1998-03-093816SENATE56701998-03-09The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid) took the chair at 12.30 p.m. and read prayers.Bills567R346567Consideration resumed from 5 March.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—The committee is considering the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Youth Allowance) Bill 1997 and request No. 11 on sheet 866 moved by Senator Margetts. The question is that the request for an amendment be agreed to.12:31:00567Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I would like to ask the Minister for Social Security (Senator Newman) to clarify what constitutes a breach under the activity test.12:31:00567Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—I think I gave you an answer to this question on Thursday. Did I not provide you with an answer to that? I remember I had a discussion with Senator Neal about the penalty rates for breaches that we did by negotiation in early 1997. The activity test breaches include where a person who is required to satisfy an activity test fails to do so or fails to satisfy any requirements relating to youth allowance activity agreements that apply to the person under subdivision (e) of division 1; where the person has refused or failed without reasonable excuse to accept a suitable offer of employment; where the person refuses or fails without reasonable excuse to provide information in relation to the person's income from remunerative work when required to do so; where the person knowingly or recklessly provides false or misleading information in relation to their income when required to do so. It goes on from there. There is nothing extraordinary about them. They are not what you might be driving at, which I would call administrative breaches.12:33:00567Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—Minister, you mentioned `failed to satisfy any requirements', and that was fairly early in the list. There were some more deliberate points on the list later on, but failing to satisfy any of the requirements could be a technical breach. I know it says the third breach, but notification of a breach might not actually reach the person. How would a person know, for instance, that they had breached once or twice? For instance, if they breached once and they had been notified but their address was not accurate, could it not be possible that they could breach more than once and not know that they had breached?12:34:00567Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—Senator, I do not think you could have been in the chamber when this was all discussed very thoroughly.DX5MARGETTSSenator Margetts—I was in the chamber.BE4Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMAN—Not just last Thursday but also when we were changing the requirements for breaches a year or more ago. You will recall that under the previous government people were breached by losing their payment immediately regardless. We have changed that. We negotiated that with the parties in the Senate last year to a rate reduction for a number of weeks for the first penalty, a bigger rate reduction for the second penalty and only on the third breach do people lose all payment altogether. Have you forgotten that?12:35:00567Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I think it was established during those debates, however, that some of those breaches could have still been technical breaches. Even though a person lost their benefit, there may still be something which was out of the person's control. What I am specifically asking about is whether there is any discretion involved here. If there was no discretion involved in the previous applications of the term penalties or breaches, how can you say that a person will not be treated unfairly? Is there any discretion involved in the definition of breaches? Can a person judge—even if there are three breaches— whether or not a person has been treated fairly?12:35:00568Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—I think Senator Margetts, in talking about technical breaches, is referring to administrative breaches which are regarded as a lesser order, like not returning a form on time, for example. There is no discretion, as I understand it, as to whether something is determined to be an administrative breach, which gets a lesser penalty, and an activity test breach, which has the penalties that I just spelled out to you. It is very important to understand that there are two kinds of breaches: one is less serious and the other group is more serious.The officers do not have an opportunity to distinguish between those two. If it is an administrative breach, one lot of rules apply. If it is an activity test breach, another lot of rules apply. Within that area people who are not satisfied with the decision of the determining officer have the right to ask for a review, which is done by an authorised review officer, an ARO. If that is still not satisfactory, people can then go to the Social Security Appeals Tribunal.12:37:00568Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—The minister is indicating that, without any means of support, a person may be expected to ask for a review. How long would the review take?12:37:00568Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—Mr Chairman, I think it must be made very clear to Senator Margetts that, as compared with the past, people are not now—with unemployment payments, for example—being left with no means support, unless it is the third time they have broken the law.12:38:00568Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I really do not feel that the minister's answer has been satisfactory. If there is no ability for discretion, you will find—and I know the courts in Western Australia who have `three strikes and you are out' legislation find it extremely difficult when an arbitrary number is pulled out of the air with it being said, `Okay, if you've done something three times, you must be punished in a certain way,' and this is punitive—there will always, always be circumstances where, no matter how many times you arbitrarily decide, there will be people for whom no one of those breaches is their fault; that there are reasons why they were unable to avoid those things.There are reasons sometimes of poverty, there are reasons of family tragedy. There are a whole range of reasons, of circumstances, where pulling out an arbitrary number of three times will be unfair if there are no discretions. And, if there are no discretions, what is the basis upon which a person might appeal?12:39:00568Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—There is discretion and in the sorts of circumstances you are talking about—like family tragedy, illness, et cetera—the officers are entitled to use that discretion. Senator, you were part of this chamber that put that measure through last year as a non-controversial piece of legislation.12:39:00568Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I am actually referring to the part in this bill in relation to the activity test breach; I asked you a little while ago, `Was it discretionary?' and you said no. That is what I am referring to.BE4NEWMANSenator Newman—As between the two kinds of breaches.DX5Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTS—The minister is saying that there is a different sort of breach, but in this instance, the minister is saying that it is not discretionary. I am asking: on what basis, for a non-discretionary clause to be in this bill, would a person be able to appeal?12:40:00568Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—Mr Chairman, I do not think Senator Margetts listened carefully to the answer. There are activity breaches which are the more serious ones and carry a more serious penalty, and there are administrative breaches which are considered to be less serious and carry a less serious penalty. So it is determined by law which is which.DX5MARGETTSSenator Margetts—You are writing the law.BE4Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMAN—However, Senator—if you would listen instead of jumping to conclusions—within each of those two areas of breaches, the departmental officials are able to exercise their discretion. There is also, as I pointed out to you, an extensive review mechanism. I think that the Senate regarded that as fair. You are saying to me that we are talking about this legislation. Yes, we are. But it is mirroring the legislation that the Senate signed on to last year as a piece of non-controversial legislation. So I find it strange that you are revisiting an issue that the Senate has already passed judgment on.12:40:00569Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I think Senator Newman may be stepping on very dangerous ground if she starts talking about non-controversial legislation, when I am basically abused nearly every time the Greens have problems with a piece of so-called non-controversial legislation which often we have not had much chance to look at.So, if at any time we pass something through and are asked sometimes to have about two or three days to look at a piece of legislation, if then you are going to come back and say, `You agreed to it because we passed it through quickly in a lunchtime,' then I would suggest that you do not try to do that; you will not get any more pieces of legislation through at lunchtime. If we do not get a chance to look carefully at legislation, then it is quite reasonable for the Greens to say, `No, we're not going to do them in lunchtimes.' If you are then going to turn around to us and say, `We gave you a lunchtime to look at it,' or `We gave you this amount of time; we pleaded with you because we want it in a non-controversial Thursday,' I think you are stepping on very dangerous ground.12:41:00569Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—I think Senator Margetts cannot have taken any notice or any interest in the issue when it came before the Senate last time. It came about that that legislation was changed because, in the debate in December 1996, Senator Harradine suggested that he could see that all the parties around the chamber were trying to grasp at a solution which would be fairer than the system we inherited, which took people off payments altogether regardless of their offence. We were agreeable to that. So we did as was suggested by Senator Harradine. We went around to the parties with some proposals, and we negotiated the final outcome of that piece of non-controversial legislation which was passed by the Senate with due process.Now, suddenly, you are just discovering it. I am sorry about that. But what we have in this legislation is a mirror image of what the Senate thoughtfully decided upon previously.12:42:00569Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—If Senator Newman is suggesting that the Greens (WA) agreeing to an improvement on something that was bad means that we still agree with the bad points or unfair points of the legislation, that is not true. If you want to continue on with this kind of nonsense argument, Senator, please do. But please do not assume that, when we vote for an improvement on something that is ghastly, that means we believe that the ghastly thing is okay.12:43:00569Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—The Democrats will be supporting the Greens (WA) amendment in relation to the substitution of two weeks instead of eight weeks. Although I take on board the senator's comments about previous legislative changes in relation to the breach period, we do note that when the government first came to power the penalty for the breach of the activity test was two to six weeks for a first breach, and then subsequent breaches attracted a penalty of the period of the first breach plus an additional six weeks. So we prefer the amendment as put forward by the Greens WA.12:44:00569Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEALB36NSWALP00—I do want to make a few comments about this amendment and also about a view expressed by the minister when we were here on Thursday afternoon. There was some discussion when the breaches of the activity test were first put in place. But I thought it was going a little bit far to say that there was an `agreement', as if it were an initiative jointly of the government and the opposition.It would be more accurate to say that the government proposed penalties for breaches of the activity test we found quite unacceptable. I suppose we were happy that the government was agreeable to negotiating a penalty that was less severe. To some extent we negotiated down the initial penalty. I suppose it can be described as agreement, but probably not to the full extent that might have been drawn from what the minister said. Certainly, the ultimate result was brought about by negotiation between the opposition, the government and other members.Bearing that in mind, the opposition does not intend to support this amendment. We do see it as obviously a balance between ensuring that the penalties are not so severe that people find their circumstances quite untenable, and ensuring that people accept that they do have a responsibility to comply with the requirements for the payment of their benefits or their benefits will be suspended for a period.We believed at the time of the negotiation that this was a reasonable balance. Nothing has occurred that has altered our minds on this and accordingly we will not be supporting these changes.12:46:00570Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—Can I ask the minister a simple question, and forgive me if it is too simple? My understanding is that under this bill people could void the non-payment period by taking up work under the work for the dole program. Would those people presumably be included in the voluntary work for the dole participants?BE4NEWMANSenator Newman—I am advised that for young people who go into the work for the dole scheme, whether it is voluntary or whether it is because they are directed to, if they have a breach penalty outstanding, that is waived.3I6Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA—I am just assuming that those people, by virtue of volunteering to void the non-payment period, would be included in the voluntary numbers. Presumably, if they volunteer to get involved for whatever reason, including voiding that non-payment period, they would be included in the voluntary work for the dole.BE4NEWMANSenator Newman—I am advised that that is that DEETYA classification and we are really not in a position to be able to give you a precise answer. I have given you the best answer that I can at this stage.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—The question is that the request for an amendment be agreed to.Request not agreed to.12:48:00570Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I move:(10) Schedule 1, item 6, page 52 (after line 29), after subsection 550C(1), insert:(1A) A notice under subsection (1) must contain reasons why the activity test non-payment period applies to the person.This amendment requires the secretary to provide reasons why the person is about to be cut off the youth allowance. The minister mentioned that it is possible for people to appeal and how awfully fair and reasonable it all is. So it is not the least bit unreasonable to suggest that, if a person is about to be cut off their youth allowance, they should be given the reasons why.12:48:00570Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—The government will accept Senator Margetts' amendment.Amendment agreed to.12:49:00570Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—by leave—I move:That the House of Representatives be requested to make the following amendments:(12) Schedule 1, item 6, page 65 (lines 25 and 26), omit "one or more of sections 553A to 553C", substitute "either or both of sections 553B and 553C".(13) Schedule 1, item 6, page 66 (line 1) to page 67 (line 4), omit section 553A.This amendment refers to clause 553A, subsection (2) of the bill on page 66, which states:If:(a) a person's unemployment was due to other people being, or having been, engaged in industrial act or in a series of industrial actions; and (b) the people, or some of the people, were members of a trade union that was involved in the industrial action;the person is subject to an employment-related exclusion unless the person satisfies the Secretary that the person was not a member of the trade union during the person's period of the unemployment.I find that a fairly discriminatory clause. Basically, it says that, if there has been industrial action which has caused a person to lose their job or to be unemployed, they are going to be punished. Not only have they been disadvantaged from losing their job or because they felt it necessary to take industrial action—so there must be have been some problem to start with—but they are going to be punished for being involved with a union or being a member of a union. There is the word `and' in here. It states:. . . the people, or some of the people, were members of a trade union that was involved in the industrial action;. . .The minister will no doubt say that there are other bills to which this applies. We think this stinks, whichever bill you put it in.12:50:00571Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—This is mirroring an existing provision which has been presided over by the last Labor government for the last 13 years. The presence of the trade union reference is not new to us. Our legislation is simply replicating the provisions in the newstart allowance legislation, with some minor changes due to the different qualification conditions.Also it is not believed that it will affect significant numbers of people as most people will return to work after industrial action. The point about the preclusion period which I think is important to understand is that it applies only to industrial action which is in breach of an order, direction or injunction issued by a state industrial authority, the Australian Industrial Relations Commission or the Federal Court. So, it is only if the industrial action is in breach of that that this period applies.Before the six-week preclusion period was introduced difficulties used to arise in determining the exact reasons for a person's unemployment while the issues surrounding the industrial action remained unresolved. Now the preclusion period allows resolution of issues. This is simply a transfer of the provisions in the newstart allowance legislation that we inherited into youth allowance. There is nothing particularly sinister because the words `trade union' are in the amendment.12:52:00571Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—The minister has not been quite fulsome in her response in as much as things have been changed. Yes, this connection with newstart did exist under the previous government, but the minister has forgotten to remind the chamber that there have been many changes in the industrial relations law since then. There are very few areas which are considered to be legal industrial action any more, and more and more the industrial courts are restricted in enabling people to take industrial action. So things have changed. It is totally inappropriate to continue to put this kind of clause in any bill.I would like to think the Labor Party will also consider that membership of a union in relation to youth allowance would not be the means by which people are discriminated and singled out, because so many things have changed. We all know how very few issues this government thinks can be acceptable for industrial action. During that debate we had issues like workers' health and safety which was so limited as to make workplaces dangerous. We know that people could not include meal breaks as allowable matters in their awards.So many things have changed not only as a result of the federal legislation but also as a result of enabling state legislation that have made things even more restrictive. In Western Australia they are talking about fourth and fifth wave industrial legislation to make it harder and harder for people in the workplace to organise and for people to be engaged in anything that might in any way, shape or form be considered a legal strike or industrial action. The minister was not quite accurate when she said that this provision is the same as it has been before because the whole nature of industrial relations has changed since we dealt with this provision previously. I would say that, at the very least, it is now totally inappropriate.12:55:00572Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—The Democrats will support this amendment because of a number of concerns we have with the clause. I acknowledge the minister's comments in relation to similar provisions—as did Senator Dee Margetts—but I share the same concerns that Senator Margetts has just outlined. While there may be provisions similar to clause 553A that have already been enacted—and I think an example is section 596 of the Social Security Act—I am very concerned, as are my Democrat colleagues, that this sort of provision is inconsistent both with a number of existing laws and with our understanding of internationally recognised labour laws and labour rights.The clear imputation of proposed section 553A is that if you are unemployed because you are involved in industrial action, then you bear the onus of proof of satisfying the department that you were not a member of the trade union. I am curious as to whether this is your reading too, Senator Margetts, but I believe this is inconsistent with the Workplace Relations Act which specifically protects the right to take industrial action in some circumstances. It is arguably inconsistent with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which says that everyone has the right to freedom of association with others and that that right should not be restricted. I think this provision, along with a number of others, is a particularly sinister provision and it is one we should reject in this bill. Therefore, we will be supporting the amendment before us.12:57:00572Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—I have just sought to obtain a copy of the act. Would the minister detail whether or not the current provision that is proposed in clause 553A differs in any way from the provisions currently in the legislation for newstart allowance; and, if so, in what manner does it differ? 12:57:00572Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—I have just been advised that there are some slight word ing differences but that the effect is exactly the same. Perhaps I should also add that with the preclusion period changes to newstart a year ago—we are talking about the comparability of that legislation here—the government agreed to incorporate the Democrat amendments restricting the application of the preclusion period to the above circumstances only. Those circumstances are the ones I read out earlier that were inserted by the Democrats amendments with the acceptance of the government.Nothing that we are doing here is different in effect from what happens now to newstart allowance. It is most undesirable, as Senator Bartlett has said a few times in this debate, that there be great variation between the way that various payments are administered. If you are going to worry, as I would, about mistakes being made by staff, about uncertainties and confusion as to people's entitlements or as to how they will be treated, then you do not try to vary these basic requirements if you can possibly help it. I cannot think of any justifiable reason why you would have different requirements for the newstart allowance from those for the youth allowance for the same activity.12:59:00572Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—The minister is somewhat inconsistent here. She is quite happy to treat young people differently when it comes to saving money for the government and has done so with this particular measure and series of measures. The minister cannot be serious about being consistent, because she is prepared to single out a group of people and say, `No, you can't get unemployment benefits and you can't get case studies if we decide that you are of the wrong age or wrong category.' When it is convenient, the minister is quite capable of singling out a group of people and disadvantaging them.Minister, is it not young people who are less likely to be able to make agreements or negotiate by themselves? Are we not picking out young people and saying, `We don't want you to be part of a union; this is one of those cases where we are going to disadvantage young people for being part of a union'? I am very keen to find out what the Labor Party's response to this is, considering that they, more than anyone else, should be aware of what kinds of changes have occurred between the time of the legislation that they were involved with and now, considering the change in the industrial climate in Australia. I ask whether the Labor Party is going to respond.13:01:00573Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEALB36NSWALP00—Essentially, the waiting period requirement was introduced by the then Labor government. This bill seems to take bits and pieces out of the waiting period on a fairly ad hoc basis. It is really not going to assist people who are trying to access the benefits. Obviously, a great deal of uncertainty and confusion about the issue is of no particular assistance. The opposition thinks that retaining some certainty and clarity in the way the waiting period operates is the most important factor.13:01:00573Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I find it extraordinary that we are singling out and penalising a group of people for being members of a union. We are talking about subclause 553A(2) of the bill. We are saying that unemployment due to industrial action means that a person has to wait longer to get any benefit. So we are not talking about the normal waiting period. That is why I want to know whether the Labor Party still thinks this is acceptable, considering the changes that have occurred in the industrial climate in Australia that mean there are so few areas considered by this government, under legislation, to be valid industrial action. Basically, this is not the normal waiting period; this is a penalty for people for being members of a union which has taken industrial action.13:02:00573Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEALB36NSWALP00—As to that view which has been put by Senator Margetts, I would be grateful if the minister would clarify whether the waiting period for unemployed individuals who were involved in industrial action is consistent with that for those who are not working for a genuine reason.13:03:00573Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—The consistency is that the existing legislation for newstart allowance has a preclusion period for people who are engaged in unlawful industrial disputes. I read out that, where there has been a breach of an order, direction or injunction issued by a state industrial authority, the Industrial Relations Commission or the Federal Court of Australia, the customer will be subject to an employment related preclusion period for youth allowance for a period of six weeks from the date the industrial action ceases. They are slightly different words, but I am advised that it has exactly the same effect as that for the newstart allowance, which was amended with some amendments from the Democrats to that effect last year. It was a continuation of giving industrial action special treatment in the previous legislation, but it has been ameliorated somewhat.13:04:00573Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEALB36NSWALP00—I am trying to discover whether someone who is involved in industrial action—BE4NEWMANSenator Newman—Unlawful.B36Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEAL—unlawful industrial action has a longer waiting period than someone who is just unemployed.13:04:00573Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—It is a bit difficult to answer because there are all sorts of waiting periods for different purposes depending on people's financial circumstances. Some waiting periods would be longer and some would be much shorter. It is about in the middle.13:05:00573Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—To put some perspective on this, I remind the Senate that during the industrial relations debate the Greens (WA) pointed out that if, for instance, there was a dangerous situation at a workplace and those people in the workplace, other than the person who is specifically put in the dangerous situation, took industrial action in support of the person who is in that dangerous situation, under this government that would be considered unlawful industrial action.There is a whole range of what I believe to be unfair circumstances which are now considered to be unlawful industrial actions. They could be trying to save the lives, or the future lives and health, of your fellow workers. The government's industrial relations legislation says that only the person or persons being put in that position of danger can take lawful industrial action. They could be told to move on and put someone else in until someone is found who does not have the courage to stand up for themselves. Basically, we are talking about a whole range of issues which did not exist before—including trying to save the lives of your fellow workers.13:06:00574Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEALB36NSWALP00—Minister, I was not completely clear on the answer you gave before. You said that the waiting period varies depending on the person's financial circumstances—which I accept—but in the case of two people who are in identical financial situations, in terms of their liquid assets and other things, and one person is unemployed because they have been dismissed and another person is unemployed because of what is called unlawful industrial action, is the waiting period different?13:07:00574Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I am just double-checking with the minister. Subclause 4 talks about industrial action in breach of order, direction or injunction, but subclauses 1, 2 and 3 actually relate to being engaged in industrial action, other people engaged in industrial action and length of employment related exclusion. Only clause 4 relates to unlawful industrial action. In fact, clauses 1, 2 and 3 relate to any kind of industrial action. If a person loses their job as a result of any kind of industrial action—that is the clause we are talking about, clause 2—then, Minister, you could be misleading the Senate if you are relating only to unlawful industrial action, couldn't you?13:07:00574Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—Mr Chairman, can I just help again here? If you are involved in industrial action which is not unlawful you obviously do not get unemployment benefits while you are engaged in industrial action but you go back onto payments as soon as that action ends. If you are engaged in industrial action which is unlawful on the basis of those specific decisions that I referred to earlier from the Industrial Relations Commission, the Federal Court, a state industrial authority, et cetera, then you must wait six weeks. However, if you have any outstanding waiting periods which you are liable for—and maybe you were trying to ask me this, Senator—you serve them concurrently. You wait six weeks if you have been engaged in unlawful industrial action, but you serve that six weeks concurrently with anything else that you might be liable for.13:08:00574Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—There is a situation here where a person is unemployed—not a person being on strike, we are talking about a person's unemployment. Those are the words of the bill. It relates to when a person's unemployment—that is, losing their job—is due to other people being, or having been, engaged in industrial action. So we have established now that we are not necessarily talking about illegal industrial action. We are in clause 4, but clauses 1, 2 and 3 are talking about any kind of industrial action.We are talking about a person who has lost their job as a result, some way or another, of industrial action. In fact, what you are saying, but need to clarify, is that if a person has lost their job for one reason or another as a result of industrial action—lawful or unlawful—they will still be subject to this penalty clause.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Ferguson)—The question is—DX5MARGETTSSenator Margetts—If the minister is going to answer that question, I would prefer it being in Hansard rather than from the chair.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—It is not a matter of answering the question, Senator Margetts. I only call people who are standing and the minister was not standing. That is why I put the question.DX5MARGETTSSenator Margetts—That is what I am suggesting would be reasonable. As the minister has made specific statements before, it is not unreasonable for her to put her response in Hansard rather than from her seat.574Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—Senator Margetts, I hesitated to get up and take the time of the Senate again because I just told you specifically: if somebody is engaged in industrial action which is not deemed unlawful, they are eligible for unemployment payments as soon as the industrial action ends.13:10:00575Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I will just refer the minister to page 65 of the bill under `Employment-related exclusions'. It states:For the purpose of this Division, a person (other than a person who is undertaking full-time study) is subject to an employment-related exclusion while one or more of sections 553A to 553C apply to the person.How can you say what you have just been saying?13:08:00575Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—There is no inconsistency at all, Senator. Question put: That the requests for amendments (Senator Margetts's ) be agreed to.13:15:00The committee divided. (The Chairman—Senator S. M. West)9Allison, L. Bartlett, A. J. J.Bourne, V. *Brown, B.Lees, M. H. Margetts, D.Murray, A. Stott Despoja, N.Woodley, J.45Abetz, E. Bishop, M.Boswell, R. L. D. Brownhill, D. G. C.Campbell, G. Carr, K.Chapman, H. G. P. Collins, J. M. A.Conroy, S. *Coonan, H.Cooney, B. Denman, K. J.Eggleston, A. Ferguson, A. B.Gibbs, B. Gibson, B. F.Heffernan, W. Hogg, J.Kemp, R. Knowles, S. C.Lightfoot, P. R. Lundy, K.Macdonald, I. MacGibbon, D. J.Mackay, S. McGauran, J. J. J.McKiernan, J. P. Murphy, S. M.Neal, B. J. Newman, J. M.O'Brien, K. W. K. O'Chee, W. G.Parer, W. R. Patterson, K. C. L.Payne, M. A.Quirke, J. A.Reid, M. E. Reynolds, M.Schacht, C. C. Sherry, N.Synon, K. M. Tambling, G. E. J.Tierney, J. Watson, J. O. W.West, S. M.Question so resolved in the negative.13:18:00575Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—by leave—I move:Schedule 1, item 6, page 97 (lines 21 to 23), omit subsection (4).Schedule 1, item 6, page 99 (lines 22 to 24), omit subsection (3).Amendments 17 and 18 are looking at unfair ways for the department to get away with not notifying a person properly when the penalties for breach can be very severe, including, if the government were to get its way, imprisonment. I really do think that it is not unreasonable to suggest that a person has the right to be notified if severe penalties apply.13:19:00575Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEALB36NSWALP00—The opposition has moved a number of amendments relating to the methodologies for notification. That has been adopted by this chamber. Essentially, we will be opposing these amendments put forward by the Greens. Our approach is entirely different. It really would cause a completely contrary position to have this and our notification provisions.13:20:00575Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I am grateful to the government for sending around some indication of what they will be doing, and why, in relation to these amendments. It will be good to have them on the record. The government's reply, as the minister has not jumped, is that the effect of this amendment would be to render unenforceable a notice to a customer merely because it failed to state that it was a recipient notice or how the customer was to comply with the notice.The government are admitting in their response that they do not feel that it is necessary to say to the customer—that is, the insect wriggling around on the end of their pin—in this new privatised world that it was a recipient notice. So the person does not necessarily know what it is they have not complied with or how the customer—that is, the unemployed person—needs to comply. So it might be a bit difficult to blame a person for not complying if the government is saying they do not need to tell a person what they need to do to comply.13:21:00576Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEALB36NSWALP00—I take no responsibility for what the government is stating in its response on paper. The amendments moved by the opposition—and already adopted by this chamber—clearly state that notification must be in writing and that it must state the consequences of failure to comply. We do have a fair and reasonable system of notification in place already. Whatever the government's position is with respect to these particular amendments, I do not think that affects that.13:22:00576Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I would like to point out to Senator Neal that I was actually reading the government's own words. I am just saying that they say that the effect of this amendment would render unenforceable a notice to a customer merely because it failed to state that it was a recipient notice or how the customer was to comply with the notice.The translation of that is that they believe it is acceptable to not notify a person that it is a recipient notice, so the person will not know necessarily whether they have had a recipient notice, or they are saying that it is okay to not tell the client—the unemployed person; let us call a spade a spade—how they are required to comply with the notice. They are the government's own words. There is nothing much I can do about the fact that that is the basis upon which the government is not agreeing to our amendments.Amendments not agreed to.13:23:00576Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—by leave—I move:(23) Schedule 1, item 6, page 98 (lines 16 to 23), omit the penalty and the note, substitute: Penalty: 30 penalty units.