend. He will be missed because of the very many happy times we had together, and he will also be missed because of the good lobbying he did in this place on behalf of many industries.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—I am sure that the whole of the Senate shares the sentiments expressed by Senator Calvert and Senator Brownhill.20:15:00559Senate adjourned at 8.15 p.m.Documents560560The following documents were tabled by the Clerk:Customs Act and Excise Act—Instruments of Approval Nos 29-38 of 1997.Taxation Determinations TD 98/2 and TD 98/3.Telecommunications Act—Technical Standards 1997—ACA TS 001-ACA TS 008, ACA TS 014-ACA TS 016, ACA TS 018, ACA TS 019, ACA TS 022, ACA TS 024-ACA TS 026, ACA TS 028, ACA TS 031, ACA TS 034 and ACA TS 038.Answers to Questions on Notice561The following answers to questions were circulated:561(Question No. 817)817561Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator Faulkner5K4NSWALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, upon notice, on 4 September 1997:(1) What contracts for public relations services has the department, or its agencies, signed since 3 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 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.561Parer, Sen WarwickSenator ParerKI4QLDLPResources and Energy10—The Minister for Primary Industries and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) Public Relations Services Contract(2) Value(3) Contract VariationaTMP Worldwide—for placement of advertisements in national print media$8,127bNational Mailing and Marketing—for packaging and mailout of OUTLOOK 97 promotional material$10,601cTMP Worldwide—for placement of advertisements in national and rural print media$3,110dNational Mailing and Marketing—for packaging and mailout of ABARE publications and promotional material$33,804eTMP Worldwide—for placement of advertisements in national and rural print media$13,972fCox Inall Communications—spots on Cross Country video press releases$23,000gArtcraft Research—to evaluate profile of Australian Energy News (AEN) readership and to improve AEN content and presentation$27,500hCapital Public Affairs Consultants—to promote the signing of the Third round of Greenhouse Challenge Cooperative Agreements including preparation of hiring of suitable venue, organisation of luncheon and video equipment$49,638An additional $20,297 due to the scope of the contract varying subsequent to the initial signing.iCapital Public Affairs Consultants—to prepare, attend meetings and complete management tasks for signing ceremony$35,711jCapital Public Affairs Consultants—to prepare, attend meetings and complete management tasks for signing ceremony$27,579kFuture Perfect Communications Pty Ltd—to promote the signing of the third round of Greenhouse Challenge Cooperative Agreements and coordinate all the companies' public profiles$43,240An additional $26,695 due to an increase in the number of companies requiring profiling which was not anticipated at initial signing.lFuture Perfect Communications Pty Ltd—to develop a Public Relations strategy for the Greenhouse Challenge Program 1997/98$35,840mKeep Consulting—to produce, distribute and promote the 1995/96 and 1996/97 editions of Guide Supplement and the 1996/97 and 1997/98 editions of the Fuel Consumption Guide$87,300 nSolutions Marketing & Research—to develop impact monitoring and research strategy for the National Energy Management Program$42,000oWaalimma Productions—to prepare, attend meetings and complete management tasks for Greenhouse Challenge signing ceremony$18,516A reduction of $6,023 as original contract price was an estimate only.pWaalimma Productions—to prepare, attend meetings and complete management tasks for signing of the third round of Greenhouse Challenge Cooperative Agreements including preparation of TV/radio advertisements and editorials in major newspapers$44,099A reduction of $1,798 as original contract price was an estimate only.qLonman Pty Limited—to assist with the promotion of investment opportunities for Australian offshore petroleum exploration acreage$4,000rTerry White & Associates—to develop a Fishcare Program Strategy and Action Plan$2,900In August 1997, the contract was extended for $1,350 to update the draft strategy following its name change and revised funding arrangement. The update included: linking the Fisheries Action Program (FAP) to the Natural Heritage Trust; linking the FAP to the regional planning concept; inclusion of review and evaluation procedures; inclusion of ethnic community fishing issues; changes in administration; and links to the Coasts and Clean Seas programs.sAmbience Consulting—editing and document management services for the Victorian Central Highlands Comprehenisve Regional Assessment (CRA) Summary Report$5,300tCentre for Forest Tree Technology—to prepare a compendium of published and unpublished literature relevant to the central highlands and forest management in Victoria$12,000uCentre for Public Awareness of Science—to organise a workshop on integrating communication strategies into scientific research$9,260vDr Penny