(25) Schedule 1, item 6, page 100 (lines 10 to 17), omit the penalty and the note, substitute:Penalty: 30 penalty units.I believe that Australian Democrat amendments 23 and 25 are the same as the Greens (WA) amendments. The purpose behind these amendments is to remove the penalty that has been designated in the bill of six months imprisonment. We seek to replace the imprisonment as a penalty with a number of penalty units in relation to the refusal or failure to comply with notice.I have a number of questions for the minister about this section. In particular, I am worried and curious about an understanding I have. Am I correct in my understanding that this particular penalty would apply not only to the young person in receipt of the youth allowance but also to the parent or the guardian if they are being paid the allowance? I will follow up some of those points, but a major concern, in relation to whether or not they notify the department, is that the penalty might apply not only to the young person but also possibly to the parent or the guardian of that young person who is receiving the youth allowance.I know this has been canvassed many times in social security debates but I am wondering how many young people or people in receipt of benefits—there will always be a minority, presumably—will have some kind of event, whether it is major or minor, occur in their lives. Maybe it is not always the first thing that occurs to them that, yes, they must notify the department within a particular period. Of course it is within their legal rights to make that information known and to notify the department but, if they do not, are they criminals, and should they be subject to some kind of imprisonment? That is the fundamental objection that the Democrats have to this particular part of the bill. By all means, have a penalty—we have, on advice, put forward a penalty of 30 penalty units—but imprisonment? I look forward to hearing the minister's elaboration.I have noticed while just looking over Senator Margetts's shoulder that there have been some arguments proffered by the government for a number of their objections on amendments. I have not actually seen that—I am not quite sure why. Perhaps that has gone to my office and I have not had an opportunity to read it. I do not really think that designating these young people, or in some cases their parent or guardian, as crimi nals by enforcing up to six months imprisonment upon them is an appropriate punitive action. A penalty unit under the Crimes Act is the equivalent of, I understand, $110. It is probably worth noting that under Corporations Law I believe the penalty is $100, but it would not surprise me that there would be a differentiation in the way we treat people who are on benefits of some kind as opposed to people at the big end of town.First of all, I ask the minister whether this penalty for failure to comply applies not only to young people in receipt of the allowance but to their guardians and parents as well.13:26:00577Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—It applies to only the young person.13:27:00577Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—In some ways perhaps we could call these kinds of amendments the former Senator Christabel Chamarette amendments because, as people would be aware, in debates on every social security bill former Senator Chamarette used to stand up and make it very clear that these kinds of imprisonment penalties were very inappropriate for so-called non-punitive bills. I keep reminding the minister of this, and that you are already dealing with many people who are struggling to survive. Of course, the deaths in custody reports consistently say that these kinds of penalties are inappropriate for what might in effect be breaches due to poverty. So I go along with the changes. They were in the Greens (WA) amendments as well, and we will be seeking support from this place for those.13:27:00577Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEALB36NSWALP00—It would be appreciated if the minister could clarify that question about failure to comply with notices by parents. It seems to be logical to me that, if under this bill a person's eligibility for this payment is dependent upon their parents' income, at some stage the parents must be required to notify the Department of Social Security about their income. Is there no such requirement? If there is not, how does the department assess that young person's eligibility based on their parents' income?13:28:00577Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—Firstly, the legislation in terms of the imprisonment penalty is the same as for all other social security legislation. There is nothing new or novel or strange about it; and it is rarely, if ever, used. Secondly, the requirement in all these cases of notification, et cetera, is imposed upon the young person and it is they who must satisfy the legislation or bear the penalty.13:29:00577Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEALB36NSWALP00—That is exactly my concern. I think we have previously had the debate we are having on this bill—that is, all other social security payments have always been dependent on the income of the individual claiming the benefit. This is quite unusual and extraordinary in that it is dependent upon the income of someone else. It seems obvious to me that they are much more difficult circumstances and there must be some requirement to ensure that parents give advice as to what their income is.13:30:00577Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—The requirement here is, as I said, on the young person. However, there are powers within the social security legislation where information is required, not specifically relevant to youth allowance, where other persons can be compelled to give information to the department about matters of income. In those cases, then the penalty would apply to the person required to provide the information. But that is not something that is new and novel to social security by virtue of the youth allowance; it is something which is already provided for in the act for any such requirement from the department.13:30:00577Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—I just want to clarify that point. If another person in a position of responsibility, such as a parent or a guardian, fails to comply, they face the penalty. So, if there were a situation where a parent fails to provide notification in relation to their son or daughter who is in receipt of the youth allowance, they are the ones who would attract that particular penalty—in this case, imprisonment.13:31:00577Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—The depart ment does have means of collecting this information, as you would no doubt be aware. The situation is that, if that adult does not provide the information that is required, they are liable, as I am informed, to a harsher penalty than we are talking about here for the young person. But, once again, that is not specifically related just to youth allowance; that is a general provision in the existing legislation.13:32:00578Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—Minister, you will have to clarify `harsher' penalty for me, because I am still at a loss to understand what is a harsher penalty than a term of imprisonment.13:32:00578Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—While the minister is doing that, perhaps she could clarify what she meant by the word `adult'. Did she mean `parent' or `adult', because we might be dealing with the parent of an adult, but this government is treating them as a child?13:32:00578Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—I refer the Senate to section 1304, if they wish to look for the section that I am describing. I am told that the penalty is somewhat harsher in that it is up to 12 months imprisonment or a comparable non-imprisonment penalty.13:32:00578Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEALB36NSWALP00—I do not know whether your answer really clarified things for me. I will give you an example. It might make it clearer. A person who is not an adult under the definition of this act is means tested on their parents' income.BE4NEWMANSenator Newman—Not financially independent.B36Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEAL—That is right. I assume they are required to notify if their parents' income increases to an extent which would affect their eligibility. If they fail to notify this, are they subject to this penalty?13:33:00578Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—The answer, as I am advised, is that they would have to be in a position of knowingly not declaring a change in their parental income.13:34:00578Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEALB36NSWALP00—So this is not a strict liability offence? You do have to show intent?13:34:00578Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—People can be dealt with under the criminal law in this area, as you understand. So they would have to show intent, yes.13:34:00578Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—I have seen the memorandum that has been circulated by the minister to various senators. I acknowledge the departmental officers' rationale for not supporting the substitution of penalty units. Does the minister really believe that, if you do not refer to a term of imprisonment and you put `penalty units' instead, `this would make the situation less clear for customers as they would not know what the maximum penalty for an offence was without reference to the Crimes Act or some other secondary source'? Is it not sufficient to explicitly state a penalty that is not in a form of imprisonment? I cannot see how any less clear the penalty or punitive aspect could be if you stated `penalty units'; if you stated what a penalty unit equals—if you made it clear that 30 times, I believe, 110 is a big fat penalty. Is that really murky and unclear? Is it really necessary that there is a reference to imprisonment?13:35:00578Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—I simply emphasise again that that has long been a provision under the act—that breaches can be designated by the imprisonment terms that may come about by way of penalty. We believe our proposal is clearer to customers and it is consistent with other payments to leave that imprisonment penalty in the legislation. We certainly do not want to have the calculation of different penalties undertaken by 20,000 staff. You can imagine the difficulties that you would get with inconsistency and the concerns that Welfare Rights, for example, might have when people are not being treated consistently. It is very important in this area that there be certainty and consistency of treatment across payments. I think that is what we are doing with this and it is no more onerous than any other provisions in this area in the act.13:36:00579Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—How is an unemployed person a customer in this regard?13:37:00579Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEALB36NSWALP00—I will not seek to answer that question; I will leave that for the minister. I will just go back to the question I asked the minister previously about whether there was any requirement of intent. The section that I understand is being altered by this amendment says:A person must not, without reasonable excuse, intentionally or recklessly refuse or fail to comply . . . If someone is recklessly doing something, that does not, to me, seem to amount to someone intentionally not complying. It would seem to me to include a situation where a person was negligent. I have a concern that if someone negligently fails to do something they can be punished by imprisonment. I think that is a very different situation to someone who intentionally does not do something.13:38:00579Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—I am advised that the answer to the senator's question is that it is criminal recklessness and not civil recklessness.Amendments not agreed to.13:38:00579Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—I seek leave to move amendments 5 and 13 together, but I do have a further suggestion which I presume requires me seeking leave also. I would also like to seek leave not only to move Democrat amendments 6 and 7 on sheet 857 together but to actually deal with them first. I am happy to take the guidance of the chamber, but I think it makes more sense to deal with amendments 6 and 7 first before moving on to amendments 5 and 13. So I seek leave to move amendments 6 and 7 together, before amendments 5 and 13.Leave granted.3I6Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA—I move:That the House of Representatives be requested to make the following amendments: (6) Schedule 2, item 8, page 127 (line 15), omit paragraph (a).(7) Schedule 2, item 8, page 124 (lines 25 and 26), omit subsection (4), substitute:Person aged 18 years or more(4) A person is independent if the person is at least 18 years old.These amendments relate to how we define independence for students as well as young unemployed people and, in one case, the independent criteria and age for those who are disadvantaged. I understand there are a number of similar amendments. Indeed, the amendments proposed by Senator Margetts on behalf of the Greens (WA) seek to achieve the same purpose—that is, to define the age of independence for a full-time student at 18, similarly with young unemployed.We have had a number of speeches in this chamber during the second reading debate on some of these aged base criteria. The Democrats have put on record a number of times that we believe the government's concocted ages of independence are inconsistent, irrational and a sham. That is why we seek not only to get some degree of consistency in terms of the age at which young people and students are considered independent, but also to call on the opposition to commit to their previous record, which was reducing the age at which a student was considered independent from 25 to 22. So I look forward to hearing Senator Neal's comments in relation to the age of independence for a student as well as that for young unemployed.I do acknowledge some of the debates that took place in this chamber last week, in particular the very compelling arguments from Senator Harradine. I note that he put on record his concern at the pressure that the proposed bill would put on Australian families, that perhaps lower and middle income earners would be hit harder because they would be expected to look after their children not only in an emotional sense but also in a financial sense until these children were young adults—up to 21 in cases to do with young unemployed and up to the age of 25 with respect to students. The Democrats have made clear our objections to that, but it was good to hear Senator Harradine's concern with not only the impact that that would have on families—negative or otherwise—but also the stress and inconsistencies it would have on our taxation system.On Thursday I learnt that perhaps some changes had been discussed between the government and the Independent senator. I am just wondering, given that I am moving these amendments now, what assurances or deals or otherwise the government has made with Senator Harradine that will alleviate the financial and other impacts of this legislation on families. Perhaps it is not appropriate for me and others to go ahead with our amendments because the changes that were debated last week between the government and Senator Harradine are so good for families and so good for young people that we do not need to alleviate some of the harshest aspects of this legislation.First of all, I would like the minister to explain: what assurances has the government given Senator Harradine? What changes will be made—specifically, explicitly—to the taxation system to make sure that families do not feel the increased burden of this legislation? Perhaps that might convince us that we do not need to reduce the age of independence. Of course, we would not actually do that. We are dead keen to go ahead with the notion that we recognise in law and tax and otherwise that young people are adults at at least the age of 18 and that this legislation—the Commonwealth youth allowance legislation and other social security legislation—should reflect that fact.In the same way that it benefits the government under other legislative frameworks—be it to do with child support and maintenance or whether it is to do with the family tax initiative—it suits the government to define young people as adults at 18, or at 16 in the case of the latter, so why not with the common youth allowance? Why is it that there is this huge gap between 18 in some cases and 25 under this legislation? Why is the government going ahead with this ridiculous notion that for a full-time student to meet the independent criteria they have to be 25 years of age?I am looking forward to the government outlining how this will not impact harshly on families and the specifics of the deal or otherwise that has been done with the Independent senator in this place that is designed, allegedly, to alleviate some of that burden and to change our taxation system. I am looking forward to being enlightened now as to how this legislation and its framework will be changing as a consequence of the government's deal last week.13:44:00580Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I have some questions to add to that for the minister to look at at the same time. In addition to what Senator Stott Despoja was saying in relation to the proposed tax changes, how will it help a family which is already disadvantaged and not paying tax if they get a tax advantage, considering they may be paying little or no tax to start with? So, how could you, in a tax system, alleviate the disadvantages that these changes are bringing about?The Greens (WA) amendment is identical to the one moved by the Democrats under Senator Stott Despoja so we will be supporting this. It reduces the age of independence to 18 for both students and unemployed. This makes sense. It makes sense for young people to be considered as independent while they are developing their independence, not after it. The current definitions of `dependent' and `independent' are confusing to understand. The minister has, just this very morning, spoken on the mantra of consistency. On a number of occasions the minister has said how we confuse social security offices if we are inconsistent. Here is the government's chance. In relation to the age of independence, there is no consistency at all between government departments let alone with the norms of society.In their submission to the Price Report, the Sydney University Students Representative Council stated clearly the contradictions of the current system. They said:The government continues to force citizens, who in every other respect (voting, health, insurance, licenses, alcohol etc) are seen as full citizens, to be relegated to the status of "dependent" if they happen to choose tertiary education. Our case work overwhelmingly shows that the majority of students are financially self-supporting from age 18 even if they live in the family home. Given that a person on attaining the age of 18 is considered to be an independent adult for the purposes of all other laws, it is illogical that students be considered financially dependent on their parents. For instance, you can put them into prisons with adults, can you not, Minister? It is illogical that students be considered financially dependent on their parents. The age of 18 is also the time that people become responsible for their own debts, including HECS debts and the Austudy supplement.So the government and the ALP are saying that it is okay to create a debt to the government independent of your parents, but not acceptable to receive assistance from the government independent of your parents. This is double standards of the worse kind. We understand that the idea of reducing the age of independence to 18 may be a pretty radical idea to some in the chamber. It is the position of students and welfare groups, those having to deal with the consequences of government policy, not those who sit in their ivory towers and create policy.But I do make an appeal to the ALP as the potential government to seriously consider supporting the call from young people and the young parties to support this entirely sensible and consistent amendment. Up until 1996 it was the ALP's stated position that the age of independence be set at 21—with many ALP politicians stating in education forums that 18 was the desired figure in the long term. However, the ALP's policy position seems to have been omitted from their amendments. While we strongly argue for the age of independence to be 18, we ask the ALP, at the very least, to stick to their policy in government; that is, for the age of independence to be 21 for now with a view to lowering it to 18 in a progressive fashion. We will get to those other amendments later. At that stage I will talk about various past inquiries and studies into the age of independence, with a view to gaining some understanding of contemporary opinion on the matter. So when we get to the next amendment I will go further into that. If members of the ALP are going to stand up in public fora amongst young people who count and who vote from the age of 18, then put your money and your vote where you mouth is and support the Democrats and the Greens (WA) amendment to reduce the age of independence consistently to the age of 18.NaN:00:00581Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEALB36NSWALP00—The effect of this amendment is to make the age of independence 18 for both students and unemployed. You might recall that the opposition argued quite strongly last week that those who were unemployed be treated as adults and given the same benefits as other adults even though they are between the ages of 18 and 20. But this amendment goes substantially further than that. It also brings down the age of independence for students to 18. That is a step we cannot take and the opposition will not be supporting this amendment.There will be some further debate about the exact age of independence for students. There is a foreshadowed amendment relating to the issue of the age of independence on the table. It has been circulated already by Senator Carr. I assume that all parties have a copy of that. You may wish to obtain copies of that if you have not already. I assume that you are all very well aware of it.There is some difficulty arguing that a person who is not seeking work but has made a decision to opt out of work to take up the advantages of higher education should receive an income from taxpayers. There is some concern in the community that the taxpayers, as well as paying for some substantial part of their education, should be paying them an income from the time they leave school. That is why we are having to weigh it up with demands in other areas like health and education and with demands from people in very dire circumstances. We find it very hard to justify saying that from the age of 18 students who are having the advantage of tertiary education should also be receiving that sort of benefit almost immediately.As to the exact age of independence for students, during our time in government we were moving to a point where we saw the age of independence for students as being 21 and we were moving gradually over time to reach that point. We still believe that we should be moving over time to that point but have some concerns about adopting that position immediately. Senator Carr will be discussing that issue more when he moves the opposition amendment in that area. It is sufficient to say at this stage that we will not be going as far as this amendment and the opposition will be opposing it.13:52:00582Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—I was presuming that the minister would like to speak next, but I thought I would clarify some of my more general questions earlier. I am just wondering if the minister envisages changes to the family tax initiative as a result of the discussions that took place last week. Will that be changed as part of the attempt to alleviate some of the financial hardship on families? Perhaps that would be one aspect of the assurances or otherwise that were given to Senator Harradine last week. I would like to get a sense of what changes are being envisaged.13:52:00582Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—I apologise to the committee for being absent for 20 minutes or so. I understand there has been a question raised in the debate concerning discussions I had had with the government subsequent to a previous occasion that I stood on my feet. I am happy to reiterate what I deliberately asked the Leader of the Government in the Senate on the last occasion I had a question—I was going to say `without notice', but I will say deliberately that I had a question to direct to the Leader of the Government in the Senate.That question was deliberately asked of the Leader of the Government as representing the Prime Minister in this place. In effect, the essence of the question was, should not essential income transfers within a family be also recognised within the taxation system, and is it the intention of the government to include in its restructuring of the Australian taxation system a measure to give further recognition to the functions of parents in raising sons and daughters, Australia's future taxpayers?That question was quite deliberately asked on the basis that we had been given quite definite statements by the Minister for Social Security on behalf of the government, and indeed by other ministers in the government, publicly earlier last week that, if there were substantial amendments made by the Senate to this legislation, those amendments would obviously need to go down to the House of Representatives. The government had no intention of supporting those amendments in the House of Representatives. Under those circumstances, they would send the bill back to the Senate and, if we insisted, the bill would in effect go into limbo.Under those circumstances I think we in the chamber needed to consider those matters, and the question was, when did we need to consider them? You might argue that it could have been a good idea to send the bill back there and give a bit of a chance to deal with the matter. But the problem is that, had we done that, we would have disadvantaged some 27.5 or 28 per cent of current youth allowance recipients who stood to gain from the legislation.As I understand it, 64 per cent of youth allowance recipients would not in fact have their youth allowance changed, six per cent would incur some sort of reduction in their youth allowance and two per cent would lose the youth allowance altogether. The other 0.5 per cent would not be eligible because they would take a deliberate decision not to be involved with this measure. Under those circumstances, I did deliberately ask that question of the minister, having, as some of you may have seen, spoken to the Prime Minister. The government leader stated quite categorically: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 . . . raising sons and daughters, Australia's future taxpayers.I am aware, and others will be aware, that there are some in government who may not wish to see that situation, but the Prime Minister is committed to it and he committed his government, not just himself, not to consider further recognition but in fact to give further recognition and help, to use his words, to Australian parents concerning their responsibilities.3I6STOTT DESPOJASenator Stott Despoja—No guarantee.6H4Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE—Senator Stott-Despoja, I would love an opportunity later this afternoon or some other time to go into the question of the importance of the family, even from a human rights perspective. I am happy to do that and I am happy to put my record against your party's record over a number of years on this particular matter. Please, let us continue it at some later time.Progress reported.Questions Without Notice583583583Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT4J4SAALP00—My question is directed to the Minister for Communications, the Information Economy and the Arts. Minister, I refer to your unique accomplishment of serving up blank television screens for almost a week to nearly 100,000 viewers in country regions of Western Australia. Wasn't Hendy Cowan, the Deputy Premier of Western Australia, right when he accused you of having forgotten the interests of consumers? Isn't it you rather than Hendy Cowan who has a fundamental misunderstanding of the issues? Shouldn't you have taken the advice from Mr Cowan? Wouldn't this have averted the situation where you have become the first minister for communications to have closed down an entire television broadcast?583Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, the Information Economy and the Arts10—There is not much relationship between that question and the reality of the issue. So let me explain precisely what the government has done to date on this issue. I notice once again that Senator Schacht is left floundering on the subject. When we gave our commitment to regional Australia on 25 November last year I announced measures to minimise both consumer costs and the potentially disruptive effects of the remote area broadcasting services digital conversion—obviously a very important issue for those in remote areas.Those measures included funding of $11.2 million, which was administered through the regional telecommunications infrastructure fund. That enabled the Commonwealth to provide a contribution of $750 towards a new digital decoder for households with direct to home satellite reception and $2,500 towards the replacement of each existing decoder in remote Aboriginal and self-help community retransmission sites.The retransmission arrangements in Western Australia have also resulted in the availability for the first time in remote and regional areas of a local satellite delivered SBS television service and new radio services, including Triple J and the Parliamentary News Network. As a result of the government's initiatives, remote area viewers will gain access to significant new services for the subsidised cost of a digital decoder. The important thing to remember is that the government does not control the way in which privately owned networks operate. I know you believe in simply telling people how to run their businesses. That is what you want to do with Telstra. You want to keep a ministerial power of direction there. You want to fundamentally undermine the commercial operations of privately owned businesses by telling them how to do it. The fact is that they make those decisions. We have provided assistance in order to minimise the up-front cost and to enable people—Senator Carr interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Stop shouting, Senator.LD4Senator ALSTON—What a clown. He would not have a clue.4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—Lost their transmissions for a week!10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Schacht, it is your question and you should listen to the answer.LD4Senator ALSTON—The fact is that we do not control those networks. We, nonetheless, did our very best to facilitate discussions between the major players—Telstra, Optus and Australis—particularly in relation to the access to the satellite services and retransmission arrangements.As Senator Schacht may or may not be aware, there were discussions which broke down more than a week ago now which resulted effectively in Optus making a last minute application to the Australian Broad casting Authority. We indicated that we hoped that matter would be considered very quickly by them.As of last Thursday evening Optus was retransmitting the analogue signal of Golden West Network in anticipation that the final decision of the ABA will accord with the preliminary finding. The preliminary view of the ABA was in favour of Optus's application to rebroadcast the analogue signal outside the licence area, and a final decision is expected this week. In other words, the matter is squarely within the responsibility of the ABA at this point in time. If you think that Hendy Cowan scoring a few cheap political shots should be regarded as somehow providing a policy solution, then you have no idea about the difference between politics and policies. Mr Cowan was simply trying to capitalise on the fact that, much in all to our regret, that signal went off air. That in no way tells you—and I have not heard you make any suggestion to the contrary—that the government could have done anymore than it did. Indeed, we put out a press release last week making it clear that we expected the players to come to a sensible commercial decision. (Time expired)584Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT4J4SAALP00—I ask a supplementary question, Madam President. Minister, if you had, as you claim, long and extensive negotiations with Telstra and Optus, why is it that the only service you have delivered to viewers in remote areas of Western Australia is a blank television for a week? Did it occur to you during your long and extensive negotiations with Optus that you should tell them to lodge an application under section 212 of the Broadcasting Services Act so that they could continue analogue broadcasting beyond 28 February?584Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, the Information Economy and the Arts10—If Senator Schacht is referring to the ability of Optus to seek an extension of time or indeed a permanent—4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—Did you suggest it to them?LD4Senator ALSTON—Just a moment. If you are saying that they should have applied to the ABA, that is precisely what they did. They got an interim decision in their favour last week. The final decision is expected to be made this week. What we did was to express our disappointment that the key players had allowed commercial rivalries to take precedence over responsibility to remote area viewers.Once again, Senator Schacht is either blithely oblivious or simply irresponsibly ignorant and does not want to acknowledge the fact that we do not run their businesses for them. They are essentially commercial operations and these are essentially commercial matters. Digital arrangements are commercial matters for carriers and broadcasters. Our capacity is limited to making clear our position and urging them to apply to the ABA, as they did, and expressing the hope that the ABA will hand down an early decision, which I am confident they will. (Time expired)584584Heffernan, Sen BillSenator HEFFERNANC16NSWLP10—My question is addressed to the Special Minister of State. The minister would be aware of media reports relating to ATSIC's State of the Nation Report on Native Title Outcomes . Will the minister inform the Senate how this report relates to the issues of the debate on the reintroduced Native Title Amendment Bill? Will the minister outline how the government's bill will overcome these problems which, even ATSIC now admits, make Labor's Native Title Act unworkable?584Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPSpecial Minister of State;Minister Assisting the Prime Minister10—I thank Senator Heffernan for his question. As a New South Wales farmer, he has a very substantial interest in the native title matter—and a very compassionate one, as I think is acknowledged by the opposition.I do welcome the release of the ATSIC report. I think this is a very important contribution to the public debate. Frankly, I do congratulate ATSIC on its admission that there really are massive problems with the current Native Title Act and the unworkable processes inflicted on the nation by the Labor government in 1993.The facts contained in the ATSIC report need to be made public, they need to be in the public arena. And I must say that I am very surprised at ATSIC's reaction to the publication of this report. I would have thought ATSIC, a body that is now led by a man whom I think we all respect, should welcome the fact that the facts relating to native title are now on the table. Why on earth would ATSIC want to hide the truth about the hopeless operation of Labor's Native Title Act?The truth is that the current act simply is not working; and our amendments are a fair and balanced package to fix the problem that we were left with by the Labor government. The truth is, as ATSIC acknowledges, without a decent registration test—and there was no registration in the act left to us by the Labor Party—we have, as ATSIC has admitted in its report, an enormous problem of massive numbers of unresearched, overlapping ambit claims covering vast areas of Australia. As is indicated in the report, there are 42 single claims in the Western Australian goldfields area alone, and they all overlap; every one of the 42 claims overlaps.Our bill does provide a sensible registration test. But where is the Labor Party? You are not supporting it, are you. You will not support a decent registration test.The truth is, as revealed by ATSIC, that the right to negotiate process is having a disastrous impact on Australia's mining industry. Ninety per cent of proposed Western Australian mining tenements are being held up under the Native Title Act. As the ATSIC report says, the bottom line is that, before the WA government started using the right to negotiate process, about 2,800 tenements were in the system at any one time; after using the process, the number has increased to 7,400. More than double the number of tenements are now caught up in the process, damaging the national economy.Our amendments streamline the right to negotiate process in a fair and sensible way, and the most important thing is that they ensure equal treatment for Australian farmers and native title claimants on pastoral leases—something the Labor Party refuses to support. The truth is that our bill implements the Wik decision and recognises and protects native title on pastoral leases—and that is also admitted by ATSIC in this very important report.ATSIC also revealed, quite interestingly, that only 30 per cent of the 700 native title claims that have so far been lodged have gone through representative bodies. So the representative bodies—whom we support and want to fix up with our amendments; and we do think they should handle the claims—have had $130 million of taxpayers' money since the act came into effect, they are only handling about 230 of the 700 claims, and only two have come out the other end. So that works out at about $600,000 of taxpayers' money for every claim that has been lodged through the native title representative bodies. And what do we have? Nothing to show for it.This ATSIC report is very important. It demonstrates the unworkability of the current act, which would be made worse by Labor's amendments. Labor is trying to gag Father Frank Brennan—not a supporter of the government on most issues; you are trying to gag him, using Peter Yu of the indigenous working group, because he thinks your amendment on the Racial Discrimination Act is a lot of nonsense. All the right wing senators over there know that too. Not even those of you in the Left would support that when you were in government—because you know it is unworkable.The truth is that you are trying to force an election on this issue because loony left wing senators like Senator Bolkus actually think you can get some crazy advantage out of forcing an election on this issue. You are dead wrong. You ought to support this bill.585Heffernan, Sen BillSenator HEFFERNANC16NSWLP10—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. How do our amendments to the right to negotiate processes guarantee any equal rights for native title claimants and farmers on pastoral leases?585Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPSpecial Minister of State;Minister Assisting the Prime Minister10—Thank you, Senator Heffernan. This is a very important issue. As I have said, our bill does guarantee equal rights for farmers and native title claimants. And the most glaring and appalling proposition put by the Labor Party is to ensure legalised racial discrimination on Australia's farms. You want to entrench discrimination against Australian farmers, based on race. By insisting that the right to negotiate apply on pastoral leases, you guarantee to native title claimants a set of rights not available to Australian farmers. You want to treat them as second-class citizens on their own land.What our bill does is guarantee equal procedural rights for Australian farmers and native title claimants. Our bill requires the states to give native title claimants the same procedural rights as Australian farmers. But that is not good enough for you, is it. You want to discriminate legally against Australian farmers—and yet you are the ones insisting that the whole act should be subject to the Racial Discrimination Act. It is a disgrace. Australian farmers should be in uproar over your outrageous attempt to wreck this. (Time expired)586586Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY9L6TASALP00—My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Minister, is it true that the government has now walked away from its commitment that all unemployed people, whether on benefits or not, will be able to access the services of the new employment service agencies? Is it true that unemployed people who are not on benefits will not get help, unless they or their potential employer pay for it? Does this mean that, once they collect their meagre payout, the unemployed miners of Cobar will not be able to get help unless they pay for it? Does this mean that the 50,000 married women who are seeking work but who are not on benefits will also have to pay in order to get help to get a job?586Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSchools, Vocational Education and Training10—I thank Senator Mackay for that question, which I know was just answered by the Prime Minister in the other place a few moments ago. That answer was that Employment National will not be turning away any job seekers who are seeking job placement and the question of benefits will not be relevant.What you are trying to beat up here, Senator Mackay, is the difference between intensive training and job matching. They are two different levels of support. What we are looking at is job matching here, where people who are unemployed will be able to use Centrelink and then be able to be referred to Employment National. Senator Mackay, you got that answer the other day in estimates where we said that none of those job seekers would be sent away and they would not be charged.586Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY9L6TASALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Is it not the case that your early commitments about access to employment services are now meaningless in light of your own Employment National's refusal to provide free services to those thousands of long-term unemployed people who are not on benefits?586Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSchools, Vocational Education and Training10—You are trying to create a smokescreen so that people will forget the very high level of unemployment—11.2 per cent—that your government had in its previous term. Here we have unemployment in the low eights. We have introduced a new jobs network system which is going to work and unemployed people will not be turned away. They will have available to them Employment National and private providers. We are introducing a system which will work, unlike the system that you brought in.586586McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURANWH4VICNP10—My question is to the Minister for Resources and Energy. I refer the minister to reports that the right to negotiate process in the Native Title Act is causing serious delays to resource projects. Would the minister update the Senate on the impact that the statutory right to negotiate process is having on Australia's resources sector?586Parer, Sen WarwickSenator PARERKI4QLDLPResources and Energy10—Figures released today by the Bureau of Resource Sciences show that exploration discoveries in oil and gas achieved record levels in 1997. Fifty-five petroleum discoveries were made in total—43 onshore and 12 off the coast of north-west of Australia. Total petroleum exploration expenditure last year reached $1 billion and included the drilling of more than 100 exploration wells.I announced today that applications will be issued for 58 offshore exploration permits under the work bidding program, which will ensure that the strong exploration discovery rate continues. This high level of oil and gas exploration is absolutely vital to bolster our domestic energy supplies and sustain strong economic growth, employment, exports and investment.But there is a major impediment to the continued growth in the resources sector, and that is Labor's unworkable Native Title Act; a fact that is supported unequivocally by APPEA, the mining council, AMEC and the prospectors. Australia's Mining Monthly magazine recently published a survey of Australia's largest exploration companies. The survey highlights the act's disastrous impact on the resources sector. The survey shows that the risk of exploring in Australia is relatively low. Coalition policies are working and are appreciated by the wealth creating resources industry.But we have the world's worst rating in terms of land claims. Simply because of the Native Title Act, it is riskier to explore in Australia than in countries like Peru, Ghana or India. It is hardly surprising that Australian resource companies are directing their exploration dollars overseas.While already of great concern, the Australian economy has not yet felt the full effects of the uncertainty created by the act because of the long lead times involved in resource projects.One estimate is that the Native Title Act is costing Australia about $30 billion in mining revenue, delays and lost investment opportunities. The government's concerns about the Native Title Act have now been confirmed by the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission in a board report which states:The fact is that mining leases are being held up in the right to negotiate process. Some 1,913 of the 2,094 tenements submitted to the process remain subject to negotiation. Furthermore, the rate of objections by the native title parties to the grant of the exploration licences is starting to increase significantly which means further delays.That is from ATSIC.The Native Title Act is totally unworkable. The farmers know it; the miners know it; the petroleum industry knows it; the Labor Party knows it; and the Australian people know it. It is about time the weak Leader of the Opposition showed some backbone and leadership and told the noisy left wing of his party to go jump and support the government's amendments which he knows will benefit all Australians, including farmers, miners and Aborigines.587McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURANWH4VICNP10—Could the minister further detail to the Senate the way the Native Title Act has worked in practice on the minerals and energy resources sector?587Parer, Sen WarwickSenator PARERKI4QLDLPResources and Energy10—The supplementary question should more correctly have been: how has the Native Title Act not worked? These are the facts on our great resource industries. Firstly, no negotiations have been completed in Australia within the statutory time periods. Numerous overlapping claims—as Senator Minchin said, 42 separate claims—on some mineral applications make negotiations virtually impossible.In Western Australia alone more than 2,000 mineral applications are held up by the right to negotiate process, some for almost three years, and the backlog is growing by 14 new claims a week. Only 183 voluntary agreements have been registered by the tribunal in Western Australia and only 56 mining leases granted. Before the Native Title Act was enacted, between 600 and 800 mining leases were granted each year in Western Australia.587587Hogg, Sen JohnSenator HOGG7L6QLDALP00—My question is to Senator Newman, representing the Minister for Defence Industry, Science and Personnel. In the House of Representatives last week, Mrs Bishop gave a rock solid guarantee on behalf of the government and the employment minister that Defence Force personnel spouses would have access to all aspects of the government's new employment services without a fee. Do you stand by the minister's rock solid guarantee? Is it not a fact that Defence Force personnel spouses who have been out of work more than 12 months will not receive any free intensive assistance from the government's own Employment National, which has 40 per cent of market share? Is it not a fact that this brave new world is a maladministered mess which has been almost universally condemned?588Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—The question asked by Senator Hogg is one that he has already had an answer on from the minister responsible. As I represent the minister here and am also the minister responsible for Centrelink, perhaps it is appropriate that I put on the record that Defence spouses—who were never given much attention under the previous government—are entitled to go to Centrelink and use the touch screens which are available to provide jobs. Unlike the card system that CES had for 13 years under Labor, the touch screens in fact provide the available jobs by regions, states and the nation.One of the distinct differences between our administration of the employment market and that of the previous government is that the CES did not have a wide coverage of the jobs in Australia. An important element of Employment National—who has the responsibility for the screens in Centrelink—will be that they are out getting jobs from all over the country to be on the register. Previously, unemployed people would go to the CES offices and would find that most of the jobs were not there.It is very important that people who are mobile like the defence forces have access to a good range of jobs from right around the country. That is why that Centrelink facility is going to be extremely important for people like defence force spouses. In addition, like anybody else who is looking for work in this country, they can go to an employment agency and get assistance there.9L6MACKAYSenator Mackay—And pay for it.BE4Senator NEWMAN—It is a surprising thing—Senator Mackay, I know you have mainly worked for unions and maybe they have a different employment system—but most average Australians who are looking for a job in the private sector can go to an employment agency and be matched with a job from the private sector and the employer usually pays.9L6MACKAYSenator Mackay—You don't understand, do you?BE4Senator NEWMAN—Perhaps with your focus on union employment for mates, I think you do not understand the way it has worked for spouses for many years, defence or otherwise, and those opportunities are going to still be there for them.588Hogg, Sen JohnSenator HOGG7L6QLDALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. In spite of your answer, Minister, my supplementary question revolves around the fact that I asked a question about `any free intensive assistance'. Also, is it not a fact that, because many of our defence force bases are in remote areas, Defence Force personnel spouses are unlikely to receive assistance from any other private service providers? For the spouses of Defence Force personnel, the government's new competitive system of labour market services actually means that they will receive little or no service at all, doesn't it, Minister?588Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—It is a pity Senator Hogg did not hear an interview on the ABC in Canberra last week in which one of the successful tenderers for Dr Kemp's new arrangements was pointing out that where people in Canberra—and, of course, there are many defence force spouse in Canberra—previously had access to the CES, they will now have access to some seven employment agencies where they can go for assistance. I also understand that around the country—and I come from regional Australia too—there are a multiplicity of opportunities for people to access employment assistance: some of it is through Employment National; some of it is through private sector employment agencies; and some of it through community organisations. So the new scheme that the government has introduced actually gives more diversity and more choice for all Australians looking for jobs, including Defence Force spouses who were never cared for under your regime. (Time expired)588588Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEYHX5QLDAD00—My question is addressed to the Special Minister of State. In answer to my question last week about your government's legal advice on the Native Title Amendment Bill , you ducked for cover by saying that you were acting in full compliance with the constitution when you dealt with the bill in the House of Representatives. Minister, I am going to give you a second go: did your government seek and receive formal legal advice on whether this legislation could form a double dissolution trigger before laying the bill aside last December? I am giving you four minutes to answer yes or no.589Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPSpecial Minister of State;Minister Assisting the Prime Minister10—Thank you, Senator Woodley, for your inquisitive nature. The government has expert legal advice that at every stage this bill has been dealt with in full compliance with section 57 of the constitution. May I again make the point, however, that we do not want a double dissolution election at which the Native Title Amendment Bill 1996 is the issue. But it does appear regrettably the case that the Labor Party is indeed hell bent on forcing that election. Therefore, of course it is prudent for us to ensure that everything we do at every stage—and I use those words deliberately—is in full compliance with section 57 based on the best legal advice that we can obtain.It is a tragedy for this nation that the left wing of the Labor Party—HX5WOODLEYSenator Woodley—Madam President, I raise a point of order on relevance. This is the question I asked: did you receive this advice before laying aside the bill last December? That is the critical point.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—There is still considerable time for the minister to deal with that aspect of the question, and I invite him to do so.JX4Senator MINCHIN—As Senator Woodley will never know because he will never be in government, governments receive legal advice virtually every day of the week on everything that goes on in government. You would have to ask the Attorney-General specifically because it is his responsibility as to what particular advice is received when. What I will say to the Senate is that we have made sure that we have had the appropriate legal advice at every stage to ensure that, regrettably, if this Native Title Act can only be amended as a result of a joint sitting after a double dissolution, then we will do so in compliance fully with the constitution.I would like to take this opportunity to answer Senator Woodley's question of last week where he said that we were taking some sort of $60 million gamble on this advice. It appears that it has not filtered through the fairy dust that hangs over this part of the Senate that there has to be a election before March of next year. We have to have an election. Regrettably, the taxpayers do have to find $60 million to have an election—that is called democracy. If you would rather we did not have an election, that is fine. I am sure we would happily stay in government forever, but we do have to have an election. We will have to spend some $60 million to allow the people the opportunity to re-elect us. The only question is whether it is an election for all of the House and half of the Senate or for all of the House and all of the Senate—that responsibility rests with you and your colleagues in the Labor Party. If you do not want a double dissolution on this bill, then support our amendments.589Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEYHX5QLDAD00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I am glad Senator Minchin raised the matter of a gamble because he is gambling. He talks about me being up to date: if he reads today's research paper from the library, he will see how large a gamble that joint sitting is. However, Senator Minchin, if your answer is yes—I am not sure if it is yes or no—and therefore it is a $60 million bet, will you lay your cards on the table by tabling that advice?589Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPSpecial Minister of State;Minister Assisting the Prime Minister10—I cannot add to the answer I gave last week about legal advice. Governments receive legal advice regularly, and it is normal practice, as followed by our predecessors, that it is not released for matters of privilege and matters of that sort. So we do not intend to table that advice. We have absolutely no doubt about its veracity.The Clerk of the Senate is the only one to my knowledge who is putting that view. It has not been supported even by constitutional experts normally not sympathetic to the government. George Williams from the ANU and Professor Cheryl Saunders, who not normally are sympathetic to the government on matters of this kind, have both publicly stated that the government is right and the Clerk is wrong.590590O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Minister, could you explain why out of the Employment Services Regulatory Authority's 15 top performing providers of assistance to long-term unemployed people—all 15 of which were in the top 10 per cent nationally—only four got government contracts under the supposedly new and improved employment services market? Is this not yet another indication that this whole exercise has turned into an utter shambles?590Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSchools, Vocational Education and Training10—Here we go again. Over 1,000 choices were made available to this government in this huge tender process which involved a cost of $1.7 billion. What we looked at was not necessarily the organisations themselves but the sites that could be serviced. Some organisations which had a particular knowledge of a certain site could put forward a very good tender. Obviously some organisations, whilst good organisations, did not have that same relevance to the particular site in question. Therefore it was that we picked the best tender for the best particular site.That did not mean to say that all the top organisations necessarily had to be successful. That is why out of the 1,000-odd that I have mentioned just over 300 were successful—it was a highly competitive tender. It did not mean to say that we just went out, followed ESRA and said, `Okay, who are your top 14; we'll give them a job.' We went through each tender meticulously—in fact, more than once. It was a blind tender process, where the identities of people were not known. Also, it was governed by Blake Dawson Waldron, a very large firm of solicitors, who were there as probity advisers from day one.So what we had was one of the best tender processes Australia has ever seen. It was certainly the biggest by way of services. The amount of $1.7 billion really put it up there as one of the biggest tenders any government has pursued. I say to you, Senator O'Brien, that it was not a question of our just going out to ESRA or somebody and saying, `Who do you think we should give this tender to?' It was a case of going through a methodical process to ensure that we gave the tender to the best person. In this case, it was a very good tender process indeed, and it is now paying dividends to the people of Australia.590O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Minister, you say that this is the best tender process that Australia has ever seen and that the tenders were given to the best tenderer with the best particular price. Since you insist on defending your system, perhaps you can explain how Queensland company, Allhands Hire Pty Ltd, was selected to provide employment services when it had financial problems with unprofitable contracts and was put up for sale only days after DEETYA informed the company of its success in the tender process. Great scheme, Minister!590Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSchools, Vocational Education and Training10—This is another question which was just put to the minister concerned in the other place—Dr Kemp. I am unaware of the details of this particular matter, but I understand that Dr Kemp has undertaken to look into the matter. We will look into any matter which you seek to raise. Perhaps you have some documents there you would like to table which would assist us in investigating this matter. We had supervision by accountants when we looked at the viability of these tenderers. In that regard, the process was indeed a meticulous one.590590Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. I refer the minister to his response to my question last Tuesday relating to the Federation Fund in which he indicated he was `not at liberty to provide information on what the government might be considering it would do'. I also note that, at a public meeting in Northampton on 19 February 1998, the Hon. Kevin Minson MLA stated that the proposed Oakajee development was `on the Prime Minister's list of six, I think, major projects that the federal government wants to see go ahead'. At the same meeting, Dr Alan Tingay, consultant to An Feng, said that Oakajee was `on the Prime Minister's list of six major projects that need to be established'. What was the source of Mr Minson's and Dr Tingay's information? Is this information correct and, if so, does this wish list relate to Commonwealth funding from the Federation Fund, or is it to come from some other source?591Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment10—I think the honourable senator is a little confused about this matter. As I understand it, we are speaking about two major projects which to some extent are interrelated. The first is the An Feng Kingstream Steel Ltd proposal to construct a steel processing plant near Geraldton, Western Australia. I am told the investment would be about $1.4 billion and would generate around 650 full-time jobs and about $750 million per annum for export revenue. Not surprisingly, it is strongly supported by the Commonwealth government. It sounds like a wonderful investment for Western Australia and Australia. I would like to think that Senator Dee Margetts would support it also.It was granted major project facilitation status by the Minister for Industry, Science and Technology in January 1996 in view of its potential contribution to the economy. The project has been the subject of a comprehensive environmental impact assessment by Western Australia. It has also been assessed under the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974, which is our act in respect of approval under the government's foreign investment policy.Adjacent to that, as I understand it, is the potential port development at Oakajee which will link into the steel processing plant. That is subject to an environmental impact assessment by Western Australia. There are currently no known Commonwealth decisions in regard to the port and the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act has in that instance not been triggered.Nevertheless, I am sure that, provided it meets the highest environmental safeguards, it also would be strongly supported by the Commonwealth government. I read in one of the releases from the Western Australian government that it is being developed pursuant to that government's desire to see development in the Mid West as a centre for value adding and export of the region's natural resources. It has been pointed out that that region has the potential to become a major industrial area at the cutting edge of modern technology and that Geraldton's future as a significant regional centre providing employment for young people and long-term security for families, while protecting the enviable coastal lifestyle, depends on the proper development of the region's vast wealth of resources. That seems logical to the federal government as well. However, on the issue of Federation funding, the position remains that I do not know of any application from Western Australia for support for that opportunity.591Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—By way of supplementary: at a meeting which was hosted by the Geraldton Chamber of Commerce on 6 March, which I also attended, the Minister for Resources Development, Mr Colin Barnett, stated that the state and Commonwealth `may fund a privately owned and operated port at Oakajee to the tune of $7 or $8 million per annum over the next 10 years'. Can the minister confirm that the federal government is considering subsidising a private port operator in this way? Would such funding be considered consistent with competition policy principles and would such funding trigger the federal Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act? What exactly does `major project facilitation status' mean and when will the government be releasing details of what this means in terms of money and impacts?591Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment10—Unfortunately, Madam President, the honourable senator seems to remain confused. Major project facilitation status was given in relation to the An Feng Kingstream Steel Ltd proposal. It has not been given, as I understand it, in relation to the port proposal. It might in the future, I do not know, but it is obviously a very valuable investment.The release by Mr Barnett that I have read said that there will be some small contribution by the Western Australian government, particularly at the feasibility end, but I cannot see in that release any suggestion of a funding request to the Commonwealth government. Whether there is a funding request, whether it will in some way trigger our legislation, is yet to be seen. I am instructed at the moment that no such action has been taken that triggers that legislation.592592Crowley, Sen RosemarySenator CROWLEYZF4SAALP00—My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs. I draw the minister's attention to recent media criticism of a decision to award the tender for 12 employment sites around Sydney to a firm called Employment Interactive. Is it not the case that this firm is an unincorporated body—it has no infrastructure, no officers and no employees? Can the minister inform the Senate what financial viability checks were made on the firm's principal, Mr Khadar Roude? Can the minister also inform the Senate what probity checks were made on Mr Roude who, as an employee of the Islamic Council of New South Wales, helped write the council's unsuccessful tender while separately tendering? Is the minister concerned that, even though Employment Interactive has hung out its shingle, Mr Roude has come to an arrangement for the work to be done by another group because he cannot deliver on the tender?592Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSchools, Vocational Education and Training10—I thank Senator Crowley for the question. You will know, Senator Crowley, that the department is looking into this matter after certain allegations were made by the Islamic Council of NSW, and I am not going to pass judgment or comment on any investigation whilst it is in train. But I remind Senator Crowley that this person finds himself in the same place as many small businessmen, and it is small business which this government is trying to help. We did have, in the invitation to tender, the ability for people to have subcontractors. If they indicated they were going to subcontract they had to indicate who those people were and checks were made. It was quite normal to anticipate that there would be subcontracting.There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. I might say that on this question of registering Mr Roude's company's name, which I understand is part of the complaint—that it was only a recent event—I am advised that it took place some time ago and was not just recently registered, as some reports have it. There is an investigation going on into this matter. I might say that Mr Roude has a very long history of working with migrants, particularly those from an Islamic background. In fact, he has done work with the Islamic Council and has expertise in that area. I am not going to prejudge him, as others have, Senator Crowley. This man is entitled to his good name until proven otherwise.592Crowley, Sen RosemarySenator CROWLEYZF4SAALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. In the light of your answer, Minister, amongst further information you might find could you please advise the Senate whether Mr Roude agreed to the need for subcontracting before the contract was signed or is it something he has since discovered that he has to do? Further, is Employment Interactive only one example of the completely inadequate tender assessment process put in place by the department, which shows the utter lack of priority this government places on an efficient and effective set of labour market services in this country?592Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSchools, Vocational Education and Training10—This aspect, I understand, is part of the set of allegations made and is being investigated. I am unable to comment on it at this time. But I can say that this opposition are trying to beat up a situation where, by making allegations and sneers against two different organisations, they are trying to paint this whole tender process as a failure. They are trying to scare those unemployed people by saying, `Look at these two instances. These are terrible instances, and you are not going to be able to find a job because of the failure of this tender process.' I can tell you that you are not going to get very far with that. Do not jump to conclusions before those conclusions have been proved.592592Abetz, Sen EricSenator ABETZN26TASLP10—My question is directed to the Minister for Justice. Last Thursday night on the ABC's 7.30 Report Senator Bolkus finally admitted leaking the confidential Federal Court affidavit from the Skase case. He said:We are talking about two pages of a thirty page affidavit. I understand that the same two pages of the affidavit were distributed in the Canberra press gallery on the same day as Senator Bolkus's now notorious media conference and, coincidentally, these same two pages had highlighted on them the very same sentences that Senator Bolkus tried to quote off the record at the media conference. Was there any further information contained in the excerpt of the affidavit that was distributed that was not leaked by Senator Bolkus during and after his media conference that put at further risk the chase for Skase assets?593Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPMinister for Justice10—I thank Senator Abetz for his continued interest in this matter. Madam President, as you would be aware—all senators would—last week it was clearly laid out for the Senate the manner in which Senator Bolkus had most irresponsibly attempted to carry out his duties. It was clearly shown that Senator Bolkus had quoted from and illegally or improperly obtained the Federal Court affidavit.XE4BOLKUSSenator Bolkus—You know that's not true.7E4Senator VANSTONE—I recognise that interjection. `You know that's not true'—is that what you said?XE4BOLKUSSenator Bolkus—Of course you know it's not true.7E4Senator VANSTONE—That is now satisfactorily on the record. Just so anybody does not forget this day in history, this is the day that Senator Bolkus denies having quoted from an illegally or improperly obtained Federal Court affidavit.We can establish that it sustained that it was illegally and improperly obtained because we have a letter from Mr Donnelly, the trustee of Skase's bankruptcy, indicating that he did not authorise or authorise his solicitors to release the affidavit. There is the owner of the affidavit. We have a letter from the Federal Court Registry in Sydney indicating that no order was given for anyone who was not a party to the proceedings to inspect the document. They are the only two sources: you go to the owner or you go to the court. I table these documents.Senator Bolkus knows that that document was therefore illegally or improperly obtained. Who Senator Bolkus got it from, we do not know. Presumably, he is happy to tell you whether he was of assistance to the Federal Police, who were seeking to investigate this matter.Let me come first to the detail of Senator Abetz's question. Senator Abetz is right. It is an extraordinary coincidence that Senator Bolkus says, `I did not speak to the media; I did not tell them anything about the Skase possibilities at all. Heavens, it was a big surprise to me when I saw all the stories in the paper on Monday.' He said it was just a coincidence that on Monday he happened to have a Federal Court affidavit with him that had a number of details and it was just a coincidence that he was following on with that story. He likes to blame the media. He said they gave it to him. Whoever gave it to him must have either illegally or improperly obtained it themselves or got it from someone who illegally or improperly obtained it. So the chain goes back. The bottom line is that somewhere at some point it was illegally or improperly obtained.There were two pages from that affidavit. Surprise, surprise, Senator Bolkus quotes from an affidavit in the morning and then says on the 7.30 Report last Friday, `I only quoted from two pages of 30 pages. Don't worry, I only stole $2,000 of your $10,000, so I am not really a thief.' That is the analogy. He said, `I only quoted from two pages.' Surprise, surprise, those two pages are boxed in the gallery on Monday afternoon.But even more of a surprise, the two paragraphs that Senator Bolkus quoted from to the media directly—paragraphs 101 and 109—are marked for the media's attention in the distributed copies. So now we have the affidavit that was given to him by the media being given back to the media marked with the quotes that he had used. This is an extraordinary ruse for Senator Bolkus to be putting on the Australian community. The facts are that the portion of the affidavit boxed later in the day did reveal more information. It outlined the specific companies that were being targeted, it detailed the alleged chain of ownership of Skase's Majorcan residence and it gave the names of persons other than Mr Skase being targeted as part of illegal action.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Why did your office leak it?7E4Senator VANSTONE—I hear Senator Faulkner interjecting, asking why my office leaked it. He still does not accept that my office never had the affidavit. But we have a video of Senator Bolkus with it in his hand, caught red-handed—`I cannot give you this but I can read from it off the record'—(Time expired)594594Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—My question is directed to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. Is it true that in a recent study the Australian Taxation Office reported that for small business the wholesale sales tax is, after PAYE taxes, the cheapest of all taxes for business to comply with? Why then did the Prime Minister ignore these facts when he stated publicly on a number of occasions that a GST would be less costly than a wholesale sales tax for small business? Is this, as George Megalogenis said last week in the Australian , the `first serious fib in the federal government's push for a goods and services tax'?594Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment10—No. The important thing is that this country is badly in need of tax reform. There is only one side of Australian politics with the political courage to lead on the issue. Everyone knows that this tax system needs to be reformed. Labor used to know it but was not prepared to take up the challenge when the pressure was put on. This opposition under Mr Beazley is not even prepared to engage in the debate.This government has been faced with major challenges. It was faced with the major challenge of the deficit. It needed to get the economy in order. It did so by tackling the $10.3 billion deficit it inherited. By next year's budget, it will have that in surplus.Senator Cook interjecting—BH4Senator HILL—I am putting it in context. We have tackled that. We have got interest rates down, we have brought inflation down and we have given business a real chance to expand and grow in that regard, and we are proud of it.Secondly, we have tackled the industrial relations problems of this country. We fought against union monopolies that those opposite continue to support on the waterfront because we believe it is in the best interests of jobs, of employment, of growth and opportunity.RF4COOKSenator Cook—Madam President, I raise a point of order. I did not ask Senator Hill to give us a general rave about the alleged so-called good performances by the government. I asked him a specific question in relation to a leading economic journalist saying that the Prime Minister fibbed when he said, as he did, that a wholesale sales tax would be more costly to administer than a goods and services tax. That is the question the Leader of the Government has to answer. If he cannot answer it, he should sit down. Madam President, would you ask him to answer that question?