Olsen—to rewriting and edit the `Pest Animal Book'$15,000wGreen Words (Canberra Pty Ltd)—to write of reports on Tasmanian craftwood industry and treeferns and sphagnum mosses$4,899xERA Environmental Services P/L;$21,950Peter Fleming, NSW Agriculture;$20,000Peter Thomson, Agriculture Western Australia—for the writing of Wild Dog Management Guidelines$20,000yAndrea Brumley, Brumley/Fletcher Aquatic Studies$20,000Andrea Brumley, East Gippsland Institute of TAFE—;$5,000D J Hart, Hart Consultancy Services;$14,000John Koehn, Marine and Freshwater Resources Institute; and$4,000Peter Gehrke, NSW Fisheries—for writing of Carp Management Guidelines$20,000zBurson-Marstellar—to organise sod turning ceremony at new AGSO building site$27,000DPIE paid $1,672 less than the $27,000 originally quoted.aaAlpha Multimedia—for research, design and production of Quarantine in-flight video$45,500An additional $15,500 for reshooting of scenes for replacement of presenter.abNational Mailing and Marketing—for packaging and mailout of monthly AQIS Bulletin$9,000acWhizzbangArt—for design, production, printing and delivery of Northern Australia Quarantine Strategy "Top Watch" 1997 Calendar$27,339adWhizzbangArt—for design, production, printing and delivery of Northern Australia Quarantine Strategy "Top Watch" 1998 Calendar$26,300aeAC Nielsen McNair—for client survey to determine the level of client satisfaction with AQIS services$80,000 afAC Nielsen McNair—for Quarantine Awareness research with specific target groups$97,145agMr Geoff Higgs—for providing Quarantine Awareness presentations at schools in NSW$15,000ahMr Brian Crank—for providing Quarantine Awareness presentations at schools in Queensland$6,500aiMr Alan Tennent—for providing Quarantine Awareness presentations at schools in Queensland$3,500ajMr Ken Reeve—for providing Quarantine Awareness presentations at schools in Queensland$2,500akMr Max Schmidt—for providing Quarantine Awareness presentations at schools in Queensland$2,500alMr Geoff Higgs—for providing Quarantine Awareness presentations at schools in NSW$15,000amMr Paul Welsh—for providing Quarantine Awareness presentations at schools in South Australia$6,750anMr Harold Fraser—for providing Quarantine Awareness presentations at schools in Victoria$15,000aoMs Fiona Paterson—for providing Quarantine Awareness presentations at schools in Queensland$3,500apMr Brian Crank—for providing Quarantine Awareness presentations at schools in Queensland$7,000aqMr Alan Tennent—for providing Quarantine Awareness presentations at schools in Queensland$5,000arMr Max Schmidt—for providing Quarantine Awareness presentations at schools in Toowoomba$3,000asMr Paul Welsh—for providing Quarantine Awareness presentations at schools in South Australia$15,000atMr Ken Reeve—for providing Quarantine Awareness presentations at schools in Queensland$3,000auTravcour DX—for distribution of Quarantine Awareness brochures travel agents in Australia$60,000avTravcour DX—for distribution of Quarantine Awareness brochures travel agents in Australia$10,000(4) None.(5) Both (a) TMP Worldwide and (b) National Mailing and Marketing were selected from the Department of Administrative Service's Common Use Contracts Book and therefore did not go to tender.Cox Inall Communications (f) was not selected through a tender process. It was contracted by the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics who felt Cross Country was the most suitable program to provide extensive coverage in rural areas.Lonman Pty Limited (q) was selected on the basis of specialised knowledge and experience and a proven track record with work previously undertaken on behalf of the Department. The contractor is listed among recommended contractors by the Bureau of Resource Sciences.Ambience Consulting (s) was contracted under a cooperative arrangement with the PM&C Forest taskforce.The Centre for Forest Tree Technology (t) was selected because it is the only agency with access to the information and data needed to compile the compendium. The authors contracted under (x) and (y) were selected from participants in a workshop of experts on the subjects based on expertise and availability.Burson-Marstellar (z) was selected due to past performance, availability and fitness for purpose which was why further competition was not sought in the form of a restricted tender.The AC Nielson McNair (ae) contract was the second phase of a long-term program for tracking AQIS client satisfaction levels being conducted over several years. AC Nielson McNair had previously been appointed to conduct phase one. As a result of that company's satisfactory completion of phase one, and because of its established knowledge of the subject and the financial benefits of using the existing systems and data-bases developed for phase one, the company was contracted to also conduct the next phase.Various contracts (ag-at) were let on the basis of the contractor's specific combination of quarantine knowledge and presentation skills, in accordance with the Secretary's instructions concerning procurement of unique suppliers/services. Each contractor had been previously worked as a quarantine officer and, combined with their presentation skills, provided abilities unique within their regional locations. All other contracts were awarded following restricted tender processes.