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—I draw your attention to the question, Senator Hill.BH4Senator HILL—I am trying to explain to Senator Cook why it is necessary for this government to challenge the last major economic crisis that we have: overcoming an outdated, deficient, unfriendly business taxation system. We are prepared to challenge it. We are prepared to get taxes off productivity to help business grow and to employ. We favour a more transparent taxation system so that the real costs of it can be seen. We favour a system of taxation that better supports exports, that can address the current account issue that Senator Cook asked me questions about the other day.These are the reasons why we are tackling tax reform in this country. These are the reasons why we are prepared to take to the Australian people alternative business tax structures that will give this country a better opportunity to be more competitive in the future and therefore give more Australians a better opportunity for good, sustainable jobs.594Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—Madam President, Senator Hill did not do as he promised he would do—he did not answer the question—and I think that is in contempt of you. I will ask a supplementary question, though, since Senator Hill tried to evade the last couple. How can the Prime Minister say compliance costs for a GST will be cheaper? Does he know that only 50,000 small businesses currently pay the wholesale sales tax but a GST would have to be paid by at least 850,000 more small businesses? Isn't it true, as the authors of the tax office research have said, that `there is a real risk that the compliance costs of a GST would be higher—significantly higher—than those related to a wholesale sales tax'? Would you ask the leader, Madam President, now that he has given us the rave, to try to answer the question?595Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment10—I know the Australian Labor Party supports the wholesale sales tax system because when it was in government it continually put it up and business was unfairly burdened as a result. Senator Cook, you know what I know: you know the weaknesses of that system, you know the deficiencies of the multiple rate system, you know the weaknesses from lack of transparency, you know its effect upon export industries in this country. It is long overdue for reform, and the important thing is that there is only one side of politics in Australia—the coalition government—which is prepared to take up the challenge of taxation reform, not just to benefit this generation but to put in place the fundamentals necessary to provide for an efficient, business-friendly taxation system of the future that will ensure that our businesses remain competitive within our region in the world.595595Lees, Sen MegSenator LEES8U4SAAD00—I ask this question of the Minister representing the Attorney-General, as I was invited to do so by Senator Minchin. Minister, there is considerable doubt about the constitutional validity of your government's decision to lay aside the Native Title Amendment Bill in the House of Representatives ahead of the Christmas rush to the airport last December. The Special Minister of State has already told this chamber that your government rejects the advice of the Clerk of the Senate on this matter, so I ask: do you also reject identical advice from the late Sir Garfield Barwick that section 57 will not be invoked `until the processes which parliamentary procedure provides have been explored'?595Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPMinister for Justice10—I thank Senator Lees for the question. Senator Lees, you are obviously aware of the government's view with respect to appropriate legal advice on section 57. I have not asked the Attorney about his view on the other advice that you mention, nor do I recall having seen it. I will get a copy of it, and I will ask the Attorney whether there is anything he wishes to add.595Lees, Sen MegSenator LEES8U4SAAD00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I thank the Minister for that answer, but I think we need to go a little further than that. Minister, could you also pass on to the Attorney-General two additional questions that we suggest he answers before your government presses on to a double dissolution—in other words, a rather dodgy joint sitting; I go back to the $60 million bet that it would be if we had a double dissolution—against legal opinion. Firstly, did any minister seek a formal legal opinion from him or from his department; and, secondly, was this advice delivered before the House of Representatives laid the original bill aside? They are very simple questions, and I hope you can say just yes or no to either of them.595Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPMinister for Justice10—I will take them on notice.595595West, Sen SueSenator WEST1X4NSWALP00—My question is directed to the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Under the government's new Job Network contracts, can the provider of employment services actually employ job seekers and then contract those job seekers to employers? In other words, can the provider also become the employer of the job seeker?595Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSchools, Vocational Education and Training10—This matter was brought up the other day at an estimates committee hearing. The answer to that now is much the same as it was then: yes, they can do that. And that was the answer given at estimates the other day.595West, Sen SueSenator WEST1X4NSWALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Minister, if this is the case, won't it mean that the government is effectively creating subsidised employment agencies which will be competing unfairly with established agencies who supply labour?596Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSchools, Vocational Education and Training10—This is amazing because the opposition is trying to say that this is something new and something which is not proper. At the moment this can be done. In fact, if someone with skills as a receptionist walks through the door, under the present system they can be given employment. It is not a question of subsidising people to employ people in their own entity. What we are doing here is trying to get people jobs. In fact, under the new system we have opened it up to competition, so people will be keen to get the best person for the best job. So we will have a more concerted effort to find Australians jobs. If it happens to be putting them in a position with a job provider, heavens to goodness, what a disgraceful thing that would be—finding someone a job! That is just terrible! You could be giving them some on-the-job experience as a receptionist! There is absolutely nothing different with the current system. (Time expired)596596Payne, Sen MariseSenator PAYNEM56NSWLP10—My question is directed to the Minister for the Environment. Minister, Australians are becoming increasingly concerned about pollutants being emitted into our air, land and water and have a right to know more about them. The national pollutant inventory being introduced by the coalition government will guarantee that right. The Labor Party talked a lot about this issue for 13 years and, in particular, Senator Faulkner failed in his responsibility as environment minister. How has the government kept its promise to establish the national pollutant inventory?596Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment10—Thank you for that important question. The coalition government is proud that on 27 February this year, about two weeks ago, the National Environment Protection Council agreed to a national pollutant inventory for Australia. This is the first of the national environment protection measures to be made by the National Environment Protection Council. It will be tabled on 10 March 1998. Honourable senators will be aware that this was a mechanism to provide for cooperative environment protection laws across Australia—being supported by laws of both the Commonwealth government and the state governments.The history of this process is interesting. The Labor Party talked about the national pollutant inventory in 1992 and they were still talking about it when they went out of government in 1996. They commissioned some six-odd reports on the subject matter but were never able to bring it to a conclusion. In fact the NEPC legislation was passed in 1994. But, by the time we came to government in 1996, Senator Faulkner as chairman still had not been able to call the first face-to-face meeting. So after two years there had not been a face-to-face meeting of ministers. It was left to the coalition government to stop the talking and get on with some action for a change. That is what we have been able to do.We are pleased that this first NEPM has now been announced. It will provide an information base for all Australians on the pollutants that are released into our environment. The community will be better informed as a result of that. Furthermore, as a result of the community being better informed, it is a reasonable assumption that industry will respond with better practices—better practices in reducing the levels of pollutants and better practices in managing pollutants that are created. That is a good start.The second NEPM, on ambient air measure, should be completed by the middle of this year. A third NEPM, dealing with the transfer of hazardous waste across state boundaries, should be completed also by about that timetable. So during the course of this parliament there will be at least three of these cooperative environment measures introduced for Australia as a whole—a clear indication that this government is able, in the environment area, to get on and provide the sorts of protections that Australians want; to provide them in a cooperative way that includes all governments; to provide for consistency of environmental laws, which is not only good for the community but also good for business that has to comply with such obligations; and, most importantly, to lead to better environmental outcomes.We are pleased that finally Australia is governed by a government that is doing less talking in these important areas, providing a little more action and bringing some of these important matters finally to conclusion. I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.Miscellaneous597597597Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—Pursuant to standing order 74(5), I ask Minister Herron, representing the Minister for Health and Family Services, for an explanation as to why an answer has not been provided to my question on notice, No. 1067, which was asked on 9 February.597Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—I suspect it is because my departmental liaison officer is off on paternity leave. But I will check that out and get an answer to the question as soon as possible.4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—It's a good try.VW4Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRON—It is true, Senator Schacht. I am sure there is an answer to that question, Senator Allison. I will get it to you as soon as possible either today or tomorrow.15:05:00597Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—I move:That the Senate take note of the failure of the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Family Services (Senator Herron) to provide either an answer or an explanation.I point out that, as I say, this question has been—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! There are too many conversations and too much movement in the chamber.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Madam President, I raise a point of order. Is it competent for Senator Allison to move such a motion without leave at this point?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—I did not hear what she was moving. That was why I was asking for some silence.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—I will proceed with this point of order if it is required.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Allison, I did not hear what you were saying just before Senator Faulkner rose.1M6Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON—I moved a motion that the Senate take note of the minister's failure to provide either an answer or an explanation. As I understand it, that does not require leave.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Under standing order 74, that may be moved without leave.1M6Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON—I remind the minister that not only has this question been outstanding for more than 30 days but also I have raised this matter on two other occasions in the past week—a notice of motion on Thursday last week and an adjournment speech, both of which referred to this matter of the exemption for the Australian Grand Prix from the tobacco advertising ban. I think it is very disappointing that the minister has not answered my question, especially since the grand prix has now come and gone. Any opportunity to take advantage of the minister's answer has now been lost by that event. I point out that the minister has had plenty of notice that this was coming up. Again, I am most disappointed that the minister has not been able to answer the question.Question resolved in the affirmative.59715:07:00597Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY9L6TASALP00—I move:That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Schools, Vocational Education and Training (Senator Ellison), to questions without notice asked today, relating to the tender process for the provision of employment services.I rise on a matter which I think will probably go down in history as one of the most maladministered and mismanaged messes that this government has created in its two short years of government. Let us get the record straight about what this government is saying. You have to listen to the words very carefully. The minister has said that nobody will be turned away from an agency, that nobody will be turned away from a provider. But he does not say what type of service they will actually get when they go to that provider.I can tell you what the story is, because I think you need a bit of a lesson over there about what is happening with the employment services market. If you did not, why would Mrs Bishop have given you a briefing at Thredbo about the difficulties she was encountering when she went around Australia, particularly in relation to the defence force personnel spouses, in selling this particular policy of Dr Kemp's? Let us be quite explicit about what is happening here.The first thing is FLEX 1, which is job matching and that involves, as Senator Newman gave us the usual old run-down, touch screens, et cetera. Dr Kemp says that anybody has access to that. Let me point out to you an example. On Thursday Mrs Lawrence, in the House of Representatives, pointed to an example in Western Australia where somebody was unemployed, not on benefit, wished to apply for a job as a fitter and was told that he would have to pay $220 for that—just for being matched to a job. This person was not on benefit, was a retrenched worker and wanted to apply for a job but is told that he would have to pay $220 to do that.What is unusual about this example? It is illegal in Western Australia to charge for unemployment services. But where it is not illegal it is going to become routine. It is not illegal in Tasmania; it is not illegal in the ACT; it is not illegal in the Northern Territory; and it is not illegal in South Australia. In fact, in South Australia you can be paid retrospectively. That is the story of FLEX 1—that is, job matching—you will have to pay.Let us move on to what is called FLEX 3—this is intensive assistance. This is where the weasel words really come out. In fact, Senator Ellison in estimates the other day said, `Dr Kemp has not actually said anything about intensive assistance.' Intensive assistance is what you get if you have been unemployed for 12 months or more. Under this new regime, if you have been unemployed for 12 months or more and are not on benefit you will not get a cracker. That is the reality. Who says that? Not just the opposition but also Employment National.At estimates last Friday Employment National was asked the direct question: will you be providing, for nothing, intensive assistance—that is FLEX 3 assistance—to long-term unemployed people who are not on benefit in keeping with Dr Kemp's own promise? What was their response? I can recall it very well; it was no—not even an embellishment, just no. So then we asked: so you are not one of the providers who has actually gone to Dr Kemp and said that you are happy to provide services for nothing? They said, `No, we're not.'Employment National, in case people on the other side have forgotten, has 40 per cent of the market share of intensive assistance. So in one fell swoop we have the government's own Employment National saying, `We will not provide any intensive assistance for long-term unemployed people who are not on benefit.' That is a complete repudiation of the government's position. As I said, Senator Ellison came in and said, `Dr Kemp did not actually talk about intensive assistance; he was really talking about job matching and touch screens, et cetera.'The bottom line about this whole system—and people in the government know it—is that it is a mess. Day after day we actually come up with examples of maladministration of this so-called probity exercise, which actually created the likes of Mr Roude. It is a mess. I for one am absolutely amazed that you have done it in the way you have actually done it. What you are about is putting 400,000 Australians on the unemployment scrap heap and making sure they do not get access to services. In fact, the resources that you have allocated bear no resemblance at all, as far as I can see, to long-term employment. You have made a mistake. It is maladministrated; it is a complete mismanagement; and it is a mess.15:12:00598Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEYO15NSWLP10—We have here today a continuation of what we had last week—this endless trawl by the opposition—and they have found virtually nothing out of this process. This is a $1.7 billion tender across Australia at a very high level of probity. Regardless of the fact that we had almost two days of trawling, including a special day set aside last week, they came up with nothing in reality. They have a few minor problems with two examples so far out of a $1.7 billion tender. What nonsense! AW5CARRSenator Carr—So far!O15Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEY—Senator Carr is back. Welcome back, Senator Carr. It is good to see you here in this debate. We were waiting for Senator Carr to let off the big bomb last week. He wanted a special day to consider this program, consider these matters. We came in at 9 o'clock and waited for Senator Carr to launch off. At 10 o'clock we were still waiting. We were still waiting at 11 o'clock, 12 o'clock and at 1 o'clock. At 2 o'clock he came on. It was all scheduled to finish at 3 o'clock. At 2 o'clock on came Senator Carr. We were waiting for the big bomb to go off.Well, we got to 2.30 p.m. and then to 2.45 p.m. and then 3 o'clock. After a very dismal trawl, without anything at all coming out of it, Senator Carr had nothing at all. The reason why he had nothing is that this government, unlike the last government, has put in place a process with very high probity. Despite trawling by this opposition for the last two—9L6MACKAYSenator Mackay—It is a mess.O15Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEY—Look, Senator Mackay, you can go on saying that but you did not provide evidence last week that it was. You have impugned the name of two operators without any proof at all—one in Fairfield and one in Melbourne. You tried the trick of doing it in both houses of parliament and still came up with nothing.Let us put it against your record, Senator Mackay. Let us put it against `Not Working Nation'—your program where you wasted $5 billion. You had one-third of the people on long-term unemployment get some sort of work and two-thirds assisted under that program dropped back in the unemployment heap after your programs. You were churning the dole queue; you were putting people into training with no effect at the end. It was an absolute disaster. That approach did not work at all.This government has replaced the old system you put in with the CES. And what was the success rate, Senator Mackay? Tell us the success rate. It was 20 per cent. What a dismal success rate. We would have to come up with a better program than the one you had. And you had 13 years to fix this. Let's look at some of the results of your 13 years. You had a situation where, in the six years from July 1990 to March 1996, you had a net increase in employment of 16,000 people. Wow! That is all you got in net new jobs over those six years and you spent billions of dollars.9L6MACKAYSenator Mackay—What is it now?O15Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEY—You don't really want me to contrast it with our record, do you?9L6MACKAYSenator Mackay—Yes.O15Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEY—All right, then let's go into our record, Senator, if that is really what you want me to do. In the last five months there have been 141,000 new jobs. That is a hell of a lot better than your record over your last six years. And the reason is that this government has instigated a wide range of measures on reforming the economy, budgeting repair, micro-economic reform, lowering interest rates, getting businesses out and working again, and creating real jobs.9L6MACKAYSenator Mackay—What is your target?O15Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEY—Our target, Senator, is to create economic growth and real jobs, which you could not do. What was your target? Five per cent by the year 2000. That was your target. And what did you get up to? Unemployment was 11 per cent at one stage. You did not come within a bull's roar of achieving your target, Senator—not a chance. And it was because of the failed programs of the previous Labor government. Under our schemes we have set up incentives for people to be employed. People are out there in a market driven system with the incentives to employ people and they do not get paid their full money unless the people find a job. That is far better than your system. Working Nation was a failure; the Job Network system will succeed. And in the two days to date you have come up with nothing. No matter how much you say to the opposite, that is not so and the Hansard record proves it.15:17:00600O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—One wonders how this government can try to justify this scheme given that they brought legislation to this parliament to seek to have this scheme approved in an act of parliament and when they could not get exactly what they wanted they took the bill away—they did not bring it back—and said that they would proceed through the general powers of the Commonwealth. That is an abbreviated statement of what they said but they were not prepared to bring it back.Then at estimates last week we were told, `We can talk to you about the general principles of this tendering out process but of course we can't talk to you about the detail because that is commercial in confidence. So not only are we not going to bring this matter through the parliament, we are going to hide the individual cases. If you can penetrate the thicket that we have put in front of you, you might be able to come up with some problems. But we are going to hide it from the Australian public; we are going to hide it under the cloak of commercial in confidence.'And hide it you ought to because this is a scheme that denies 400,000 unemployed Australians assistance, particularly FLEX 3 assistance. But it is not just that. Contrary to the assurances that the minister is giving the Senate and the minister in the House of Representatives is giving the House of Representatives, it will deny basic FLEX 1 assistance to many of the 400,000 unemployed people who are not in receipt of benefit. And Senator Mackay has already talked about what is going to happen. In a number of places around this country people are going to have to pay for services if they want them. That will not be true if you have special skills, just as it is not true now. Employment agencies will be willing to place people who have special skills because employers will be prepared to pay them for that service.But let me tell you why this government's arguments on this are not believable. They are not believable because this is the coalition that for decades has built its policy rhetoric on the need for incentives and rewards for hard work and the importance of the profit motive. This is the rhetoric of the coalition. But what do we have in this scheme? We have the government saying that, without a profit motive, these 400,000 Australians are going to be serviced by these businesses who are not going to be paid for providing the service. That is what they are saying. To the extent that the government can control the services provided by Employment National, they may be able to provide services. But it will not be everywhere and it will not give access to the jobs that the private providers will, in effect, control because that is the nature of this system.The private providers will form relationships with employers so that they can channel people through their businesses into the employer's business. Employment National may well seek to do the same. But the reality is that the private providers who control those jobs are not going to allow people who are not, in effect, paid for by the Commonwealth access to those jobs. That is denying that business an income stream. What is going to happen is that they will provide them a service provided they have special skills. They will put them on their books and if they have a position they cannot fill then they will provide them a service. But the reality is that the bulk of the 400,000 unemployed Australians not eligible for benefit will not get assistance from this scheme.So this is a scheme that will disadvantage unemployed people with working partners, the children of parents who work, the recently unemployed who are in receipt of redundancy and termination pay and immigrants with less than two years residence in Australia, who have already been penalised by this government.This is the government—we heard about this earlier in question time—that has presided over a system run by the private sector for providing television services. And we heard about how that scheme has led to the blank TV screens in central Australia. That particular case has been caused by the inadequacy of the action of the private provider under, effectively, a private scheme. We have here the transference of a traditionally government provided service to the private sector and we are being told that this scheme will not fail. Let me tell you that this scheme has already begun to fail. We have heard about a couple of examples now, and over the next weeks and months we will hear of many tragedies and failures caused by this scheme. It is an outrage that this particular scheme has been foisted on the Australian public and it is one of the reasons that they will reject the coalition at the next election.15:22:00601Synon, Sen KarenSenator SYNONFQ6VICLP10—It is a shame that the ALP is coming in here again today after one week of aborted discussion on the Natural Heritage Trust: one week of ferreting, one week of zero results. I certainly hope that we are not going to have another week of spurious debate this time about what is the most successful employment tender in this country. I hope that perhaps tomorrow you will be a responsible opposition and come in here with something positive.For the 13 years the ALP was in government the ALP presided over the creation of one million unemployed. In `the recession we had to have' 338,900 jobs were destroyed, and in the six years from July 1990 to May 1996 only 16,000 full-time jobs were created. When Mr Beazley was Minister for Employment, long-term unemployment increased by 95,000 people. Youth unemployment was 31.4 per cent in December 1992.Working Nation was a $12 billion disaster. Non-working nation, it was called by many. The many disenfranchised young people who were forced to take training course after training course after training course called it Training Nation. It was a manipulative and deceptive policy foisted upon unemployed people by the then government. Let me tell you that my experience in skillshare, one of those programs, over many years was that there was never a capacity to provide employment assistance, intensive or otherwise, to people who were not registered by the CES and in receipt of Commonwealth benefits. So it is highly hypocritical of you to come in here today and profess concern for Defence spouses. What an irony.I turn to our record on employment—your record is on unemployment, ours is on employment. There have been 141,800 new jobs created in the past five months, of which 116,000 are full-time—the strongest growth in 2½ years. Contrast this, if you will, with your 16,000. The unemployment rate in trend terms is now at a seven-year low. How do you have the audacity to come into this chamber after looking at your record and talk about unemployment? It is an absolute disgrace. I was at a conference early last year when Wendy Jarvie, the First Assistant Secretary in DEETYA provided some figures for the outcomes of some of the Working Nation programs. New work opportunities, which I think cost in the order of $143,000 per place, had an effective outcome of four per cent. It had an outcome of 21 per cent but, when compared to a comparison control group, 17 per cent of whom got jobs anyway, the net outcome was four per cent, for $143,000 a head. Responsible government? Jobstart had 50 per cent program outcomes on the surface of it but, when compared to the control group, 22 per cent of whom found jobs anyway, the net outcome was only 28 per cent. Jobstart cost $4,100 per place; jobskills cost $47,400.I turn my remarks to the tender itself. For those people who were at the estimates hearing on Friday and took an interest in the matter—I might say on the record that it was after the opposition asked for an extra day, if you will, to consider the effects of the employment outsourcing tendering—it was a cosy day because, as Senator Tierney said previously, we waited and waited for the bombshell. In fact, all three of the government members sat in there eagerly wondering what dirt you could possibly dig up.Let me tell you about the process for the tendering of employment contracts. Prospective tenderers were given the opportunity—(Time expired)15:27:00601Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—The Democrats share the concerns of the opposition and Senator Mackay as to the tendering process for this scheme. Senator Mackay described it as maladministered, messy and mismanaged; I cannot compete with your alliteration, Senator Mackay. I find it extraordinary that Senator Tierney gets up and says that they trawled and trawled and found nothing. I think it is horrifying what we find day by day as we go through this scheme in some detail, be it through the estimates committee process or through the half-hearted answers to questions in this place.I also find it extraordinary that those in the government such as Senator Synon and Senator Tierney can talk about the number of jobs they have created in government. How dare they, when we can see that the number of long-term unemployed has risen since this government first came to office. The youth unemployment rate has increased since this government first came to office. Sure, Senator Tierney can point the finger at the opposition and say, `Well, you had the highest level of youth unemployment in this country.' Indeed, that is a shame, and I think everyone would acknowledge that, but the government today has the second highest record when it comes to youth unemployment. I do not think they are records that either side would necessarily be proud of.As for this `wide range of mechanisms' to counter the high unemployment levels in this country, I was hoping that Senator Tierney would actually elaborate on them, because all I have seen so far are half-hearted schemes like work for the dole which to me do nothing but perpetuate quite negative stereotypes about young people and unemployed people but do very little in terms of creating real jobs. I am sorry I did not get to hear Senator Synon elaborate on the tendering process. The Democrats have had serious concerns about the tendering out of employment services since this idea was first mooted. Sadly, it seems that many of those concerns are being realised; they are close to being realised if they have not been already.We refer to the deeply flawed tendering process and its outcomes, which we believe have alarming ramifications for the provision of vitally needed services for the unemployed, in particular the most disadvantaged unemployed in our community. As part of the tendering processes, organisations were required to answer certain specifications and provide evidence of their ability to provide certain services. This ties in to Senator Tierney's comments about probity. But tenderers for the more lucrative Flex 2 and 3 services were also required to tender for the less profitable Flex 1 services.I do not know about probity, because it is extremely worrying to us that the outcomes of the tendering processes display little evidence of this information actually having been taken into account; that is in the actual awarding of the contracts. Many of the established successful organisations—people whose names we have heard put forward in estimates and of course in this place during question time—Senator Synon interjecting—3I6Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA—No, I have had my turn, thank you, Senator Synon. Many established organisations have lost out to organisations with little or no experience. Of those who were successful, a significant proportion have only been offered a part of their tender request—usually the FLEX 1 component—at a level considered by many of them to be completely unviable financially.In my home state of South Australia, many of you would know of the Offenders Aid and Rehabilitation Services of South Australia, Inc. They received contracts for FLEX 1 and 2 services but not for FLEX 3, their particular area of expertise. A Gold Coast company, Leonie Green and Associates, won two contracts in Botany and Chatswood, even though it has never operated in Sydney. If this is not an example of extraordinary awarding of contracts and tenders, I do not know what is.In so far as a pattern can be ascertained, it would seem that large organisations, some with little or no experience in dealing with long-term unemployed—and remember it is much higher now than when the government first got into office—Senator Abetz interjecting—3I6Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA—Oh, of course it is, Senator Abetz! Do you want to get up and dispute that point? The figures are in black and white. It is extraordinary.They talk about new jobs. Look at the lack of full-time jobs created under this government—not real jobs. The unemployment rate in relation to long-term unemployment has got worse; it has not got better. Look at the casualisation of the work force under your government. Look at the part time-time nature of jobs. What are you doing about long-term, real, sustainable jobs?5L6FERRISSenator Ferris—Under whose government?3I6Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA—I will take that interjection from Senator Ferris. We acknowledge that the restructuring and changing nature of the work force has occurred, at least over the decade, under this government and under the former government, but we have not seen any strategies from your government—this wide range of mechanisms that Senator Tierney talked about. (Time expired)15:32:00603Ferris, Sen JeannieSenator FERRIS5L6SALP10—I think what has been lost here today, in the debate that we have heard from the other side, is the fact that what we are trying to do as a government is to give young people and long-term unemployed people the chance to get a job. We are trying to give them the opportunity, like the rest of us, to get up in the morning and to have a reason to face the day and, at the end of the day, to go home with the sense that they have made a contribution. That is something that has been lost in all of the slamming from the other side today: the chance for young people and older unemployed people to have a job.One of the things that we were listening to this afternoon was a criticism of the probity of the tender process. There was some suggestion that Working Nation had provided a better opportunity than we had to give young people a job. I think most of us know of somebody—someone in our street or suburb or a friend of the family—who was put on a training program under Working Nation. Working Nation was a program of training after training after training. What could have been more depressing for young people, in particular, than to find at the end of four and five training programs that there was no job; there was nothing.Working Nation was a $12 billion disaster, and the increase in expenditure did not lead to more placements in full-time jobs. In fact, Working Nation was a very costly, very ineffective program. It did not provide jobs for our young people. It did not deliver the very extravagant promises that were funded in good faith at the time by the taxpayers of Australia, in the hope that young people would find work as a result of that program. But after $12 billion worth of expenditure—and we have heard from Senator Synon this afternoon just how totally ineffective and expensive that program was—all that those young people did was to spend their lives on a merry-go-round and, at the end of the programs, all they found themselves doing—when they did get up off the couch in the daytime—was going down to the video shop, because they were unable to get jobs in the programs they had been trained for. What a tragedy for all of those thousands of young people who truthfully believed, when they did those training programs, that a job was at the end of it. What we are about is delivering a more effective, more efficient system of providing employment for our unemployed people.There was a very extensive and arms-length tender process, there were 5,000 tender bids for the six service types within the 29 labour market program regions and there were stated selection criteria. All of those tenderers were assessed to ensure they conformed with the process and the tendering conditions. The process was comprehensive, it was rigorous, and it was fair.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—It was a comprehensive foul-up.5L6Ferris, Sen JeannieSenator FERRIS—It was a good deal fairer than the empty promises that your government gave, Senator Faulkner, and you were judged accordingly, not only by those young people but by their parents in March 1996. A number of principles were established in allocating levels of business to tenderers and these were: competition, client choice, diversity, value for money and coverage for as many job seekers in the market as possible. Could there be any more important criteria for the unemployed in this country than a really new, effective chance to have an efficient delivery of services to unemployed people, particularly young people. Surely we need to give this scheme a chance to work and never forget the measurement of $12 billion worth of Working Nation disaster that was delivered by those opposite.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! The time for the debate has expired.Question resolved in the affirmative.60410001CLERK ASSISTANTThe Clerk—Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows:604156VI4Reid Sen MargaretTo the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled.We are dismayed at the continuing destruction of old growth and wilderness forests around Australia, despite the National Forest Policy Statement jointly signed by the Commonwealth and all States except Tasmania.Intensive logging, most often to feed a voracious woodchip industry is underway or planned for many high conservation value forests. These forests should be protected by the commitments of the Commonwealth and State Governments under the NFPS.These forests include:Coolangubra Wilderness and other areas of the S.E. Forests of NSW along with rainforest and other N.E. areas of NSW including Wingham, Mistake, Richmond Range, Chaelundi, North Washpool, Barrington and Dorrigo.The Southern Highlands, Great Western Tiers and Tarkine Wilderness of Tasmania.The Karri and Jarrah forests of S.W. Western Australia.The Errinundra Plateau and other areas of the East Gippsland forests of Victoria.The rainforests of the Proserpine region of Queensland.We request that the Government act urgently to protect our precious forests by utilising the Commonwealth's legal and constitutional powers, including:Refusal of export woodchip licencesPowers to control corporationsProtection of areas listed on the register of the National EstateProtection and effective funding of areas identified for their World Heritage values. Genuine and effective action by the Government to protect these and other old growth and wilderness forests is critical. A comprehensive plantation strategy rather than exploiting native forests is the way forward for a truly environmentally responsible timber industry. We further request that the Government take effective action without further delay.Senator ReidVI4Senator Reid(from 156 citizens)60413VI4Reid Sen MargaretTo the Honourable the President of the Senate assembled in Parliament.The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House our concerns regarding the issue of the proposed new Therapeutic Goods Advertising Code.Your petitioners therefore pray that the House take immediate steps to reject the current form of the legislation which will:1. Bring into being a Therapeutic Goods Act that will severely curtail fair competition by restricting permissible statements in advertising that far exceed the restrictions imposed on any other sector of private enterprise.2. Set up a system by which even unwitting offenders against the Advertising Code will have no legal recourse and can be effectively prevented from trading.3. Limit the right of citizens to make fully informed choices in selecting health care options from the range of traditional and alternative therapies available.Senator ReidVI4Senator Reid(from 13 citizens)6048VI4Reid Sen MargaretTo the Honourable President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled:The Petition of the undersigned wish to draw to the attention of the Senate the proposed closure of the Public Sector Superannuation Scheme to new employees from 1 July, 1998.Your petitioners believe the closure is unfair to new employees who will have fewer and less beneficial options for superannuation the closure will undermine the medium and long term viability of both the PSS and CSS for current employees the closure is a clear breach of government policy to maintain separate superannuation arrangements for the public sector and of the Prime Minister's commitment not to cut superannuation for prospective public sector employees.Your petitioners request that the Senate should: reject proposals to close the Public Sector Superannuation Scheme (PSS) to new employees and continue to ensure that both current and future employees of the Commonwealth maintain access to the current scheme.Senator ReidVI4Senator Reid(from 8 citizens)Petitions received.Notices605605605Abetz, Sen EricSenator ABETZN26TASLP10—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee be authorised to hold a public meeting during the sitting of the Senate on 12 March 1998, from 9.30 am to 10.30 am and from 4 pm to 7.30 pm, to take evidence from the Australian Consumers Association, the Australian Customs Service and the Department of Communications and the Arts, as part of the committee's inquiry into the Copyright Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1997.605605Troeth, Sen JudithSenator TROETHGX5VICLP10—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the Senate recognising International Women's Day on 8 March 1998, notes:(a) the contribution of rural women to Australia's agricultural sector and rural communities;(b) recent research which indicates that: (i) 32 per cent of Australia's farm work force is female, (ii) women contribute over 28 per cent of hours worked on farms, representing $4 billion per annum, (iii) women also contribute 80 per cent of off-farm wage income to the sector, and (iv) despite their level of input, women occupy less than 20 per cent of paid management and board of management positions in the agricultural sector; and(c) Coalition Government programs which encourage women in the agricultural sector to become more involved at a leadership level, including: (i) a rural women's scholarship worth $37 500 which allows the successful applicant to participate in the Australian Rural Leadership program (ARLP), and which has, since the introduction of the scholar ship in 1997, led to an increase of 25 per cent in the number of female applicants for the ARLP, (ii) a roundtable of leading rural women to contribute to the development of a business plan for Australian agriculture, held in December 1997, (iii) the support of the Rural Women's Unit in the Department of Primary Industries and Energy, which provides an important link between the Commonwealth Government and women in rural Australia, (iv) progress towards establishing a national action plan for women in agriculture and resources management, and (v) the introduction of the Farm Business Improvement program through the Agriculture-Advancing Australia package, which will benefit farmers by providing activities that will develop their farm business and financial planning capabilities, with a specific component for women.605605Reynolds, Sen MargaretSenator REYNOLDSXI4QLDALP00—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the Australian Government should mark International Women's Day 1998 by responding publicly to the recommendations made by the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women in July 1997, which include:That the Government should carefully monitor the impact of recent policy changes in all areas covered by the convention for inclusion in its next periodic report. To that end, it recommended that Australia conduct analyses of the successes and shortcomings of the new policies with a view to providing data for future action, both in Australia and elsewhere. It recommended that the Government design a long-term strategy aimed at the full implementation of the convention.That an evaluation should be conducted of the Workplace Relations Act 1996, assessing its impact on women of different age groups, with different educational levels and in different occupational groups. The Government should assess whether the Act leads to increased or decreased part-time and casual work, and its impact on women workers' benefits and on workers with family responsibilities, particularly women's ability to obtain maternity leave. A similar evaluation and assessment was recommended for Australia's new child care benefit scheme.That the Government assess the benefits of a continuing national women's health policy and ensure that any further change in that policy did not lead to a decreased access by women, especially vulnerable groups of women, to comprehensive health services. It also recommended that data and indicators on health should be collected, disaggregated by sex, age, ethnicity, rural/urban areas and other distinctions. Data should also be collected on the impact of the shift in responsibility for health care from the federal to the State level.That the convention, as well as the Beijing Declaration and Platform of Action, should be translated for non-English speaking Australians.That a comprehensive strategy to eliminate violence against women should be adopted following the National Domestic Violence Summit, with an emphasis on prevention, and with sufficient funding. It also recommended that ways should be found to involve women's groups in the development of strategies to reduce violence in the media, including electronic media, and that they should participate in the development of self-regulatory codes of practice of the media. The Government should further assess its monitoring and enforcement responsibilities in that regard.Noting the differing State provisions in relation to prostitution, the Government should assess the effectiveness of the varying measures in reducing the exploitation of prostitution.That the Government collect statistical data on the participation of indigenous women in the work force, in decision-making, in politics and administration, and in the judiciary. It suggested that the Government might include representatives of indigenous communities when it presented its next report to the committee.That, in the light of the Mabo and Wik judgments of the High Court, the Government should develop the necessary legislative and policy measures to ensure women's equal access to individual ownership of native land.The Government strengthen its support for women's studies, provide funding for research and teaching, and facilitate international academic exchange and cooperation in that field.The Government resume its active and visible participation in international forums on women's equality, such as in the Commonwealth and the United Nations.The wide dissemination of these concluding comments in Australia, so as to make individuals aware of the steps that had been taken to ensure de facto equality for women. 606606Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT5F4TASLP10—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the Senate—(a) notes: (i) the outstanding success of the Tasmanian Sheffield side in once again reaching the final of that competition, (ii) the victory of young Tasmanian golf professional, Mathew Goggin, who won his first major tournament in Canberra on 8 March 1998, (iii) that, provided the facilities are available, Tasmanian sportsmen and sportswomen can compete at both a national and international level successfully, and (iv) the need for an international multi-purpose stadium with night lighting to allow all Tasmanians to have full access to and participation in a wide range of sporting and recreation activities; and(b) urges the Federal Government to consider the Tasmanian Government's request that an international stadium be considered for federation funding.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator Calvert, some of that may not be in order, although we do recognise the importance of Tasmania.Notice amended by Madam President pursuant to standing order 76 .606606Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEYHX5QLDAD00—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That there be laid on the table by the Special Minister of State (Senator Minchin), no later than 12 pm on 10 March 1998, any legal advice received by the Government on how the Native Title Amendment Bill 1997 satisfies the requirements of section 57 of the Constitution.606606Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—At the request of Senator Vanstone, I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, she will move:That the Senate—(a) notes: (i) that Senator Bolkus, during and after a press conference on 5 January 1998, revealed certain contents of a confidential Federal Court affidavit, (ii) that this affidavit formed part of legal proceedings undertaken by Mr Max Donnelly, trustee of the bankrupt estate of Mr Christopher Skase, to recover assets allegedly concealed by Mr Skase, (iii) that Federal Court affidavits may only be obtained by leave of the court or a judge, (iv) that in relation to the affidavit revealed by Senator Bolkus no such leave had been obtained, and (v) that Mr Donnelly had not authorised the release of the affidavit by either his firm or solicitors acting for him;(b) censures Senator Bolkus for: (i) revealing the contents of a confidential Federal Court affidavit, (ii) his disregard of the larger public interest in putting at risk the success of Mr Donnelly's legal attempts to recover assets belonging to the bankrupt estate of Mr Christopher Skase, and (iii) his knowingly taking a course of action directly contrary to the public interest; and(c) calls on Senator Bolkus to apologise for his actions to: (i) Mr Max Donnelly, trustee of the bankrupt estate of Mr Christopher Skase, (ii) the Federal Court, and (iii) the Senate.607607Bourne, Sen VickiSenator BOURNETW4NSWAD00—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the Senate—(a) notes that: (i) 10 March 1998 is Tibetan National Uprising Day and marks the 39th anniversary of the Lhasa uprising, the day of the Chinese invasion of Tibet's capital city in 1959, (ii) the day will be marked by a series of events in Tibetan communities around the world as a symbol of support for Tibetans living under Chinese occupation, and (iii) these events include marches across many countries and the Sydney to Canberra march arrives in Canberra on 10 March 1998; (b) is encouraged by the policy of His Holiness the Dalai Lama to negotiate with the Chinese Government to determine the future status of Tibet, including granting political autonomy and self-rule for Tibet, mirroring that granted to Hong Kong; and(c) calls on the Australian Government to request that the Chinese Government undertake immediate dialogue with the Dalai Lama on the Tibetan issue.607607Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT5F4TASLP10—On behalf of Senator Chapman, I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, he will move:That the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Securities be authorised to hold two public meetings during the sittings of the Senate on 12 March 1998, from 9.30 am to 1.30 pm, to take evidence for the committee's inquiry into the Managed Investments Bill 1997, and from 4 pm, to take evidence for the committee's inquiry into the Company Law Review Bill 1997.607607Abetz, Sen EricSenator ABETZN26TASLP10—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the time for the presentation of the report of the Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee on the provisions of the Copyright Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1997 be extended to 30 March 1998.607607Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the Senate—(a) notes that: (i) the Minister for the Environment (Senator Hill) has released a consultation paper, entitled, Reform of Commonwealth Environment Legislation , seeking public comment by 23 March 1998, (ii) comment is called for on the most extensive review of environmental powers ever initiated by the Commonwealth, (iii) if it were a true public consultation process there would be no drafting of legislation until comments had been received and evaluated, (iv) while the Minister wants the legislation introduced into Parliament in April 1998, there is no need for this haste, and (v) the Minister is already getting the legislation drafted so that it will be ready regardless of the public comments received, making it a cynical public relations exercise; and(b) calls on the Minister to give a commitment to the Senate that the drafting of the legislation will immediately stop until the date for comments has closed and those comments received have been evaluated and incorporated into the review process.608608Bourne, Sen VickiSenator BOURNETW4NSWAD00—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the Senate notes that:(a) International Women's Day was celebrated on 8 March 1998;(b) the Australian Democrats have achieved unparalleled success in promoting equal opportunity for women, having a female Leader, Deputy Leader and Whip and a history of fighting for, and winning, important gains for Australian women;(c) the `boys' club' mentality that pervades the Australian Labor Party, the Liberal Party of Australia and the National Party of Australia has prevented women from having an equal voice in the political arena; and(d) both the Australian Labor Party's quota system and the Liberal Party of Australia's `rock-solid commitment' to increasing the numbers of women preselected for winnable seats, have been revealed as empty rhetoric in their failure to provide any significant progress towards addressing the current gender imbalance in Australian political life.608608Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the Senate—(a) notes: (i) that 6 March 1998 was `Go Casual for a Cause' day, and (ii) that, on this day, members of the community are encouraged to `Go Casual for a Cause' by wearing jeans, pyjamas, a moth-balled relic from the past, or an `I would if I could' badge for those who cannot bring themselves to dress casually; and (b) commends the Spastic Centres of Australia in their bid to make Australians `Go Casual for a Cause' on 6 March 1998 in support of therapy, research, education and services for people with cerebral palsy.608608Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the Senate—(a) notes that: (i) nine local governments in Victoria have signed the Abolition 2000 Local Authorities Resolution, prepared by the Campaign for International Co-operation and Disarmament, in which councils resolve to: (A) call on the governments of nuclear-capable countries to commence negotiation on a nuclear weapons convention to prohibit and eliminate all nuclear weapons early in the next century, (B) call for all nuclear weapons to be immediately taken off alert status, for all warheads to be taken off transportation vehicles and for the nuclear-capable countries to agree to unconditional no first use of these weapons, and (C) declare support for the further development of legally binding national and international nuclear weapon free zones throughout the world, and (ii) more than 100 local governments across Australia have signed the resolution, along with the National Assembly of Local Governments and the local governments associations from Western Australia, South Australia and New South Wales; and(b) congratulates these local governments for their support of this resolution as part of their commitment to global disarmament.608608Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the Senate—(a) notes that, on 9 May 1998, the Nillumbik Reconciliation Committee will be hosting a reconciliation event in the Shire of Nillumbik, Victoria, and that this event will involve a symbolic walk to Wingrove Park, a Welcome to Country, and a presentation of the Nillumbik statement of reconciliation and apology made to representatives of the Wurundjeri people; and(b) congratulates the Nillumbik Reconciliation Committee and the Nillumbik Shire on their initiative in arranging this significant and historical event as part of the ongoing process of reconciliation.Committees609609609Motion (by Senator Patterson)—by leave—agreed to:That the time for the presentation of the reports of the Environment, Recreation, Communications and the Arts Legislation Committee on the National Environment Protection Measures (Implementation) Bill 1997 [1998], and on the provisions of the National Transmission Network Sale Bill 1997 and a related bill, be extended to 12 March 1998.609609Motion (by Senator Abetz)—by leave—agreed to:That the time for the presentation of the report of the Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee on the provisions of the Migration Legislation Amendment (Strengthening of Provisions relating to Character and Conduct) Bill 1997 be extended to 12 March 1998.Business609609Motion (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 appointment of a select committee on certain government accountability matters, be postponed till the next day of sitting.609Motion (by Senator Bourne) agreed to:That general business notice of motion No. 933 standing in the name of Senator Bourne for today, relating to the Multilateral Agreement on Investment, be postponed till the next day of sitting. 609Motion (by Senator Margetts) agreed to:That general business notice of motion No. 927 standing in the name of Senator Margetts for today, relating to the Multilateral Agreement on Investment, be postponed till the next day of sitting.609Motion (by Senator O'Brien) agreed to:That business of the Senate notice of motion No. 2 standing in the name of Senator O'Brien for today, relating to the reference of a matter to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee, be postponed till the next day of sitting.609Motion (by Senator Margetts) agreed to:That general business notice of motion No. 938 standing in the name of Senator Margetts for today, relating to the imprisonment of Mariana Cetiner, be postponed till the next day of sitting.609Motion (by Senator Margetts) agreed to:That general business notice of motion No. 688 standing in the name of Senator Margetts for today, relating to the appointment of a select committee on the socio-economic consequences of the national competition policy, be postponed till 23 March 1998.Committees609609609Motion (by Senator Tierney) agreed to:(1) That the following matter be referred to the Employment, Education and Training References Committee for inquiry and report by 20 August 1998: The effectiveness of education and training programs for indigenous Australians.(2) In conducting its inquiry, the committee will: (a) survey the recommendations arising over the past decade from parliamentary, government, commission and agency reports which deal with Aboriginal education and training; (b) assess the implementation, ongoing relevance and efficacy of recommendations which seek to raise educational achievement and to employ culturally-appropriate pedagogy to maximise participation of indigenous Australians in formal educational settings; (c) examine the extent to which recommendations aimed at improving indigenous peoples' educational participation and achievement have been implemented by the relevant authorities, and evaluate the benefits which have flowed from them; (d) identify any obstacles to the achievement of participation of indigenous Australians in education and training and make recommendations as to how to how these might be overcome; (e) examine recent initiatives which have proven successful in improving the participation rates and levels of achievement of indigenous Australians in the national vocational education and training system; (f) formulate advice concerning the development and management of education and training programs by indigenous Australians for indigenous Australians; and (g) provide a comparative account of the levels of resources, both Commonwealth and State, devoted to education and training programs for indigenous Australians.610610Motion (by Senator Lees)—as amended by leave—agreed to:That the following matter be referred to the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties for inquiry and report by 25 May 1998:Advantages and/or disadvantages for Australia arising from the Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI) currently being negotiated by the Australian Government at the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, with particular reference to:(a) the ability of countries to impose conditions on foreign investment;(b) the ability of countries to establish limits on foreign investment;(c) the implications arising from the `roll back' and `standstill' provisions;(d) the ability of countries to pursue social, environmental, labour, cultural, human rights and indigenous protections and the impacts for each of these sectors resulting from foreign investment regimes under the MAI; (e) any implications for Australia's national debt and current account deficit of the growth in foreign investment the MAI is expected to bring;(f) the MAI's dispute handling procedures;(g) the issue of the constitutionality of the MAI for Australia;(h) the impact on agricultural and manufacturing sectors;(i) the impact on State, Territory and local governments; and(j) the impact on Australian investors seeking to invest overseas.Notice of motion altered on 4 March 1998 pursuant to standing order 77.Miscellaneous610Motion (by Senator Bourne) agreed to:That there be laid on the table, by the Minister representing the Treasurer (Senator Kemp), no later than 2 pm on 9 May 1998, the following documents:The full draft text of the Multilateral Agreement on Investment being negotiated by treasury officials at the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, including the text itself, whether in draft or final form, and the complete list of reservations, and their accompanying text, that Australia wishes to attach to the text under negotiation.Miscellaneous610Motion (by Senator Brown) proposed:In view of the court decision in Moe on 27 February 1998, the Senate calls for a halt to logging under the auspices of the East Gippsland Forest Management Plan and Regional Forest Agreement until its legality is established. Question put:16:00:00The 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.43Abetz, E. Bishop, M.Brownhill, D. G. C. Calvert, P. H.Campbell, G. Campbell, I. G.Carr, K. Collins, J. M. A.Colston, M. A. Coonan, H.Cooney, B. Crowley, R. A.Denman, K. J. Eggleston, A.Ellison, C. Evans, C. V. *Faulkner, J. P. Ferguson, A. B.Ferris, J. Gibbs, B.Hogg, J. Kemp, R.Lundy, K. Macdonald, S.Mackay, S. McGauran, J. J. J.McKiernan, J. P. Neal, B. J.Newman, J. M. O'Brien, K. W. K.O'Chee, W. G. Patterson, K. C. L.Quirke, J. A. Ray, R. F.Reid, M. E. Reynolds, M.Schacht, C. C. Sherry, N.Tierney, J. Troeth, J.Vanstone, A. E. Watson, J. O. W.West, S. M.Question so resolved in the negative.Miscellaneous611Motion (by Senator Lees) not agreed to:That the following message be sent to the House of Representatives:The Senate requests the House of Representatives to resume consideration of the Native Title Amendment Bill 1997 and the public service package of bills, which were laid aside on the motion of the Government on 5 and 6 December 1997, to reconsider those of the Senate amendments which were disagreed to by the Government and to agree to those amendments. This will enable the best available settlement of outstanding questions relating to native title and the public service to be achieved without further delay, a delay which the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) has said should be avoided.Miscellaneous611Motion (by Senator Brown) not agreed to:That the Senate condemns the dangerous change in police procedures when police attend logging demonstrations in Tasmania such that they no longer ensure that protesters are removed from a coupe before logging proceeds.Miscellaneous611Motion (by Senator Brown) proposed:That the Senate—(a) condemns Mr Rupert Murdoch's action in pressuring his publishing company Harper Collins into stopping the publication of Mr Christopher Patten's memoirs, apparently in order to protect his business interests in China;(b) notes the extent of Mr Murdoch's media holdings in Australia and expresses its concern that similar pressure is being or may be applied to suppress freedom of speech here; and(c) calls on the Government to act urgently to reduce the domination of Australia's media by Mr Murdoch and Mr Packer and to increase the diversity of ownership and control. Question put:16:09:00The 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.39Bishop, M. Brownhill, D. G. C.Calvert, P. H. * Campbell, G.Campbell, I. G. Carr, K.Collins, J. M. A. Conroy, S.Coonan, H. Cooney, B.Crowley, R. A. Denman, K. J.Eggleston, A. Ellison, C.Evans, C. V. Faulkner, J. P.Ferguson, A. B. Gibbs, B.Hogg, J. Lundy, K.Macdonald, I. Macdonald, S.Mackay, S. McKiernan, J. P.Neal, B. J. Newman, J. M.O'Brien, K. W. K. Patterson, K. C. L.Payne, M.A. Quirke, J. A.Ray, R. F. Reid, M. E.Reynolds, M. Schacht, C. C.Sherry, N. Tierney, J.Troeth, J. Watson, J. O. W.West, S. M.Question so resolved in the negative.Miscellaneous612Motion by (Senator Patterson)—as amended by leave—agreed to:That the Senate—(a) notes that 8 March 1998 was 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 appointments of Victoria Owen as Australia's ambassador to Egypt and Denise Fisher as Australia's ambassador to Zimbabwe, and (ii) that this brings to 12 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 nine women as heads of mission or heads of post since coming into office in March 1996.Documents61261210000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Pursuant to Standing Order 166, I present documents as listed in today's order of business, which were presented to the Deputy President since the last sitting of the Senate. In accordance with the terms of the standing orders, the publication of the documents was authorised.The list read as follows—Audit Act—Performance audit—DEETYA international services: Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs (Report No. 35 of 1997-98). [Received on 5 March 1998 ]Department of Primary Industries and Energy—Business Ethics, Security and Investigation Unit—Forest industry structural adjustment package: Report of a preliminary investigation into allegations of corruption and concerns regarding the operation of the package, dated January 1998. [Received on 6 March 1998 ]61261216:13:00612Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—by leave—I move:That the Senate take note of the document. The Auditor-General's Report No. 35 of 1997-98—Performance audit—DEETYA International Services: Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs highlights yet again another difficulty with that department. While the concept of promoting and expanding export opportunities in the field of education and training is one that I fully support and encourage, I do think that this is, yet again, an opportunity to highlight some difficulties that are emerging with the administration of this portfolio.It is unfortunate that the problems that the Auditor-General has identified with this particular division are now becoming indicative of a broader problem within DEETYA. What the Auditor has established is that this particular section was not operating successfully in a range of areas which included financial planning, management of risks and cost methodology. As a result of its shortcomings in the way in which this program was administered there seems to be an accumulated cash deficit of $1.4 million.While that may not be a particularly large sum of money in the context of this department it is nonetheless worthy of note. I want to emphasise that I actually support the expansion and promotion of Australian export opportunities in education. What I do not support, however, is the problems that are now emerging within DEETYA as a direct result of the decline in the resourcing and staffing of this department. It seems to me that the levels of staffing within this department are now such that issues surrounding overall accountability, management and monitoring of programs raise serious concerns within this parliament at large.DEETYA is not alone when it comes to the problems surrounding these particular matters. This has been highlighted by DEETYA and senior officials of DEETYA itself before the estimates committee last Friday. What has been highlighted there is the inability to keep an accurate track of the spiralling increase in the use of consultancies. In my view, Dr Kemp has to take direct and personal responsibility for this because he has attempted to cover up the extent to which this department has become dependent upon consultants. We have seen the way in which its agencies as well as the department have now used consultants in a very limited period. A small window has opened to us, through which we have been able to establish that some $7 million has been spent on consultants.We have seen that this department has been gutted by this government. It has lost 80 per cent of its staff. This was the second biggest spending department in government. Its staffing figures, as revealed before the estimates by the secretary to the department, highlight that it has moved from 16,000 people two years ago down to some 2,500 people over the next financial year. This department has been gutted. The situation has now arisen where this government is seeking to spend millions and millions of dollars in consultancies to cover up the failure of this particular portfolio.What we have here is a government engaged in a callous exercise of job replacement. Thousands of public servants are being shown the door and they are being replaced by consultants at an ever increasing rate of expense to undertake the work that was once done by officers of the department.The secretary to the department has admitted some embarrassment with regard to the way in which the department itself is not able to maintain its record systems properly any more. He has been able to identify to us that three separate lists of consultants were provided to the estimates committee as a result of questions that I have raised.The fact remains that the department still has not got it right. For this limited period of time during which we were seeking information, they were not able to distinguish between a consultant and a service provider on a consistent basis. This government has shown that its attempt to use the idea of a service provider has meant some $1 million of the $7 million can be reallocated away from the publicly declared requirements under the annual reporting provisions that are a normal part of public administration into an area which does not require public accountability at the same levels.What we have seen is an attempt to hide the massive blow-out in consultancies by this government and by this minister, who is engaged in a consultancy binge in an attempt to secure the advice that he wants—not independent, impartial, analytical advice from a fearless, independent public service but advice that he can control in a manner which is not subject to the normal rigours of the parliamentary system. In so doing, he increasingly provides that advice to consultants or service providers depending on what day of the week it is and depending on which officer actually engages the contract. Sometimes it can only be one officer. Only one officer is now required to make up a selection panel for some of these very expensive consultancies in a manner that means that the advice can be tailored to meet the demands of government rather than provide the independent basis of advice that we normally come to expect from the Public Service.The fact that we have had a reduction in staffing in this department—the privatisation of this department by stealth from 16,000 people two years ago to 2,500 people in the space of two years—is deplorable. The fact that we have had to expose it through the estimates process is the bombshell that Senator Tierney is so anxious to avoid. It is the bombshell that they are so concerned about.We have a climate of staff reductions, a department that is hideously embarrassed by the way in which these policies have been administered and a minister who shows no embarrassment, because he is shameless. We have a government that is shameless as to the consequences of its policies which will have a detrimental effect on the students and the unemployed of this country. We have an acknowledgment by the department of the inconsistent application of guidelines with regard to the use of consultants and service providers. We have clear evidence that the department's records are in a complete shambles, despite the secretary's guidelines and despite the Public Service guidelines in terms of a procurement of government services.What we have is the capacity now for individual officers to have the discretion to determine what consultancies should go forward and what should not. What we have therefore is a government that has been working in a climate where DEETYA is not able to fulfil its obligations. There is little wonder that there have been so many scandals within this department? Is there little wonder that there have now been two ministers embroiled in the crises within this department?9L6MACKAYSenator Mackay—And how many secretaries?AW5Carr, Sen KimSenator CARR—There have been three secretaries in this department. I thank Senator Mackay very much for that interjection. There have been three secretaries in the space of three years because of the scandals within this department, which is not the responsibilities of individual officers. It is because they have to carry the burden of government policy, which is totally inappropriate to the needs of this country. We have seen staffing reductions of 80 per cent. We have a budget demand by this government that, despite the fact that this department has 10 per cent of total government expenditure, it is required to carry 30 per cent—$4.3 billion—of the budget cuts.Of course there will be problems and of course there will be crises as a result of the actions of this government. They have completely wiped out the corporate memory of this department. Is there any wonder that one problem after another is emerging as a result of the actions of this government which have reduced this department to a shadow of its former self.It concerns me greatly that members opposite in this chamber express so little concern about the loss of service to the students and the unemployed of this country, so little concern about the consequences of a failure of government policy, so little concern about the loss of public moneys, so little concern about the questions of probity that are now emerging with regard to the employment market services and so little concern about the appalling failure in process that has resulted from 75 per cent of ANTA's consultancies going out in one period without a full and open tender process.An increasingly small number of consultants are getting the benefit of an increasingly larger sum of money as a result of fewer and fewer officers being made available to carry out the functions of this department. Is there little wonder that people ask why it is that everyone else in this country is required to operate on an open and competitive basis, as this government says, but the government operates on such a narrow, restricted basis—on the basis of selective invited tenders.16:23:00614Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEYO15NSWLP10—The government welcomes Auditor-General's Report No. 35 of 1997-98—Performance audit—DEETYA International Services: Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs —a very valuable report which confirms a number of management reforms that have been introduced recently by DEETYA International Services. One of the major reforms has been the adoption of a new DIS operational framework based on a cost recovery model which addresses the areas which ANAO has highlighted needs improvement. These include financial planning, management of risk and costing methodology.Following the adoption of this framework, DIS has revised its business plan to focus on continuing improvement links of output based budgeting and reporting, it is developing a comprehensive risk management plan and it is moving to full accrual based financial management. These reforms will further contribute to DIS's success in winning tenders and obtaining client satisfaction for services which are delivered.The ANAO report on DIS acknowledged the vital contribution that DIS is making to export opportunities for Australian education, training and labour market providers in a number of regions, including the countries of South-East Asia, central Asia and eastern Europe. Over the last four years DIS has secured contracts worth $9.6 million in these very important export markets. The current financial difficulty in some countries in our region coupled with increasing competition and the imperative of Australian groups targeting markets carefully has been included so that DIS will work harder to improve the position to respond to current and future demands in the marketplace.It was interesting that Senator Carr spent only a few minutes concentrating on the findings of the report and also the way in which the government has moved very quickly—even before the report was brought down—to institute a number of changes. It has established a relatively new organisation. It has been established in a Public Service culture, and it has to have a market orientation. Of course, this combination in the early stages does create some difficulties. It has recognised those difficulties and it is moving very quickly to reform this body.Senator Carr's broader remarks relating to the Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs show a lack of knowledge of the history of DEETYA. He seems to indicate that the problems have come from the current change in arrangements. He obviously has no knowledge of the history of the sorts of things that were happening six or seven years ago—in 1991, when the Auditor-General did heavily qualify his report into DEETYA under Senator Carr's government eight years after they came into government. As a matter of fact, things were in such a shambles at that time that in the following year DEETYA appointed 40 internal auditors to try to fix up the mess in the accountability systems. Over the years since then, DEETYA has, to its great credit, got its act together and improved accountability arrangements. Over seven years I certainly have not seen any backsliding from that.Senator Carr went on to talk about various things relating to consultancies and outsourcing. If we restructure the way in which we provide these services, which this government has done, and if we move to a more market based approach, obviously we do not need as many public servants. The test in the end will be the way in which services are delivered and the way in which people do end up being placed in real jobs. I would have thought that sort of outcome is the ultimate test that we should be looking at.Look at the appalling record of Senator Carr's government in relation to not only the high levels of unemployment that developed during the time Labor were mismanaging this country but also the way in which they then approached the problem. Sure, they employed an enormous number of public servants and committed billions of dollars to the exercise. I suppose in a way that is commendable—except that they did not get the outcomes, which