(6) AQIS approached the Office of Government Information and Advertising in relation to the AC Nielsen McNair (af) contract. OGIA was consulted and involved in the selection process.The Department of Primary Industries and Energy's (DPIE) understanding is that there was no requirement for it to consult with OGIA on any other of the above contracts.(7) There were 12 public affairs officers employed by DPIE as at 3 March 1996.(8) There are 14 public affairs officers currently employed by DPIE, two of which are temporary employees on contract.564(Question No. 1048)1048564Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator Faulkner5K4NSWALP00 asked the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs, upon notice, on 19 December 1997:(1) Has a review of Commonwealth Indigenous policy and advisory structures been established; if so, why.(2) (a) What are the terms of reference for the review; and (b) which individuals or agencies provided advice on the terms of reference before their finalisation.(3) (a) Who is conducting the review; (b) under what statutory or contractual basis is the review being conducted; and (c) to whom does the review report.(4) (a) What is the contracted cost for the review; (b) how much has been paid to date; (c) what is the contracted term for undertaking the review; (d) which agency is paying for the review and is this being done under ministerial direction; and (e) which agency is responsible for managing the contract.(5) What consultation have taken place or will take place, while the review is being undertaken, with; (a) indigenous groups or individuals; and (b) Commonwealth departments or agencies.(6) Has the review provided any reports to date; if so; (a) what conclusions did the review come to; and (b) what did the review recommend.(7) Will the complete results of the review be made public; if so, when; if not, why not.564Herron, Sen JohnSenator HerronVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is:(1) There has been no review of overall Commonwealth indigenous policy and advisory structures but there has been a review of existing arrangements for the provision of policy advice and support to the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs(2) (a) A copy of the terms of reference is attached(2) (b) The Office of Indigenous Affairs and ATSIC were consulted about the terms of reference.(3) (a) The review was conducted by Mr Rae Taylor with assistance from Mr Thaddeus Leach(3) (b) and (c) Messrs Taylor and Leach were engaged as consultants by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, to prepare a report for consideration by the Department and me as Minister.(4) (a) The total cost was $43,203(4) (b) $43,203(4) (c) The review was completed on 8 December(4) (d) The review was funded by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet under normal consultancy contract arrangements(4) (e) The Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet(5) A range of current and former officials of ATSIC and of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet were consulted plus myself, my predecessor and the current Chairman of ATSIC(6) The review concluded that current arrangements are unsatisfactory and canvassed a range of possible alternatives which are currently the subject of consideration(7) The complete report will be made publicly available once the Government has completed its consideration of the matter.APPENDIX IREVIEW OF POLICY STATEMENT ARRANGEMENTS FOR THE MINISTER FOR ABORIGINAL TORRES STRAIT ISLANDER AFFAIRSTerms of ReferenceThe review will examine the current arrangements for the provision of policy advice and support to the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs and propose any changes to these arrangements, which would lead to the provision of more effective support to the Minister. In particular, the review will consider:(a) the current roles of ATSIC and the Office of Indigenous Affairs (OIA) in providing policy advice and support;(b) the extent to which existing arrangements provide the Minister with expert, independent and impartial advice; c) possible administrative arrangements for providing such advice and support to the Minister. Arrangements for the Review The review will be undertaken by Mr Rae Taylor with the assistance of a reference group comprising Dr Peter Shergold, Public Service Commissioner; Ms Patricia Turner, Chief Executive Officer of ATSIC; Mr Bill Blick, Executive Co-ordinator, Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet; and Mr Greg Hunting, Chief of Staff, Office of the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs.The reviewer will undertake the review over the course of 4-5 weeks through discussion with the key stakeholders (the Minister's office, ATSIC and PM&C) resulting in the preparation of a report containing key findings and recommendations.The review will provide a report to the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs by 29 November 1997.565565Allison, Sen LynSenator Allison1M6VICAD00 asked the Minister representing the Minster for Schools, Vocational Education and Training, on 1 October 1997 (Hansard page 7332):(1) Is the government aware that in the US and Canada it is estimated that more than 10 percent of students are affected by specific learning disabilities such as dyslexia and dysnomia.