meant they got the worst of both worlds: they wasted taxpayers' dollars and people were still in the unemployment queue. They had a totally hopeless approach to this.In 1996 the voters in this country thoroughly recognised the hopelessness of Labor's approach in their `not Working Nation' scheme and threw them out of office. Voters wanted a totally different approach. This government has brought in this approach, and there is every sign that it will have a much better chance of success than the mess those opposite created in the unemployment area.Question resolved in the affirmative.Committees61561561516:30:00615Ferris, Sen JeannieSenator FERRIS5L6SALP10—On behalf of the Joint Committee on the National Crime Authority, I present a report of the committee on the examination of the annual report for 1996-97 of the National Crime Authority. I seek leave to move a motion and make a short statement in relation to the report.Leave granted.5L6Ferris, Sen JeannieSenator FERRIS—I move:That the Senate take note of the report.The committee carefully examined the annual report of the National Crime Authority. We were pleased to see that the NCA has taken into account the changes that were requested of the authority in the presentation of its information last year in its annual report. We were reassured by the greater clarity of analysis of the information in the annual report—particularly the statistical information—compared with that in the past. It is very clear that the NCA is engaged in a quiet but very effective war against drugs.I would like the Senate to take note of the fact that over the past three months the NCA has made a number of significant arrests in connection with the drugs war. There were five networks involving the use of heroin that were smashed, with 17 people arrested, including a number of senior crime figures. There were three arrests and the seizure of 21 kilos of heroin with a street value of $32 million. There were nine arrests and an interstate heroin ring broken. Twelve people were arrested in three raids with heroin, cocaine, firearms and stolen goods seized. In another case there were 10 individuals arrested and a syndicate was cracked that operated in Victoria, New South Wales and Western Australia. While the war against these drugs is of course ever-present and far from won, it is clear that the NCA is making significant inroads into this very sad human tragedy in Australia.16:32:00616Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—by leave—I would like to make some brief remarks about the report by the parliamentary Joint Committee on the National Crime Authority on the examination of the annual report for 1996-97. The annual report has been examined by the committee and found to be satisfactory for a number of reasons—its improved presentation, its timeliness and its relationship to the corporate plan. These are indeed mostly housekeeping issues. But, more importantly for the Australian Democrats, we are concerned that where a person's name is included in a report in the context of them being charged, it is essential that, if the matter does not proceed or if the person is found not guilty, the matter be included in the annual report. The report states at paragraph 27:The Committee acknowledges the fine line between `suspected' and `charged' prior to the matter going to court and sympathises with the NCA, as a law enforcement body, not wishing to breach its own enabling legislation.I can only say that the reporting of not guilty and charges withdrawn matters are absolutely essential. This approach should be reconsidered in the near future to ensure the practice does not place undue hardship on those charged and later found to be not guilty or to have the charges dropped.I also, for the record, would like to restate my concerns about the investigation into the bombing of the NCA office in Adelaide. As we all know in this chamber, this was one of the most serious attacks on a law enforcement agency in this nation's history. It occurred in my home state of South Australia on 2 March 1994. That bombing killed Geoffrey Bowen and maimed Peter Wallis. Despite the fact that this happened more than three years ago, there has been no successful prosecution of this crime. Of course, there are many questions that remain unanswered; there are many outstanding questions. This is not good enough from the perspective of our law enforcement agencies. I believe that it is the role of this parliament, and our responsibility, to make sure that we get to the bottom of this particular tragic event.I understand that security has been beefed up on NCA recommendations. I understand, for example, that all mail is now X-rayed and other measures are in place to protect from harm these agencies and the individuals that work within them. If this is not the case, however, if there are any loopholes whatsoever, something must be done to bring the protective measures up to standard. I note that the Democrats have raised these concerns in this place on a number of occasions. We believe that those people who are in a position of authority and who are charged with the responsibility of protecting others are entitled to the maximum level of physical and other security available. The lives of those in public service are indeed valuable, like all other lives, and we must learn the lessons of this particular tragedy to make sure that nothing like it at all happens again.I am also concerned about the coroner's inquest. After three years the South Australian coroner's office has not convened an inquest into this tragedy because the police investigation has not been finalised. I understand that is the rationale and that this is standard practice in my home state. However, given the lack of prosecution after all this time—it is over three years, as I said—we should be seeking answers as to why the coroner's inquest has not even started. I believe this investigation is central to resolving this tragedy and learning the lessons so that this never happens again.Question resolved in the affirmative.Miscellaneous61716:36:00617Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEYHX5QLDAD00—I present the report of the Australian parliamentary delegation to Venezuela and the United States of America which took place between 5 July and 22 July 1997. I seek leave to make some comments.Leave granted.HX5Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEY—First of all, I want to congratulate the staff who wrote the report because it is a good report. It does give a very good overview of the things that we learnt, the places we went to and the people we met. The recommendations in the report are mainly from a government perspective, and it is very appropriate that that should be so. But, of course, there would be some of those recommendations that the Democrats would not agree with. For that reason, at the end of my comments I will seek leave to continue my remarks because I believe that Senator Ferris, who was also on the delegation, really should have an opportunity to reflect on the report.Some things which are in the report or which were hinted at and some things which are not in the report probably should be put on the record. I should indicate that Senator Childs would have been presenting this report today had he still been in the Senate. He was the deputy leader of the delegation—and a very good deputy leader—but he has since retired from the Senate. I also indicate that the leader of the delegation was the previous Speaker of the House of Representatives, the Hon. Bob Halverson, and he was a very good leader. But I do not know if I should make any comment on the fact that both the leader and deputy leader have had a significant change in circumstance since this delegation.Let me draw attention to a couple of things in the report. One of the groups we met with was an inter-parliamentary forum on external debt from the countries of Venezuela, Brazil, Bolivia, Peru and Surinam. They met to inform us about the very serious level of external debt in their countries and the fact that huge debt servicing payments have been made without any reduction in the amount still outstanding because of large interest rates. This was actually a fairly lively meeting. There was a presentation by government members present and some protests from non-government members about the solutions to debt. I think it is good that delegations do not necessarily always agree and that we could have that kind of debate.For that reason, I would add to the answers given by government members about how to tackle debt. There were some other solutions that were discussed by this forum of parliamentary members from these other countries. In particular, they raised with us the possibility of debt forgiveness, which did not seem to appeal to many members of the delegation but which is something that I have debated and discussed for a long time—and I was happy to do that with them.Another part of our delegation in Venezuela was to visit an Australian embassy sponsored social development project. I have to commend the members of the Australian embassy in Venezuela for their involvement in this. It certainly gives the other side of the picture to the usual fairly glowing reports that we get from delegations about the possibilities of trade, et cetera. What that visit revealed to us—and I need to describe it to the Senate—was the incredible poverty in a country like Venezuela, which is not a poor country in terms of its resources, its income, its industry, et cetera. Nevertheless, it is a country with incredible poverty.The city of Caracas is in a valley and on either side of the valley are mountains. Up the sides of the mountains are thousands and thousands of slum dwellings called barrios. The only way we could visit the school in the midst of the barrios—the school that was being helped by our Australian embassy—was under armed escort. It was not possible to go into those barrios without that kind of protection.I think it is interesting and important that we see on delegations—when we can talk about the trade, et cetera, which can take place between our two countries in glowing terms—the underbelly of some of these sorts of countries. We certainly saw the underbelly on that occasion. To visit a school which was surrounded by armed security police guarding every entrance to the school for our protection really must say something to us about this country.The second part of the visit was to the United States. Part of the purpose of that was to certainly talk about the defence cooperation between Australia and the USA. We were very well received. We visited the Pentagon and a Trident submarine. The briefings we got were very fulsome and extensive, but I found it interesting that when we were being briefed in the Pentagon about weapons of mass destruction and I asked about the involvement of the United States in the distribution of arms within the world I got no answer at all. I found that very interesting.Senator Margetts interjecting—HX5Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEY—I forgot to ask that, Senator Margetts—next time perhaps. Let me conclude, because I do not want to take up the time of the Senate, by congratulating the writer of the report and also thanking the two staff who accompanied us on the visit, Mr Richard Coventry and Mr David Fitzgerald, for their very attentive help to all of us. I will seek leave to continue my remarks.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator Woodley, unfortunately you cannot seek leave to continue your remarks. You sought leave to make a statement and there is no provision in standing orders for you to seek leave to continue your remarks. You can at a suitable time in the future—on adjournment or some other time—but there is nowhere in the provision of standing orders for you to seek leave to continue your remarks.HX5WOODLEYSenator Woodley—I accept that. It is important, though, that Senator Ferris does get a chance later.Committees61861861810000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Ferguson)—The President has received a letter from the Leader of the Australian Democrats seeking a variation to the membership of the Economics References Committee.Motion (by Senator Newman)—by leave—agreed to:That Senator Stott Despoja replace Senator Murray on, and Senator Allison be appointed a participating member of, the Economics References Committee for the committee's inquiry into the replacement of the High Flux Australian Reactor at Lucas Heights.Bills618R412Billsr416BillsR425BillsR395Billsr417618Bills received from the House of Representatives.16:45:00618Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—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 readings has been adjourned, I will be moving a motion to have three of 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.61816:46:00618Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—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—NRS LEVY IMPOSITION BILL 1997The NRS Levy Imposition Bill is the second bill in a package of two bills about NRS funding arrangements. The NRS Levy Imposition Bill imposes a levy on participating carriers to provide funding for the NRS.I commend the bill to the Senate.TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) 1997The Telecommunications Amendment Bill (No.2) 1997 is the first bill in a package of two bills about NRS funding arrangements.The Telecommunications Amendment Bill (No.2) 1997 (the Amendment Bill) mostly deals with the operation and funding of the National Relay Service (NRS). The NRS is a service that provides people who are deaf, hearing, or speech impaired, with access to the standard telephone service on terms, and in circumstances, that are comparable to those on which other Australians have access to a standard telephone service.The Amendment Bill also includes minor amendments to make it clear that:lines on the customer side of the telecommunications network boundary are not line links so there will be no obligation to hold a carrier licence or arrange for a nominated carrier declaration in relation to these links; anda carrier that has been declared a nominated carrier over network units that it does not own or operate will be obliged to fulfil carrier related obligations in relation to those network units as though they owned or operated them.The current contract for the provision of the NRS expires on 30 June 1998. Under the current wording of the Telecommunications Act 1997 from 1 July 1998 the NRS will be brought under all the universal service provisions and funded out of the Universal Service levy on an annual basis at least a year after the service is provided. Only carriers are able to undertake Universal Service provision, because providing these services would necessitate the ownership or operational control of network units.However, the operation of the NRS is different to Universal Service provision as;it does not involve the ownership or operation of network units to provide the service to a deaf, hearing, or speech impaired personprovision of the NRS is more like a service provider using existing telecommunications networks to deliver a product to select members of the community that have specific disability needsNRS provision has been by a small niche operator that is reliant on regular funding.The intention is that under the bills from 1 July 1998; the provision of the NRS be open to both carriers and non-carriersthe NRS will be provided by a person, who may or may not be a carrier, under a contract with the Commonwealth; andthe cost of the NRS will be met by carriers in advance on a quarterly basis depending on their eligible revenue or timed traffic.Publication of NRS cost estimates will enable the carriers to be levied in advance and publication of actual cost figures after the end of the quarter will enable the actual and estimated costs to be reconciled for accuracy. This information with Australian Communications Authority (ACA) participating carrier assessments will determine carrier levy contributions.Only if a carrier is a participating carrier in relation to the Universal Service Obligation when the ACA calculates levy contributions each quarter and is the subject of the most recent ACA USO levy assessment can the carrier be liable for a levy payment.The NRS will be provided under a new contract as from 1 July 1998. The proposed amendments require a NRS Service Plan as part of the contract with the NRS provider to include performance standards and timetables for the supply of the service.As part of the contract the NRS Service Plan will also include how the service will adapt and implement new technology as it becomes available, such as speech to speech for those speech impaired people who find text communications difficult as well as how the NRS provider will conduct the outreach program to promote the service availability to the public, to identify and educate users and potential users.The ACA will be required to report against the NRS Service Plan in an annual report to the Minister after the end of each financial year. This report will be tabled in both Houses of Parliament. The Minister will also be able to request the ACA to provide advice on the NRS Service Plan at any stage. Changes to the NRS Service Plan can be made through contract negotiations between the NRS provider and the Commonwealth.Any failure by the NRS provider to comply with the NRS Plan will be addressed in accordance with the NRS contract.I commend the bill to the Senate.CHARTER OF BUDGET HONESTY BILL 1996 [No. 2]The Charter of Budget Honesty Bill is a major structural reform of the way in which this country presents and runs its fiscal policy. The bill fulfils an election promise by this government to make sure that the Australian accounts are presented in a fair and honest manner and to enshrine in legislation a requirement which will govern our government and any future government as to the way in which it will present and improve its financial performance. This is the kind of reform which, when enacted, will be a permanent feature, making sure that Australia's economic policy is run better, making sure that the public is kept better informed, making sure that there is transparency in economic policy in this country.This is the same bill that was introduced into the House of Representatives on 11 December 1996 and passed by the House of Representatives on 10 February 1997. On 28 October 1997 the Senate passed the bill with ten amendments.These amendments were unnecessary and made aspects of the bill unworkable.A number of amendments relate to the arrangements for costing election policies during the caretaker period. They would have made the process non-transparent by allowing the costing of unannounced policies. They would also risk turning the bureaucracy into a research centre for the opposition, inconsistent with the conventions of Westminster Government.Another amendment sought by the Senate would require a detailed report on threats to the tax system and specific means necessary to counter these threats. This would have drawn attention of tax planners to opportunities for tax avoidance, risking larger revenue losses than would otherwise be the case.Other amendments to the charter unnecessarily complicated the operation of the bill.The amendments were not agreed by the House of Representatives and the bill was returned to the Senate. The Senate again insisted on its amendments and on 19 November 1997 the House again rejected those amendments. The bill was then laid aside.The government is reintroducing this bill because it believes that the people of Australia deserve better fiscal accountability and improved fiscal outcomes. To show our commitment to this, the government has already been complying in full with the charter's requirements.The need for the bill is clearly demonstrated by the need for improved fiscal outcomes in Australia. There have been persistent Commonwealth budget deficits over the past 25 years. This has led to Commonwealth general government net debt ratcheting up, reaching a little less than 20 per cent of GDP by 1995-96.The government has been repairing the fiscal mess left by our predecessors. Before we came to office, we were told the budget was in surplus. It was not. It was in deficit to the tune of $10 billion. We inherited that problem. It became our responsibility to fix the mismanagement and the way in which the then government sought to hide it.As a result of the government's fiscal consolidation program, the budget is expected to move into surplus by 1998-99. Continued surpluses are projected until the turn of the century. This year we are paying off debt. We expect to halve the level of Commonwealth general government debt to around 10 per cent of GDP by the turn of the century.The bill will help to ensure that the fiscal profligacy of our predecessors is not repeated. It aims to ensure that all future governments are more disciplined, transparent and accountable in operating fiscal policy.Fiscal discipline will be enhanced by requiring government fiscal policy to be formulated according to principles of sound fiscal management. Transparency and the accountability of government will be substantially increased through improved disclosure of fiscal policy intentions and the regular reporting of information on fiscal developments.Further, the charter will prevent future governments going to an election on the basis of outdated and misleading information on the fiscal and economic outlook. In short, this bill will ensure that at all times this government and all future governments can be held accountable for their fiscal and economic policies and thereby provide the basis for a sounder economic performance for the economy as a whole, sustainable job opportunities for our people and greater accountability of government to the electors whom they serve.I would like to highlight some of the main features of the fiscal framework that will be established by the bill.Fiscal Policy FormulationThe bill will reform fiscal policy formulation through introducing principles for the sound management of fiscal policy against which governments must develop their fiscal strategy. These principles will focus attention on a range of issues that must be addressed if fiscal policy is to be sustainable over time.The principles take account of the need to address short-term issues, such as cyclical economic downturns, while recognising the importance of medium-term issues such as the sustainability of government debt and national saving. The presentation of a government fiscal strategy as required by the bill will also increase public awareness of a government's objectives and establish a benchmark for evaluating fiscal performance.Fiscal ReportingThe charter of budget honesty will also ensure that up-to-date information is available so that a government's performance can be assessed against its fiscal objectives. To achieve this, the bill establishes a formal reporting structure. With each year's budget, a report will be released setting out economic and fiscal projections for the budget year and three forward years. These projections will illustrate the consequences of the adopted fiscal strategy.A further report released midway through the financial year will update the fiscal and economic projections contained in the budget report. The details of fiscal outcomes for the just completed financial year will be presented in a report to be released within three months of the end of that financial year. In addition, an intergenerational report will be produced every five years to report on the long-term sustainability of current fiscal policies.These reports will provide fundamental information that will allow government performance to be assessed against the objectives set out in the fiscal strategy statement. However, the bill also gives particular attention to ensuring that important fiscal information is available during the election period.In doing that, we want to make sure that no other government in future behaves in the way in which the Labor government behaved in the March 1996 election. They hid the true state of the books. That is why we intend to make it incumbent for a full and open report to be made about the financial state of the books at the opening of an election campaign and not to be found out by whichever government wins at the close.The bill requires the secretaries to the Treasury and the Department of Finance to prepare a pre-election report providing an updated assessment of the fiscal and economic outlook. Never again will a government go to an election without the public being aware of the current economic and fiscal situation. Never again will the deception attempted by the Labor Party in the last election be allowed if this legislation is enacted.In addition, the bill provides for more equal access to Treasury and Finance costings of election commitments by the government and the opposition during the caretaker period. This will allow the electorate to be better informed of the financial implications of election commitments.These provisions are fair and balanced and consistent with the principles of Westminster Government. The amendments to these arrangements that had been sought by the opposition are non-transparent and unworkable.ConclusionIn conclusion, the government believes that the Charter of Budget Honesty Bill 1996 represents a landmark development in the conduct of fiscal policy and reporting of fiscal outcomes. It is the kind of reform which, when enacted, will change: the way in which elections are conducted; the way in which policies are implemented; the way in which future generations are brought into consideration in economic decision making; and our economic policy for the better.The bill will provide a strong impetus towards achieving better fiscal outcomes by providing greater discipline in policy formulation, regular statements of fiscal objectives and increased accountability for fiscal performance.I commend the bill to the Senate.HEALTH LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) 1997This bill proposes to amend the National Health Act 1953, the Health Insurance Act 1973, the Social Security Act 1991 and the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986.The amendments will give effect to a part of the Government's package of reforms to private health insurance. The reforms contained in this bill will:. engender a positive and competitive environment in the private health sector;. reduce some of the cost pressures on health insurance premiums;. make contracting more attractive between the various parties; and. help consumers by reducing the problem of often large and unexpected out-of-pocket expenses and multiple medical bills.Private health insurance has been the subject of inquiries by the Industry Commission and the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee. The package of reforms contained in this bill responds to those recommendations requiring legislation that could be dealt with immediately and incorporates the reforms announced by the Government on 19 August 1997.The Commission also made a number of recommendations that require further analysis and development. The most important of these is unfunded lifetime community rating which the Government is now examining to determine its feasibility.Unfunded lifetime community rating is designed to balance the age distribution of fund membership, lower premiums and make private health insurance more affordable for young and old alike.There are also reforms that do not require legislation. The Government has decided to establish a second tier default benefit which would apply where there is no contract between a private hospital and a fund, but where the hospital has in place arrangements for informed financial consent and simplified billing, and evidence of an appropriate level of treatment.Australians overwhelmingly support Medicare and the universal access to public health services that this entails. Yet at the same time, over one third of the population still has some form of private health insurance.Clearly, we have a universally available public health system which is highly valued by most Australians, but also a significant number of people who see value in having access to the private health sector.The Government sees such a choice as a legitimate aspiration and understands that the key for most Australians to such access remains private health insurance. Approximately 80 per cent of private hospital episodes are funded through private health insurance.This Government has a focus on the total health system—public and private. The private hospital system is an essential ingredient in the nation's health care mix. The community needs to have access to the existing range of beds and services across both the public and private sectors.And it is a matter of common sense to maximise the use of our existing acute capital stock—both public and private—rather than simply commit billions of extra dollars to funding new public hospital beds.The Government's message is loud and clear: that the private sector is a vital complement to the long term viability of Medicare and the public hospital system. Importantly, this is not just idle rhetoric. Active and positive steps are being taken to ensure that private health insurance is a realistic choice for those Australians who wish to maintain it.This bill introduces reforms to private health insurance that build on the Government's Private Health Insurance Incentives Scheme and the adjustments to the Medicare levy for people on higher incomes who have chosen not to insure themselves privately.I will now outline the main elements of the reform package.The first set of reforms will make contracting between funds, hospitals and doctors more attractive.The private health insurance legislation introduced by the previous Government relied on contracting between funds and doctors to address a number of issues affecting private health insurance—including the incidence of unknown out of pocket costs. This legislation has been a spectacular failure with only a handful of doctors prepared to enter contracts. The result is that consumers have continued to experience often large and unanticipated out-of-pocket medical bills.Nonetheless, it is vital that we achieve greater certainty for consumers, either through informed financial consent so that they know in advance the out-of-pocket costs or even better by securing agreements for 100 percent cover for their medical bills. Schedule 3 Paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 will for the first time allow health funds to pay medical benefits above the Medicare Benefits Schedule (MBS) to doctors who have Practitioner Agreements with private hospitals. And, as is currently the case, Practitioner Agreements will only be permitted where the hospital also has a fixed cost contract known as a Hospital Purchaser Provider Agreement with the fund.The effect of these new arrangements will be either to exclude out-of-pocket costs altogether or allow for a pre determined amount to be borne by the patient.The level of payment for in-hospital medical services will be negotiated between the hospital and the doctor concerned. Such payment may be on whatever basis hospitals and doctors choose. For example, a percentage of the MBS fee, a retainer or some other agreed block payment.Where doctors have Practitioner Agreements, this bill enables the 75 per cent Medicare benefit to be paid direct to the health fund. In these circumstances, assignment of the Medicare benefit by the patient to the fund will be mandatory. This will greatly simplify the billing and claiming process for patients.In other words, doctors will no longer have to negotiate only with the funds—a key objection that the medical profession has raised and steadfastly maintained since 1994. Agreements will be negotiated by the people directly involved in providing care to patients, who will then be able to provide services for no or known out-of-pocket costs and with greatly simplified billing and claiming procedures for the patient.Furthermore, Schedule 3 Paragraph 4 will require all agreements offered by funds or hospitals to include a clause guaranteeing the general professional freedom of doctors to identify the appropriate treatment for their patients within the scope of accepted clinical practice. With the exception of the price arrangements entered into by the parties which will remain commercial-in-confidence and information relating to individuals, the agreements will be open to public scrutiny.The medical profession has consistently said that their objection to such agreements was based on concerns about US-style managed care, where funds have used their market power to dictate and limit clinical decisions.With the threat of US-style managed care removed from the equation I am confident that doctors will be more willing to negotiate arrangements with private hospitals.I would hope that the profession sensibly understands that their cooperation is absolutely essential if the private health care sector is to remain viable, which depends largely on private health insurance continuing to cover a large proportion of the population.The second set of amendments removes unnecessary costs on funds, improves the regulatory environment and makes refinements to existing legislation to improve the operation of the industry.Schedule 1 will tighten the definition of health insurance business to reduce the potential for new products entering the market to undermine the Government's commitment to community rating. Products have been—and many more could be—designed which are risk rated, but effectively provide health insurance by extending the number and range of conditions drawing on the model of trauma insurance and basing payments on estimated hospital and medical costs. The changes to the legislation will make it clearer that products of this nature cannot be marketed other than as community rated health insurance, while leaving legitimate trauma and life products in place.Schedule 2 replaces the provision requiring payment of benefits at an acute rate for the first 35 days of hospitalisation, irrespective of whether acute care is provided. The ensuing regulation will provide for a determination of benefits for nursing home type patients at an appropriate level and structure.The Productivity Commission could see no sound economic basis for payment of higher acute care benefits for nursing home type patients. This adds an unnecessary cost burden to health funds and therefore adds to the cost pressures leading to increases in premium levels. This situation has arisen because of a rigidity in the National Health Act which obliges health funds to pay an acute care rate for these patients irrespective of the need for acute care for the first thirty five days. This bill will remove the rigidity in the act and replace it with a regulatory power which will allow the development of more flexible administrative and payment structures for nursing home type patients.Schedule 4 will allow changes to reinsurance arrangements to be made by disallowable instrument and facilitate necessary changes to reinsurance that may become necessary in the future.Schedule 5 restructures the Private Health Insurance Administration Council with a new board independent of the Department of Health and Family Services and the industry. It will include a Commissioner and two to four other individuals as recommended by the Industry Commission.Schedule 6 contains a number of measures that will assist the Private Health Insurance Complaints Commissioner to provide an effective and efficient operation over the next few years by which time information will be available to assess whether more substantial powers are required. The Commis sioner will also be renamed the Private Health Insurance Ombudsman.Schedule 7 Paragraphs 2 and 3 extend the maximum waiting period for obstetrics from nine to 12 months. Obstetrics has been an area where "hit and run" behaviour is purportedly severe. Extending the waiting period to 12 months will help to reduce some of the cost pressures faced the health insurance industry.Schedule 8 will allow the assignment of Medicare payments for in-hospital medical treatment by the patient to another party as part of approved simplified billing arrangements. This will encourage the development of simplified billing arrangements for patients treated by doctors not covered by agreements with either health funds or hospitals.Schedule 11 Paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 will make it clear that for-profit organisations are on the same footing as not-for-profit organisations in terms of applying for registration as a health fund and facilitate the transition of existing non-profit funds to for-profit status if that is their desire.The reforms in this bill have the potential to create an environment which is not only more attractive to new players but also to consumers through the development of health insurance products that truly offer value for money. They also form part of a comprehensive package of related measures to make the most of our existing health care assets, both public and private, and to ensure that Australians can look forward confidently to assured quality health care.THERAPEUTIC GOODS LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 1997This bill makes amendments to the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989 and consequential amendments to the Customs Act 1901. The changes to therapeutic goods legislation include measures designed to improve the operating environment for the Australian pharmaceutical industry, as well as ensure the availability of new drugs, while enhancing Australia's commitment to its international obligations under the WTO Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights. This will be achieved through the introduction of a new data protection scheme for new chemical entities, referred to as "active components" in the amending legislation.At present confidential information submitted to the Therapeutic Goods Administration in connection with applications to register products in the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods is protected against disclosure, unless release is in the public interest, and also against use by the TGA for its own commercial benefit. Under the new "data protection" scheme to be introduced by the bill, this data will now have five years of "data protection". During this time, any other company seeking to register a generic copy of the registered product containing, or consisting of, the active component will be required to seek the agreement of the originator company before the TGA can directly or indirectly access or reference the originator company's data relating to the same active component.Applicants seeking to register generic products containing protected active components may still do so. However, they must develop and lodge their own full data package, instead of lodging an abbreviated package that demonstrates bioequivalence with a new active component. Most products that have a new active component will attract separate protection under a patent during their first five years on the market, but the "data protection" regime will provide a safety net for those products which may fall outside the norm.The "data protection" measures are in line with those provided by the United States, the European Union and New Zealand, and the Government's decision to introduce these measures follows a review by the Government of Australia's international obligations in relation to registration data, undertaken in response to the Industry Commission's Report No. 51 (1996) , The Pharmaceutical Industry. The Commission reported that "there is potential for the availability of important new drugs to be jeopardised in the event Australia's current practice relating to confidential information does not meet its international obligations."Provisions have also been included in the bill to close off a loophole in the current act that would enable, for example, a person who consistently fails to meet manufacturing standards and commits offences against the act to continue to manufacture goods, simply by applying for manufacturing licences through other entities such as companies. Thus, Item 6 inserts a provision that will enable the Secretary to prevent persons in control of another licensee convicted of an offence against the Therapeutic Goods Act, or a law of a State or Territory in relation to therapeutic goods, from immediately applying for and obtaining another manufacturing licence through another person, such as a new or different company. The amendment makes additions to the existing grounds for refusing to issue a manufacturing licence, and the same grounds would provide the basis for cancelling a licensee's manufacturing licence.Regulation-making powers have been conferred upon the Governor-General to enable the administrative functions associated with the issue of import and export permits and licences which are to be exercised by the Secretary of the Department of Health and Family Services to be prescribed under therapeutic goods legislation. The remaining functions will stay under Customs legislation.The amendments to the Customs Act 1901 take into account the Governor-General's powers to make similar regulations under the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989 for the grant of import or export permits and licences for therapeutic goods that remain prohibited imports or exports under Customs legislation.This will facilitate a more efficient and responsive regulation and the development of a risk management approach which maintains Australia's obligations under the three United Nations Treaties aimed at preventing illicit drug trafficking and drug abuse, while reducing the regulatory burden on industry.Other measures included in the bill relate to the power of the Secretary to seek the same kind of information about the manufacturing processes used for the manufacture of listable therapeutic goods as for registrable goods. The more detailed information will better equip the Secretary to determine whether or not listable goods are suitable for inclusion in the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods, and whether they should remain there.Overall, this bill will benefit Australia's therapeutic industry and further enhance Australia's role as a leader in drug regulation.Debate (on motion by Senator Carr) adjourned.Ordered that the Charter of Budget Honesty Bill 1996 [No. 2] , the Health Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1997 and the Therapeutic Goods Legislation Amendment Bill 1997 be listed on the Notice Paper as separate orders of the day.Bills624R346624Consideration resumed.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—The committee is considering the Democrat requests for amendments Nos 6 and 7.16:48:00624Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—I will not reiterate the nature of the amendments, which relate to the various exemptions for the youth allowance for people who are disadvantaged and the reduction in the age of independence. But I reiterate the questions I asked the minister earlier in this committee stage as to what measures her government was going to intro duce in order to meet the concerns that Senator Harradine raised last week, specifically in relation to changes to taxation arrangements and the taxation burden on families in this country. I am still very curious to note what has been discussed between the government and Senator Harradine and how families will find their financial and other burdens alleviated as a result of the assurance that Senator Harradine has been given. If he has not been given any specific assurances or specific deals or taxation changes then I would like to know about it. I am very concerned to know what has been organised between those two parties.16:49:00625Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEALB36NSWALP00—I am also very concerned that if some arrangement has been reached between the government and Senator Harradine that the government disclose what that arrangement is. Obviously it is something that bears on Senator Harradine's mind sufficiently enough that he felt fit not to continue with the very firm views he originally expressed in the chamber—on Wednesday evening I think it was. There seems to be a difficulty with democratic processes if two parties involved in the Senate, the government and one Independent member, can secretly exchange information that affects the law-making of this chamber. If there are details that affect the outcome of this bill they should be disclosed by the government immediately. More and more it seems that the government is making secret arrangements with particular members of the Senate in order to prevent open debate on issues that should be public.16:50:00625Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—I find it curious that the opposition is unable to accept the explanation that was given by Senator Harradine today. It is for Senator Harradine to talk to the Senate about any matters that he has discussed with the Prime Minister. It is not for me to discuss that.16:50:00625Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEALB36NSWALP00—Minister, you are a member of the government; you represent the government here today. You have a responsibility to disclose to all members of the Senate any issues that are pertinent to this debate. I suppose it is up to Senator Harradine to disclose whether he has had personal discussions with the Prime Minister but I am concerned about what government policy changes are being made that will have an impact on this particular bill.16:51:00625Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—I made it perfectly clear last Thursday that this government has already evidenced its concern for families with dependent children. Virtually the first thing it did when it came into government was to honour its election commitment of a $1 billion family tax initiative to relieve families of some of the costs and burdens of raising children. Senator Harradine did believe, I understand, that that was a very valuable initiative. I do not think that there is any point in belabouring that issue. I would have thought that the opposition would have seen that that was a valuable example of the government's commitment to families with dependent children.I also said last Thursday that the government's management of the national accounts has been such that we have had five reductions in interest rates since we came into government. This has meant that families have had, effectively, something like a $90 to $100 a week pay rise because of the reduction in the burden that they have had in meeting their family mortgages.We have not been running around with rhetoric on those things but taking no action, like the previous government did. We have actually put those things into place which have benefited and helped families who are raising children. The Prime Minister and Senator Harradine may have had their conversation—and I am not able to help you on that—but I know that the Prime Minister has made it absolutely clear that tax reform is on agenda for this government and that we will go to the next election with people well and truly understanding what proposals are available for them to pass judgment on. It will be absolutely clear that one of the principles on which that tax reform is based is that we recognise appropriately the special demands placed on parents by the raising of children and the need for that to be recognised in the tax system.We have already moved to that partially with the family tax initiative when we first came into government. We have also talked about the need for compensation, where appropriate, for any change to the tax structure. I imagine—and that is for Senator Harradine to discuss if he wishes—that Senator Harradine has found that the assurances the Prime Minister has given him are satisfactory because, and here is the crunch, Senator Neal, this legislation will be beneficial for very many young people and their families.B36NEALSenator Neal—What about others?BE4Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMAN—You might carp about things that you do not think are as good as they might be—because you have the luxury of that from opposition—but you were not prepared to move to do this when you were in government despite the fact that the welfare organisations were asking for you to move in this direction.B36NEALSenator Neal—They were not asking for us to move in that direction!BE4Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMAN—They have told me that they were asking. They were very happy to be involved in consultations and make submissions as to how the youth allowance should be implemented. Do not be under any misapprehension that this important social policy reform was badly needed to send the right messages to young people that it is better to be acquiring skills than to be jumping out of school too early and remaining unemployed for a very long period and perhaps becoming unemployable over time. It is very important to send the right message to young people that we do not believe it is desirable that young unemployed people are getting paid more money than those would who are studying to improve themselves and their country.There are a number of very important messages to young people in this legislation. Senator Harradine has clearly had the opportunity to study the bill thoroughly and believes that to stand in the way of a very important piece of social policy would be wrong, given that he has been assured by the Prime Minister that this government is determined to tackle tax reform in a meaningful way so that it is advantageous to families with dependent children.16:56:00626Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I could not let that pass without reminding the Senate that what we did get from the government in relation to family tax was a marginal tax system which was highly complex and extremely intricate. The reason it was set up that way was to try to make it look as if the gain was $1,000 when it was a lot less. The reality is that the government said they were giving $1,000 and in fact what people got in their pockets was a lot less. It was extremely complex; it is probably extremely expensive to administer as well. It was a con basically because it gave a lot less than what it promised—and it did not help much at all people who did not pay tax.If the government are suggesting that they did such a good job with their family tax last time—their marginal tax effort—that they are going to do the same kind of thing again, we are on to them. It was a con last time. It was a scam to look as if the government were giving more than they did. As I recall, Senator Harradine at the time was very critical of the way the government put that together. So I certainly hope you are not going to came with the same kind of thing and add a figure on and pretend you are giving another $1,000 to Australian families because we are on to you. We have seen what you did before.The important message that the minister is suggesting is perhaps one she took from Malthus, from a previous century, that you have to be cruel to be kind; that if you give the poor money they will only have babies. That kind of message is the kind of outdated, old-fashioned, inappropriate and cruel message that is coming from the government. The kinds of questions that we have been asking have not been answered by the government. What did happen about the explanatory memorandum the first time that suddenly meant we had an extra $100 million? When did we get the answer to that? Where are the figures from the government as to how the figures got changed by $100 million between when the questions were asked and when the minister answered them and when the explanatory memorandum was published?We are told that we should accept what the government is saying that people are going to be better off. We have had no figures at all to show that. The amendments we are asking for support for here are about the real impact on real people. The Greens (WA) and the Australian Democrats believe that it is not just a matter of definition on paper; it is a matter of whether families will be able to survive. We do not believe that it is acceptable to say, `Oh well, if you have got kids who are in school or in training'—magically, considering the amount of money not available for schools and training from this government—`you might be better off if they are in those things.' If you look at the longer term picture that is not quite true. If you look at the impact on people who are unemployed for a longer period of time the picture gets worse.None of those questions have actually been answered. Yet we are still being asked to accept that it is all right to discriminate against young people and to pick and choose what the age of independence is depending on whether or not the government feels it can save money; and that it is all right to call a person independent if there is a chance of getting money out of them—like their accepting debts and so on. But it is not okay to accept the age of independence as 18 unless you accept the responsibility that if those young people, like any other adult person in our society, are unemployed or need assistance with training or education they are entitled to receive it.17:00:00627Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—The name Malthus has got me to my feet. For the past 22 years I have been pointing out the nonsense of neo-Malthusians—amongst whom you can class yourselves, perhaps—in and out of this chamber. And now what have we got? On the population bomb we have a recent discussion at the UN expressing concern about the demographic disasters that are going to beset the world because of the ageing population, and there has been this campaign, supported by a number of people whom I will not mention who are in this chamber, that there should be restrictions placed upon parents as to the number of children—indeed bordering on support for the Chinese one child per family policy. Over the years I have been pointing this out, and I have been proven right over all of those years, and now I hear the name Malthus in this particular debate.DX5MARGETTSSenator Margetts—He was an economist—of sorts!6H4Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE—Yes, a pretty crook economist. I often quoted the very good work of Julian Simon—who recently passed away—and I pay tribute to his work over the many years when it was not fashionable to tell the truth and to warn of demographic disasters. And that is what we are threatened with at the present moment.Senator Neal has asked a question—and I think I owe it to her, the opposition and others to respond—but I would like to remind honourable senators that on 5 March the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Hill), on behalf of the Prime Minister (Mr Howard), made a deliberate commitment, and I repeat it:I can, therefore, assure Senator Harradine that, in restructuring the Australian taxation system . . . the government will give further recognition and help to Australian parents concerning their responsibilities in . . . raising sons and daughters, Australia's future taxpayers.That undertaking was given in the context of the proposed restructuring of the taxation system. It was not a short-term thing as to what is going to happen in the next budget; I am not privy to what is going to happen in the next budget, on this or any other matter. I was more interested in the long-term outcomes for families as a result of the taxation restructuring situation.As we all know, there is a government task force, chaired by Senator Brian Gibson, which is examining a large number of submissions. What the Prime Minister did, and this was confirmed publicly here in the chamber, was to give me that assurance in the context of the restructure. If the government ultimately goes to some sort of consumption tax—which I have considered over the years to be, either in fact or potentially, regressive—you then have a look at what the Prime Minister has committed the government to. He has committed it to giving further recognition and help; not that they will give consideration to it, but they will, so that the outcome will have to be better for families than it is now, even under a consumption tax. That is a very important and significant undertaking, and I will not take it lightly.Honourable senators will realise that over many years, both in the trade union movement and on the ACTU, I was involved in discussions, and Albert Monk actually came out as a very strong supporter of family payments and family allowances. I think it was at an ACTU congress in the early 1960s when we went through it and he came out as a strong supporter of family allowances supporting children. He was in opposition to some of those people who were on the population control bandwagon—the population bomb bandwagon—and I pay full credit to Albert Monk for what he did in those days against the sort of pressure that was being brought to bear on him and on the rest of us in the ACTU executive. No doubt Senator Neal will be as keen as I am to make sure that the Prime Minister delivers on his undertaking which was publicly stated here in the chamber by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Hill. I can assure Senator Neal that I will be as keen as she is, and the opposition no doubt will be, I hope, to see, as the Prime Minister has said, in effect, that families with children will be better off under the outcome of the taxation restructuring. If we can hold him to that, I think we will have achieved a good deal. I do not for one moment consider that the Prime Minister would renege on such an assurance, because I believe that he is very firmly committed to it himself. I have come to that conclusion from the way he has spoken on this particular matter.So there it is. I had to ask myself this question: what could be achieved through this? Here we were in the Senate, as I said before, faced with the proposition that if we amended this legislation substantially it would have no hope. It would go back to the House of Representatives, the government would defeat our amendments, it would come back up to the Senate and, if we insisted, the whole thing would be shelved—and with what result?As I said before lunch—and I am not saying anything different this time after lunch; I have been there and done that on the RDA—there were winners in this. I have figures from the Parliamentary Library with regard to winners and losers. The government figures were that 27½ per cent of current youth allowance, or equivalent, recipients would be better off; 64 per cent would remain the same; six per cent would experience a reduction; and two per cent would lose the allowance, whatever allowance they were on.That is not a satisfactory situation, I agree. But one has to look at it squarely and think, well, what is the best outcome that can be achieved? Rightly or wrongly, I decided that it was time to respond to a request for a meeting. That took place, and the outcome you know.17:10:00628Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEALB36NSWALP00—Senator Harradine, I do not doubt your desire to bring about a positive result for those families who might be affected adversely by this bill. But I suppose what worries me a little are the broad terms in which the undertaking was given by Senator Hill.6H4HARRADINESenator Harradine—Not only over this bill; it was a general undertaking for families.B36Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEAL—It says:. . . further recognition . . . help to Australian parents concerning their responsibilities . . . raising sons and daughters, Australia's future taxpayers.The difficulty, of course, is that that undertaking does not specifically say that people who are affected adversely by this particular aspect of the bill being debated at the moment will be compensated.What there was particular concern about, which I think we discovered in the debate last week, was that the parents of adult children—and I say `adult children' because those between 18 and 20 are adults—were going to lose $135 million. On the face of it, it seems to me that this undertaking by Senator Hill does not give any sort of guarantee that that particular group of families who lose that $135 million will be compensated in any way in this future tax restructuring, if the present government has the opportunity to bring that restructuring about.Within the tax system, on nearly any interpretation that I have ever been aware of—and I am happy for people to correct me if they believe there is an example—`family' has been defined as `having children of less than 18 years'. So how can any proposal within the tax system compensate families with adult children between the ages of 18 and 20? If it is the intention of this government to make payments to families in that particular position, it is obviously a very relevant consideration and a matter that I believe the government should disclose openly.The debates held within the Senate, I believe, should be carried out on a transparent basis. All decision makers involved, all senators, should have access to information which will affect their ultimate position on the bill. If the government says, `We have information that may affect your decision making on this issue but we are just not going to give it to you,' I think the government is treating the Senate and many senators with a lack of respect, and I do not think that is a very good precedent for this government to start with.Certainly I would very much like to know as an individual senator—and I am sure that all opposition senators would like to know—whether the government is proposing to make changes to compensate this particular group of people. If the government is proposing to do so, it will obviously impact on our position, and we would very much like to be aware of it.17:14:00629Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—In terms of the amendments before the chamber at the moment which, as I understand it, relate to the relevant age level of independents, I would back up the request that Senator Neal has made as to detail and whether or not any more is available. Regardless of whether or not the Democrats support this aspect of the legislation, from my perspective, that certainly helps when going back out into the community and explaining to people the rationale behind decisions that have been made.I would very much appreciate more information, if there is any, from either the Minister for Social Security or perhaps Senator Harradine in relation to this tax reform and the further recognition and help that will be given to parents in raising their sons and daughters—whether those sons and daughters include those above the age of 18, and whether there will be any help in this tax reform specifically for parents' sons and daughters in that age group.17:15:00629Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—As I said, it is not for me to say and I do not know, nor did I ask, in respect of the budget. This legislation is coming in from 1 July, as I understand it. What the government does in the budget might be one thing, but let us get it very clear that we have been told by the government that we will ultimately have a completely restructured taxation system, introduced sometime in the new financial year. I assume that that is going to be put to the people. I do hope it is going to be put to the people in the election campaign. That, I understand, is the intention of the government. So it will be open and transparent.I was looking to an ongoing beneficial outcome to families, and I specifically mentioned parents concerning their responsibilities in raising sons and daughters, Australia's future taxpayers. I pointed out the need to recognise, in whatever taxation system that emerges, the intra-family transfers that take place. If they are going to assume that those are taking place and test the youth allowance on that particular assumption, it is only fair that the government should recognise that transfer for the purposes of minimising the tax of those parents and also helping those other parents who may, even though they are on a relatively high income, have an income tax neutral situation.I agree with what Senator Margetts implied, that you have got to be paying tax to have something recognised in the tax system. That is one of the reasons that the word `help' is there. I do not think there is anything more that I can enlighten you on, other than to say that I look forward to assistance to ensure that this undertaking is honoured, which I have no doubt it will be.As to Senator Neal's reference to the specific parents involved in income testing, which will affect some six per cent, or eight per cent counting the other two per cent, of the youth allowance recipients, they will be covered by what was said, but it is not limited to those persons. It is an undertaking that the government will give further recognition and help to Australian parents in that particular work that is their priority, that is, the raising and education of their sons and daughters.17:20:00630Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—First of all, I point out that Senator Neal's contribution has to be the height of hypocrisy. Her government was perfectly prepared to parentally means test the families of students, many of whom are exactly the same families of the young unemployed. You had no problem in parentally means esting them. Not only that, Senator Neal, you were not prepared to lift a finger to give them any family tax relief. It was not until this government came in that any family tax relief was applied at all.Senator Margetts is prepared to dismiss the family tax initiative as not being very important. She may have a very short memory. I point out to her that the welfare organisations of Australia came out very enthusiastically—DX5MARGETTSSenator Margetts—Until they saw how it was restructured.BE4Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMAN—They were saying how well the family tax initiative was targeted to low and middle income families, and that something like 50 per cent—DX5MARGETTSSenator Margetts—Is that the first day—before they saw how you did it? That was before they saw how you did it.BE4Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMAN—You will have your turn, Senator, when you get the call. Just now, you listen to me. Something like 50 per cent of the families were on low to middle incomes. Some of them were not in fact paying tax and therefore they received their assistance through the social security system. I would have thought you might have pondered on that somewhat.One of the things that you also continue to ignore is how most families do not have just one unemployed young person in the family; they have young people in a mixture of age groups and their young are engaged in a mixture of activities. Just let us remember this—because we have been through it before and I do not want to go over and over it—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 themselves or because they come from low income pensioner or beneficiary families. That is the first thing.The second thing is that, where they have more than one young person in the family and the family income is below $30,700, a family with a student and an unemployed child both aged over 18 will be better off than they are now because the increase in the benefit that is paid to the student is greater than the decrease in the benefit paid to the unemployed person. Those are some of the things you are not factoring in when you are considering this measure. That is why I think you have gone off on your high horse to the wrong destination.Senator Harradine has acknowledged that this legislation has a lot of benefits. It does have a parental means test to people that you would choose not to parentally means test. But the situation is that those families are parentally means tested now for their students of that age. There is no justifiable reason why they should not also be means tested, using the same means test, for their young unemployed. As I pointed out to you last week, DSS statistics show that the young unemployed are on average on benefits for five months, whereas the students are on assistance for anything up to five years. It is a very different commitment that parents make to their student children from what they are currently asked to make to their young unemployed people.When there is a transfer within the family of the benefits such as I have just demonstrated to you, it is not fair or honest to suggest that these families are going to be worse off. Many of them will be better off. Although they will get a lesser payment for their young unemployed person, they will be getting an increased benefit for their student. Surely we should be sending a message to young people that, if you possibly can, you should be studying to improve your opportunities in life. The way the current system is designed, you are going to do better financially if you go on the dole than if you go into study, and surely it is wrong to send that message to young people.17:24:00631Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I am totally enraged by the minister's response. There are many people who believe that education is a benefit, not a cost, and should be treated so; but it is currently treated as a benefit. The reason there is a difference between education and unemployment for young people is that in no way, shape or form can you call unemployment a benefit—for a young person or anybody else. How dare you come into this chamber and express the fact that a person who is unemployed should be treated as though their unemployment is a benefit to them; that their unemployment is some sort of privilege to them and their families; that unemployment is a gift—something for which they have to be grateful and, if it is taken away, they should expect it.BE4NEWMANSenator Newman—What rubbish! Why don't you listen?DX5Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTS—I was listening when the minister said we should treat unemployment as if it were a training benefit. She said there is no reason why we should expect that unemployment should not be treated as if you were getting an education, and we should somehow expect that a young person who is unemployed has the right to have their family punished as if unemployment were a benefit to that young person. How dare she come into this chamber with that kind of proposal and expect us to accept that!The real life implications are that a family who may have one unemployed person and who may not have a person who is studying in their house will not feel grateful to you, Minister, when you say, `We have taken this off you but we have given it'—or something fairly small—`to your neighbours or to someone else down the street.' They will not feel grateful, funnily enough. You are suggesting, and we do not believe it, that it averages out. But a family who have had that $121 a week taken off them, funnily enough, will not feel grateful to you or your government. They will not feel that the averages work for them, if they do not have a student at home; they will not feel that it is okay that someone else might get some benefits, if you have taken it off them and they are struggling because they have had over $3,000 a year taken off them—funnily enough, they will not feel grateful and I do not know why they should.17:27:00631Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEALB36NSWALP00—I was a bit astonished by the minister's response, bearing in mind that I did not indulge in personal abuse—I just asked a question—but I will not allow myself to be distracted by that. I point out to the minister that, if she goes back to my speech during the second reading debate, she will see that I stated there were substantial benefits in the bill and we did appreciate those but there were also difficulties. I suppose we do tend to concentrate on the negatives rather than on the positives in this place; but I would appreciate a reasonable answer from the minister rather than the sort of personal response we received earlier.It appears that certain undertakings have been given in relation to this bill which may affect the outcome. If undertakings have been given that provide families with adult children between the ages of 18 and 20 with some compensation, I will ask the minister again and ignore the other comments: what sort of compensation is anticipated to be provided? It is obviously very relevant to this debate.17:28:00631Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—If the minister is going to take on board Senator Neal's questions and concerns, I might add to that even more specifically. Like Senator Dee Margetts, I am similarly angered and getting rather depressed by these proceedings. I do not mean to be cynical or distrusting of governments but I am not happy with a general commitment by the Prime Minister—or anyone else for that matter—to consider how the taxation system can perhaps be restruc tured or changed in some way to alleviate some of the financial burdens on families.While I agree with that sentiment, I want some specifics. I want to know what is going to happen to the 4,200 young people aged between 18 and 20 who will no longer receive rent assistance—those who will lose at least $74.80 per fortnight or $1,944 per year in income. I want to know what will happen to the 33,600 young people between the ages of 18 and 20 who will receive a reduced level of youth allowance because they will be income tested on parental means. What will happen to the 12,800 young people between the ages of 18 and 20 who will have their benefits cancelled—the ones whom the government does not believe need to live away from home for the purposes of study, jobsearch or training? I could go on. I want to know how these young people are going to be compensated in the short term and how the financial burden on their families is going to be alleviated.I take on board the minister's comment that a lot of these measures, and some of the measures contained in the bill, have been badly needed for a long time. She is right when she says that there are a number of things that could have been taken on board by the last government. One of those issues is parity between unemployment benefits and student financial assistance levels. Another is flexibility and streamlining of payment arrangements. I know about this—I was in a number of student groups that called on the former government to look into some of the more streamlined arrangements between departments such as DEETYA and the Department of Social Security.I also acknowledge Senator Dee Margetts's interjection that a number of other issues which have been put forward by a number of community, youth, student and welfare groups have not been picked up in this legislation—whether it is to do with the strict, harsh and restrictive nature of the parental means test under this bill or the inclusion of that absolutely ridiculous actual means testing arrangement.One issue that I think has been debated longer than most issues in debates on this kind of policy area is the age of independ ence. It is something that we have an opportunity to rectify today, certainly with the amendments before us. I look forward to a recognition from all parties in this chamber—somewhat naively, I suspect—in respect of the age of independence for full-time students.I remember Senator Neal's very brief rationale, before we went to question time, as to why the ALP will not support the Democrats amendment relating to the definition that the age of independence for a full-time student is 18. She said that it was because a young person in education at that time of their life is advantaged. They certainly are going to be advantaged under a government like this one where education is increasingly defined, as it was under the former government, as a privilege and not a community right! Yes, Senator Margetts, there are people who define education as a benefit and as an investment and not simply a cost.I still do not understand the logic of the opposition, which is willing to consider a reduction in the age at which a young unemployed person is considered to be independent but not for a full-time student. This is not about being advantaged as a young person by being in the education and training system; this is an expectation under this legislation. Goodness knows what is going to happen to those young people who do not get into an education and training institution, who apply for TAFE places but are dealing with the unmet demand situation of something like 60,000 places last year alone. What happens to those young people who are not able to find some form of employment? How are they going to be compensated? I am still at a loss to understand.I will acknowledge the positive aspects of this legislation, but I am also going to talk about and expose the harsh ones—throwing 16- and 17 year-olds who cannot get employment, education and training onto some kind of scrap heap. I will acknowledge, too, the few exemptions that exist. I take the government's conservative estimates: 1,600 will be thrown off benefits. What happens to them and their families? I want to know what the minister suggests will happen to those people under this bill. I want to know what happens to them as a consequence of the so-called assurance put forward by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Hill) and the Prime Minister.I am all for accepting the relevance and the appropriateness of negotiations behind the scenes, debate in committees or even discussions with individuals and party members in this place and with the Prime Minister—anyone. But I expect those amendments, changes, ideas or proposals to be put on the floor of this chamber at the committee stage. I am not going to make a decision on a bill such as this when people are talking about deals and assurances in the backroom. It is absolutely outrageous!17:35:00633Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—One of the themes that has been flowing from this debate about the age of independence is the impact on families. Of course, that is what the government wants us to concentrate on. But we should be talking most specifically about the impact on the unemployed young people. In that light, what sort of guarantees can the Minister for Social Security provide that the income paid to a student in training—let us face it, the allowances are not too generous for students who might be in some sort of training or education; they are just enough to cover that sort of training and education—or an unemployed person will flow to that person?How do you make a dysfunctional family functional? How do you force income sharing if the young person is not getting along with their family? Heaven knows, this generation did not invent the changes that affect people between the ages of 14 and 18. Some of the changes, disruptions or the dysfunctional nature of families mean that there is no guarantee of an 18- to 25-year-old being able to go to their family and seek assistance if they are unemployed. Can the minister give the committee any assurances about what happens when a family is not prepared to assist—for the very normal reason that families have disagreements with each other—their young family member who is unemployed?17:37:00633Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—I do not know whether Senator Margetts is confused here, but we are not talking about the under-18-year-olds, in respect of whom the money does go to their parents; we are talking about the over-18-year-olds, to whom the money flows. Why do you have a problem with that?DX5MARGETTSSenator Margetts—Because basically you said it was means tested. How can you say that if they don't get it?BE4Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMAN—The quantum is determined by the parents' income. The payment is made to the young person.DX5MARGETTSSenator Margetts—But how can you force the families to give it?BE4Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMAN—I find it strange, Senator, that you are in here as an advocate for parents with over $58,000 of income and those are the people who lose benefits altogether if they are living away from home.DX5MARGETTSSenator Margetts—Do you want this debate to go on? I will answer every time you come up with nonsense.BE4Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMAN—I know that you have a problem with numbers but, nevertheless, recognise that that is the advice that comes from my department to the Senate as to the income level at which it cuts out. You are advocating, in fact, for the top end of the spectrum. If you lived in my home state of Tasmania you would find that the average family income is just a bit more than half of that.DX5MARGETTSSenator Margetts—Tell me what it is.BE4Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMAN—Around $28,000 to $30,000—something in that region. They are accommodated by this and most families will, in fact, not notice any change at all because of the additional measures that are in this bill, such as the abolition of the education leave waiting period—$1,100 extra into that person's pocket which would not go in under the current arrangement—and, in addition, there are the people on Austudy, for example, who are not currently getting anything because their entitlement is under $1,000 and they will now get a proportional entitlement. That is, once again, parentally means tested. The parental means test, as it applies to students and young unemployed people, will be comparable. It is the means test that we have for Austudy now and that has been long established in this country. It is slightly more generous in that you can include a number of other items such as I have mentioned.You were talking about the young unemployed not getting the money—was it you, Senator Stott Despoja, talking about people having to ask for the money to go for a milkshake? You sounded just like your former leader. I remember very well when she cried out with a song and dance about young people having to ask for the money to go to the pictures, saying that somehow this was going to lead to family strife and it was going to mean we were going to have an increase in the numbers of homeless youth. I think one of you the other day also suggested there would be an increase in sham marriages.Let me tell you what the facts are. The facts are that when the age of Austudy parental means testing changed there was little or no change in either the number of marriages claimed or the numbers of homeless people. So you can run these stories outside this chamber but the facts do not demonstrate them.Senator Stott Despoja interjecting—BE4Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMAN—It was not Senator Stott Despoja? I am sorry if I have the wrong culprit.17:40:00634Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—I promise I will confine my remarks to a question, but I cannot let those comments go without seeking clarification. Okay, I acknowledge that you have abolished the $1,000 minimum for those people in relation to Austudy and I acknowledge that 34,200 people will benefit from that. It is a lot. I acknowledge that. And what are their benefits?