(2) Minister, what research has your government undertaken to determine the number of Australian students who have diagnosable learning disabilities and how many children in Australia are affected by attention deficit disorder and other disadvantages which cause learning difficulties.565Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator Vanstone7E4SALPMinister for Justice10—The Minister for Schools, Vocational Education and Training has provided the following information in response to the honourable senator's question:(1) The Government is aware of estimates of numbers of children in Australia with attention deficit disorder, dyslexia and other learning disabilities but does not accept that these students cannot meet minimum standards if appropriate strategies are used to meet the needs of every child.In setting the National Literacy and Numeracy Goal: That every child leaving primary school should be numerate, and able to read, write, and spell at an appropriate level and sub-goal: That every child commencing school from 1998 will achieve a minimum acceptable literacy and numeracy standard within four years , Ministers in the Ministerial Council for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs (MCEETYA) noted that a small percentage of the total school population does not have the cognitive capacity to process linguistic information in print necessary to become literate. For these students, who general attend special schools, it is recognised that the minimum acceptable literacy and numeracy level by Year 3 may not be realistically achievable.(2) According to research conducted by Professor Peter Hill of University of Melbourne, about 2% of the total school population do not have the cognitive capacity to process linguistic information in print necessary to become literate. Generally, these students attend special schools.Of students attending mainstream schools, Professor Hill's research indicates that:. 80% of students can achieve an adequate level of literacy when provided with quality teaching in their first year at school;. 18% require one to one intervention to reach an average literacy by year 3; and. 2% require intensive intervention and an individual learning plan in order to reach a minimum literacy standard by year 3.565565Harradine, Sen BrianSenator Harradine6H4TASIND00 asked the Treasurer on 3 September 1997, (Hansard page 6294), a question without notice:Whether the Government's policy of not compensating for legislative changes will apply to the GST, if it is introduced, thus ruling out any proper compensating reduction in the income tax payable by families.565Kemp, Sen RodSenator KempWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—The Treasurer has provided the following information in answer to the honourable senator's question:There is no inconsistency between the Prime Minister's statement on tax reform and the response from the Treasurer to your earlier question concerning the youth allowance.The Prime Minister has clearly indicated that, for any option for reforming the taxation system, there should be appropriate compensation for those deserving of special consideration.There is no such analogy with decisions that reduce entitlements to benefits (as referred to in your earlier question). As previously indicated by the Treasurer to the honourable Senator's earlier question, 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. 566566Harradine, Sen BrianSenator Harradine6H4TASIND00 asked the Treasurer on 23 September 1997, (Hansard page 6716), a question without notice:Will the consequent outlays, of a family affected by changes to the youth allowance, be regarded as tax rebatable under the taxation system and, if not, why not. Further, the honourable senator asked would he be able to get a response to this prior to discussing this legislation in the chamber.566Kemp, Sen RodSenator KempWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—The Treasurer has provided the following information in answer to the honourable senator's question:There is no inconsistency between the Prime Minister's statement on tax reform and the response from the Treasurer to your earlier question concerning the youth allowance.The Prime Minister has clearly indicated that, for any option for reforming the taxation system, there should be appropriate compensation for those deserving of special consideration.There is no such analogy with decisions that reduce entitlements to benefits (as referred to in your earlier question). As previously indicated by the Treasurer to the honourable Senator's earlier question, 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.