—a maximum gain of $1,000 per annum compared with—BE4NEWMANSenator Newman—And eligibility for rent assistance now.3I6Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA—We will have this rent assistance debate. As you can see, the Democrats have amendments in relation to the eligibility criteria for rent assistance. We have previously in debates acknowledged the extension of rent assistance to students as something that is welcome but I am sick and tired of the figures being fudged in the sense that, yes, a lot of people will benefit from some of these changes but their benefits are minimal in comparison with some of the losses that people are making.The minister is shaking her head but in the example I gave in the previous debate of the 1,600 unemployed under-18 year olds, their average loss per fortnight—not per annum—is $176.40. So it just does not weigh up when you are talking about 34,200 benefiting by, on average, $1,000 per annum compared with these people who are losing potentially hundreds of dollars a fortnight. Can you not see that there is a huge discrepancy? We can keep talking about all these people who are going to benefit incrementally, slightly, minimally, compared with those who do lose out, and lose out in a big way.17:42:00634Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—As I say, if the minister wants this debate to go on she can keep making those statements that what we are arguing for is the people on high incomes. If the minister will recall, we asked questions specifically about a family on what is considered to be the average weekly ordinary time income of $36,000. We found out that an unemployed young person between the age of 18 and 20 will get the princely sum of $52.70 per fortnight to live on. I think the minister is suggesting that you will not have a situation where, to go out to get a milkshake, a 20-year old will have to ask mum and dad whether they can have the money. To have to ask, just to go out anywhere or to get a bus ticket, is not in the real world. Some $52.70 a fortnight to live on is not high income—this is average, weekly, ordinary time earnings, according to your own figures, Minister.17:44:00634Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—I would just like to tease out one tiny bit further the issue that Senator Harradine was addressing a little while back and which I believe is relevant to Senator Stott Despoja's requests. When Senator Harradine was talking about the nature of the potential future commitments of the government he was talking about recognising the transfers that go on when families have to support students, their children and so on. As I recall, he said some thing along the lines that it was only fair in restructuring the tax system that the government recognise those transfers, those extra cost burdens—I guess that is what we are talking about—by minimising the tax that would be paid by those parents, as a compensatory arrangement. I hope that in a garbled way I am reasonably accurately reflecting what Senator Harradine was saying.I am simply again bringing it back to this issue of young people in this age group. I guess it is a question for the minister. Does the minister agree that it is only fair that the government does recognise those transfers in that way by reducing the tax burden? Is that something that is going to be addressed in this tax restructuring that the government is committed to?BE4NEWMANSenator Newman—I have answered it several times already, Senator. Question put: That the requests (Senator Stott Despoja's ) be agreed to.17:50:00The committee divided. (The Chairman—Senator S. M. West)9Allison, L. Bartlett, A. J. J.Bourne, V.* Brown, B.Lees, M. H. Margetts, D.Murray, A. Stott Despoja, N.Woodley, J.37Bishop, M. Boswell, R. L. D.Brownhill, D. G. C. Calvert, P. H.*Campbell, G. Carr, K.Collins, J. M. A. Cook, P. F. S.Coonan, H. Cooney, B.Crane, W. Crowley, R. A.Denman, K. J. Eggleston, A.Ferris, J. Heffernan, W.Hogg, J. Knowles, S. C.Lundy, K. McKiernan, J. P.Neal, B. J. Newman, J. M.O'Brien, K. W. K. O'Chee, W. G.Parer, W. R. Patterson, K. C. L.Quirke, J. A. Reid, M. E.Reynolds, M. Schacht, C. C.Sherry, N. Tambling, G. E. J.Tierney, J. Troeth, J.Vanstone, A. E. Watson, J. O. W.West, S. M.Question so resolved in the negative.17:53:00635Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—I move:That the House of Representatives be requested to make the following amendment:(5) Schedule 2, item 8, page 124 (lines 25 and 26), omit subsection (4), substitute:Full-time student aged 21 years or more(4) A person is independent if the person: (a) is at least 21 years old; and (b) is undertaking full-time study.Request No. 5 seeks to reduce the age of independence for a full-time student from 25 to 21 years.17:53:00635Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—Both the Australian Democrats and the Greens (WA) have acknowledged that the age of 21 years is not their preferred option. When I spoke before about the request that the age of independence be reduced to 18, I promised I would talk about some of the views that were given in past inquiries and studies into the age of independence. This could give us some understanding of the contemporary opinion on this matter.The 1975 TEAS Review Committee, the Australian Vice Chancellors Committee report Foundations for a clever country, the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training report on student financial assistance in 1991, the State Youth Affairs Councils and Networks' A living income of May 1992, the Senate Employment, Education and Training References Committee report on the inquiry into Austudy of June 1995 and the Commonwealth Department of Housing and Regional Development national youth housing strategy final report of December 1995 all said that the age of independence should be 21 years or lower.Here we have a situation where government departments, community organisations, student groups, legal reform institutions, Australian universities' peak body and committees of both house of this parliament have been suggesting for the last 23 years that the age of independence be set at 21 or below. One is left to wonder just whom the government has been listening to when it says it has conducted wide negotiations and consultations. It seems we would be hard pressed to find anyone outside of this government and perhaps the Treasury department who even vaguely concurs with the age of independence being set at 25. Where does the age of 25 come from?HX5WOODLEYSenator Woodley—They would be in a nursing home before they got there.DX5Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTS—Yes, probably. It is certainly completely unrelated to the legal age of adulthood of 18 years or even the old coming of age at 21. I will tell senators where it comes from: from the old Commonwealth scholarship scheme of 1951. It comes from the very early years of the Liberal Menzies government. This is very telling: while it is clear to most Australians that community values have altered substantially in the last 45 years, including as to when people are responsible for their own affairs, this government seems hell-bent on recreating the values of the 1950s—values to which the Australian community no longer subscribes. I call it compulsory picket fences.This is why the youth of Australia are turning their back on the government and politicians in general. Senator Stott Despoja probably has figures on the level of dissatisfaction amongst young people with the political process from some of the work she has done, but I believe the youth poll has found it runs at about 98 per cent. While the government continues to ignore the reality for young Australians, this will only get worse.The age of independence also raises the question as to what is the government's definition of `youth'. For example, what strange biological metamorphosis occurs within the educational environment that renders a student a youth for four years longer than an unemployed person? As the National Union of Students has pointed out, the continuing definition of `youth' status for students aged 21 to 25 goes against one of the central stated aims of the youth allowance scheme: to remove the disincentives to study. Can the minister explain to the chamber how making students dependent on their parents until the age of 25 while rightly maintaining the existing arrangements which allow for anyone aged 21 and above to receive a higher rate of payment on the dole removes disincentives to study?As the National Union of Students pointed out in its responses to the youth allowance community discussion paper, the greatest transition between study and the labour market for students and unemployed people in receipt of benefits takes place when students leave tertiary education for the first time and begin to look for employment. This process of moving from study to the labour market typically takes place around the age of 21 to 24, as most tertiary students are school leavers undertaking three- to six-year courses. Given this large demographic cohort, the youth allowance age of independence is spectacularly unsuccessful in creating a simplified system and removing disincentives to study.Remember the minister said it is about making it easier for bureaucrats. As I have demonstrated, the very people who are most likely to transfer between unemployment and education—that is, 21- to 24-year-olds—will still have to leave the youth allowance and register for Newstart or vice versa. So the age of independence for students achieves none of the government's stated objectives.I agree with the National Union of Students submission that either the government is completely lacking in its understanding of the two systems or the government's claims of wanting to increase flexibility in the transition between education and the labour force are completely disingenuous and the whole age of independence issue is just an excuse to cut benefits to tens of thousands of young, and not so young, Australians.17:59:00636Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEALB36NSWALP00—I ask the minister what the cost of this amendment would be.18:00:00636Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—I understand that to grant independence to all young people at age 18 would cost in excess of $567 million a year.B36NEALSenator Neal—The present amendment before us has the age of independence as 21.BE4Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMAN—If a full-time student is independent at age 21 and an unemployed young person is independent at age 18, is that—B36NEALSenator Neal—It is just students—BE4Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMAN—The answer to the question is that by decreasing the maximum age for youth allowance from 25 years to 21 years for full-time students it would cost approximately $178 million a year.18:01:00637Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—I will be brief because I understand that we have canvassed a number of these arguments, certainly philosophically, and now it seems economically. My only question to the opposition on this one is whether they are justifying this economically or they are justifying it philosophically. I note Senator Neal has asked the minister for a costing as to what this amendment would mean. I just want to know for the record, if indeed the opposition opposes this amendment, why they are doing it. Just which excuse are we going to be giving the community: is it that it is going to cost too much or is it all those arguments that Senator Neal gave quite eloquently in favour of a reduced age of independence for young unemployed people earlier on in this debate? Don't those arguments apply?The youth allowance ages are contrary to community expectations and law, as I have said. I just want to make the point on the record that at 15 in this country you can get your own Medicare card. You can have sex—at least heterosexual sex. You can get a full-time or part-time job. At 17 you can be taken to an adult court if you break the law. You can be sent to an adult gaol if the court so orders. You can leave home without legal implications. At 18 you can vote and make a valid will. You are beyond the age of compulsory schooling and you are bound by legal contracts. You can drive a car and you can get married. According to the National Children's and Youth Law Centre, `you are now in control of your life'. So why, oh why, is the age of independence for full-time students 25? As Senator Margetts said, my ambit claim was 18. Our preferred option was at least 18. It was a more realistic indication of when young people in Australia are adults. We are going for 21 now. Boy, I want to see what the opposition does on this one.18:03:00637Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEALB36NSWALP00—You will be seeing very shortly, so you will not be in suspense for very long. This is a very difficult issue for the opposition. Surely you understand that, bearing in mind the comments you have just made. It has generally been accepted that, for those people who are not in study, their legal adulthood commences at 18. But I think it is also true to say—and I suppose all the reports that were cited by Senator Margetts indicated this—that there is a general acceptance within the community that the age of adulthood for someone in full-time study is somewhat older.DX5MARGETTSSenator Margetts—No, that is not what the report said. They were saying 21 or below; that is what all those reports said. You were not listening.B36Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEAL—I did actually listen quite well. The mere fact that a report says the age should be 21 indicates that is a different age—DX5MARGETTSSenator Margetts—Twenty-one or below.B36Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEAL—Maybe when I sit down you can get up again, if you disagree. It makes it very difficult when you are yelling from your seat. There is an accepted community norm which is different from age 18 for students. I do not believe that young people who are spending their time studying are in exactly the same position as young people who have decided to go out and seek full-time employment. Our position in the past has been, and will be when we are in government, that the age of independence should be reduced from what it was left at with the previous coalition government—from 25 to 21. We were in the process of reducing that age of independence to where it should ultimately rest at the time we lost government. The coalition response, once they were elected, was to take it back up to 25. Our proposition is that it should be once again reduced over time to 21. We do not see that the opposition will be doing it in one go, as has been proposed in this amendment.3I6STOTT DESPOJASenator Stott Despoja—Twenty-one or 22?B36Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEAL—It actually stopped at 22 because of the election. If we had remained in government, the objective was to take it down to 21. That was the ultimate aim. An amendment was foreshadowed by Senator Carr which proposed that the age be reduced over time from 25. I understand that is somewhere in the workings still. That is ultimately our position—that we would like to see it reduced from 25—but we cannot see that occurring in one go, as is proposed here.When you are on the crossbenches and do not have to make some of the really tough decisions as to priority, it is extraordinarily easy just to say, `We will spend it all on this particular amendment.' I assume the figure of $178 million is at least roughly correct. When you have to weigh it up against all sorts of other demands—including services for people who are unemployed, child care, tax benefits for low income earners—there are extraordinarily tight and difficult decisions that have to be made about priorities.Though the opposition would ultimately like to see the payment for students based on an age of independence of 21, we cannot see that being done instantly. That is why we cannot at this stage support the Democrats request that is before us. I know, in terms of the Democrats pushing all the right political buttons, it is probably very gratifying to them and I am sure that they will make hay while the sun shines.DX5MARGETTSSenator Margetts—Young people vote, too.B36Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEAL—I am very aware of the fact that young people vote, and I am very aware, as a former student, that I relied on income provided by Austudy when I became old enough to be treated as an independent. But, that all being true and being very well aware of how difficult financial circumstances can be for students, it still remains that the priority decision made is that the age of independence should be reduced over time and not instantly. I am sure the Democrats would prefer a simple and instant answer, but in life things are not always instant or easy. This is one of those difficult propositions. There have been many groups in the community—3I6STOTT DESPOJASenator Stott Despoja—Twenty years this debate has been going on. This is not an instant answer.BE4NEWMANSenator Newman—And the debate for rent assistance has been 20 years, too, and you got it.B36Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEAL—Maybe I will sit down and allow the government and the crossbenchers to slang at each other. Question put: That the request (Senator Stott Despoja's ) be agreed to.18:13:00The committee divided. (The Chairman—Senator S. M. West)9Allison, L. Bartlett, A. J. J.Bourne, V. *Brown, B.Lees, M. H. Margetts, D.Murray, A. Stott Despoja, N.Woodley, J.38Bishop, M. Brownhill, D. G. C.Campbell, G. Conroy, S.Cook, P. F. S. Coonan, H.Cooney, B. Crowley, R. A.Denman, K. J. *Evans, C. V.Ferris, J. Heffernan, W.Hogg, J. Knowles, S. C.Lundy, K. Macdonald, I.Mackay, S. 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. Schacht, C. C.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.18:16:00639Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—I move:That the House of Representatives be requested to make the following amendment:(13) Schedule 2, item 8, page 127 (after line 12), after subsection (11), insert:Unemployed people aged 18 years or more(11A) A person is independent if the person: (a) is at least 18 years old; and (b) is not undertaking full-time study.This request seeks essentially to retain the age of independence at 18 for young people who are unemployed. Many of the issues have been canvassed. Contrary to what the minister might believe, I am trying to facilitate the progress of this bill. The record shows that the Democrats believe that 18 is an appropriate age for young people to establish their independence—and this is comparable to the Greens' (WA) amendments and intentions.18:17:00639Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEALB36NSWALP00—This is exactly the same as our amendment—the one we have already lost—isn't it? Does it bring down the age of independence for young unemployed to 18 years?18:18:00639Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—I did not think that this was withdrawn or redundant as a consequence of the failure of your amendment. From memory, your amendment related to the age at which people could enter into youth allowance activity agreements.18:18:00639Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—I can give you a preliminary answer which I might have to correct in a minute. I understand that the opposition's amendment was setting the maximum age for youth allowance for unemployed at 18.18:19:00639Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEALB36NSWALP00—There were two separate amendments. One was to set the maximum and one was to define the age of independence. I have been advised that the effect of our amendments is identical but come about through different means. You are open to move it.18:20:00639Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—I am happy to proceed with this request. I do not see a problem dealing with this separately. We are probably after the same ends but to be on the safe side I will continue with this request.18:20:00639Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEALB36NSWALP00—Our position is that for those unemployed young persons the age of independence should commence at 18. So the opposition will be supporting this request. Question put: That the request (Senator Stott Despoja's ) be agreed to.18:24:00The committee divided. (The Chairman—Senator S. M. West)33Allison, L. Bartlett, A. J. J.Bishop, M. Bolkus, N.Bourne, V. Brown, B.Campbell, G. Carr, K.Conroy, S. Cook, P. F. S.Cooney, B. Crowley, R. A.Denman, K. J.* Evans, C. V.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.34Alston, R. K. R. Boswell, R. L. D.Brownhill, D. G. C. Calvert, P. H.Campbell, I. G. Chapman, H. G. P.Coonan, H. Crane, W.Eggleston, A. Ellison, C.Ferguson, A. B. Ferris, J.Gibson, B. F. Harradine, B.Heffernan, W.* Herron, J.Hill, R. M. Knowles, S. C.Lightfoot, P. R. Macdonald, I.Macdonald, S. MacGibbon, D. J.McGauran, J. J. J. Minchin, N. H.Newman, J. M. Parer, W. R.Patterson, K. C. L. Payne, M. A.Reid, M. E. Synon, K. M.Tambling, G. E. J. Troeth, J.Vanstone, A. E. Watson, J. O. W.Collins, J. M. A. O'Chee, W. G.Collins, R. L. Kemp, R.Faulkner, J. P. Tierney, J.Forshaw, M. G. Abetz, E.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the negative.18:28:00640Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—The remaining requests on the running sheet are all procedural ones following on from what we have been debating already. Are senators prepared to withdraw them if the motions have been lost previously?18:28:00640Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—No, I will not withdraw them, but nor will I pursue a division on them because the result will be what we have seen—the government and Senator Harradine using the numbers to vote down any changes which would have put some of that $560 million that has been taken out of the pockets of young people back into their pockets. I move:That the House of Representatives be requested to make the following amendment:(4) Schedule 2, item 8, page 124 (after line 26), after subsection (4), insert:Full-time student aged 21 years or more(4A) A person is independent if the person: (a) is at least 21 years old; and (b) is undertaking full-time study.In relation to my requests for amendments Nos 4 and 5 for the Australian Greens, I would have preferred the Greens (WA) position of making 18 the year of adulthood for people in all circumstances, including their rights to benefits. I predict that the committee will not vote that way, because the government and Senator Harradine will not support that position.I will call a spade a spade. It is $560 million all-up that will be taken out of the pockets of young Australians. You can measure a civil society pretty well by the extra effort—and that includes money—that goes to the more disadvantaged people in that society. The success of this piece of legislation is the reverse—you measure it by the amount of money it will take out of the pockets of already disadvantaged people. That is the direction that the government is going in general. It is against a civil society. It is against a society that is moving under the flag of a fair go for everyone.Sitting suspended from 6.30 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Murphy)—The committee is considering the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Youth Allowance) Bill 1997 and request for amendment No. 4 on sheet 859 moved by Senator Brown. The question is that the request be agreed to.Request not agreed to.19:31:00640Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I move:That the House of Representatives be requested to make the following amendment:(5) Schedule 2, item 8, page 127 (after line 12), after subsection (11), insert:Unemployed people aged 18 years or more(11A) A person is independent if the person: (a) is at least 18 years old; and (b) is not undertaking full-time study.The effect of request for amendment No. 5 is to reduce the age for students from 25 as in the government legislation to 21. We are not going to get any alteration from the government. The Democrats have already tried to amend this. I prefer the Greens (Western Australia) amendment which would reduce the age to 18. I will not pursue this amendment, nor will I relent on the justice of the amendment as against the government's legislation.Request not agreed to.19:32:00640Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I move:That the House of Representatives be requested to make the following amendment:(6) Schedule 2, item 8, page 127 (lines 13 to 26), omit subsection (12), substitute:People who are disadvantaged(12) A person is independent if the person is at least 16 years old and one or more of the following apply: (a) the person has full-time employment of at least 30 hours per week for a period of at least 12 months, or for periods that take at least 12 months; or (b) the person does not live at the home of either or both of his or her parents; or (c) in the Secretary's opinion, the person is specially disadvantaged with respect to education or employment; or (d) the person is not receiving adequate financial support that is at least equal to the rate of payment the person would be entitled to if he or she was receiving youth allowance.Note: For parent see section 5 (paragraph (a) of that definition).Request for amendment No. 6 reduces the age for the disadvantaged test from 18 to 16 and makes the definition of independence more flexible so that, instead of having to meet all criteria, applicants would need to meet only one of the very strict criteria. These criteria are so onerous that there will be very few people who will be able to qualify. Our amendments would mean that people who are disadvantaged under one or other of the government's criteria would be able to qualify.The government has to pull in its belt. In doing so, it is going to take the belt to young people. This legislation is about robbing and cheating young people of not just tens of millions of dollars but hundreds of millions of dollars. As the minister has said, it is to try to encourage young people to go into education, but at the other end governments are cutting funds to education. For example, in TAFE courses 60,000 people last year could not find a place so the increased number is going to be blocked from that avenue.It will no doubt suit the government to continue to say, as the minister has quite erroneously said, that people who are opposed to what she is doing are in favour of rich people getting an advantage as a part spin-off from the government's legislation. The fact is that this is another effort by the Greens to roll back the disadvantage to disadvantaged young people, to make the disadvantage test less onerous. The government wants to make the disadvantage to disadvantaged young people more onerous, because it wants to take money out of their pocket. It wants to force them to be mendicants on their parents, and it wants to transfer its cost cutting obligations to a more expensive life of disadvantage and therefore a more disadvantaged life for those people in our society who are least able to do anything about it. The numbers will be with the government. Senator Harradine is going to vote for this social disadvantage being increased—for what good reason I do not know. There are no specifics that I have been able to pick up on, but he is going to vote for this enormous impost on young people and the impact it will have on poor families.The minister says that the difference between the government legislation and reducing the age to 18 alone for students and unemployed people being treated as adults would be some $560 million. This measure would make that figure greater. It is a massive incursion on disadvantaged people in Australia. I do not understand how Senator Harradine can support it, but he does. I do not understand how the government can glibly say this is to the advantage of young Australians because it is not. I put the amendment to the Senate knowing that it has a snowflake's chance in hell of getting through because of the cold face of people on the other side to the disadvantaged people in our society.19:35:00641Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEALB36NSWALP00—A lot of the comments made by Senator Brown I feel the need to respond to. It may well be your intention to do what you describe, Senator Brown, but the way you have framed your amendment essentially means that anyone who satisfies the requirement of being age 18 is eligible for this payment. We would be happy to do that for the unemployed, as we have stated, but your amendment has the effect of including everyone who is 18—students or the unemployed. That being the case—and I do not know what your intention was—we have already stated our position. We will not be supporting it.19:36:00641Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—My intention is to loosen up the disadvantage test so that more disadvantaged people are able to have access to benefits. It is as simple as that. If Labor wants to oppose that, then Labor may oppose it.Request not agreed to.19:37:00642Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEALB36NSWALP00—I move:That the House of Representatives be requested to make the following amendment:(7) Schedule 2, item 8, page 125 (line 8), omit "of at least 10 years".This request has the effect of deleting the requirement that, for the purpose of being independent, both parents have to be in gaol for a minimum of 10 years. We are of the view that if your parents are in gaol, no matter for what period, that you must be regarded as independent. I think the government has reassessed its position and will be accepting it, so I will not go on.19:37:00642Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—That is correct. The government will not be opposing opposition request for amendment No. 7, but we will be opposing opposition request No. 8.19:38:00642Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—Opposition amendment No. 7 obviously will have the support of the Greens WA because our amendment is effectively the same. If I am not incorrect, it is also the same as the Australian Democrats amendment. So it looks as though there is very strong support for not requiring people, before their being declared independent, to have their parents in prison for 10 years.19:38:00642Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—As Senator Margetts has pointed out, the Democrats have a similar amendment. I found the original part of this bill quite extraordinary. Regardless of whether the sole parent is, or both parents are, in prison for 10 weeks or 10 years, as it is specified in this case, I would think it pretty obvious that during such time they would not necessarily be able to support their children. So I am glad to see that the government has accepted that logic.Request agreed to.19:39:00642Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEALB36NSWALP00—I move:That the House of Representatives be requested to make the following amendment: (8) Schedule 2, item 8, page 126 (line 17), after subparagraph (ii), insert: ; or (iii) are unable to provide the person with a suitable home because they lack stable accommodation;The purpose of this request is to say that, where parents are unable to provide their children with a home because they themselves are homeless, that child is regarded as being independent.19:39:00642Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—This comes down—and it is a pity that the government has indicated that they will not be supporting this—to the very point that I was making before: that you will have situations where parents, basically, are not able, or refuse, to provide that support base for their adult children; and it is totally outrageous to suggest that somehow or other those people will be left destitute. That appears to be what the government is doing, and I would support the opposition's amendment on this.19:40:00642Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—I am waiting to hear from the government as to why this measure that has been moved by Senator Neal has been an absolutely crucial amendment which would not in any circumstances be accepted by the government. I am wondering, first of all, whether Senator Neal could oblige the committee with just rerunning it. It was very short time. There are time constraints, of course, but I would be grateful if she could rerun the argument.19:41:00642Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEALB36NSWALP00—At present the act provides that, where a person cannot live with their parents because of sexual abuse or violence in the home, they are regarded as being independent. The act is presently moot on the point of a situation where, in fact, the parents themselves do not have a home that they can provide for their children. It can be because of their adverse financial circumstances—although that is probably unlikely because of the level of the means test. Alternatively, it may be that they do not have a permanent address—people living in caravans, travelling around, doing a world tour. Anything of that nature would mean that the parents do not have a home they can provide for their chil dren. In that situation, the opposition believes that those adult children should be treated as independent.19:42:00643Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—We do not support the amendment because, in our view, it is too broad. Young people concurrently qualify as independent when there is no parental home and the parents cannot accommodate the young person. For example, there is the situation of a woman who has to move to a refuge; she may not be able to accommodate her teenage son at the refuge. The current provisions would allow for that, and most such situations would be temporary.If we were to move to broadening this, as suggested by these amendments, parents have a responsibility to provide a home for their children. It is only in unusual circumstances that the independent rate would be paid. A parent's refusal, on the other hand, to have the young person live at home is not enough on its own to qualify. It needs to be assessed in the context of whether extreme family breakdown has occurred. I would draw the Senate's attention to the fact that, if we simply accepted the statement that a young person is not allowed to live at home as evidence of homelessness, we would be inviting collusion between parents and children.Senator Harradine, you may recall that, under the previous government, there was a lot of scepticism about the way that the homeless criteria were being administered. The member for Braddon, Chris Miles, and I waged a vigorous campaign to ensure that parents were included in the assessment by the social workers in the then Department of Social Security to see whether the young person's claims were true. It may be that in some cases the young person claimed that they were homeless when, in fact, they were not; that there was a family willing and keen to care for them. In some cases, there may well have been irresponsible parents who were prepared to collude with their child because the child was saying that they wanted to leave home and could get the money from the government. I am concerned that, if we are not careful about this measure, we open up these sorts of situations.As I understand it, the arrangements as they are here in this legislation are the same as are currently for youth training allowance; they are no harsher. What has happened since this government has been in office is that we have had a very careful look at the criteria and the way they are administered. But that is simply to make sure that those who are entitled do get their entitlement, and that those who are not do not abuse the taxpayer. I believe that there was an element of that in the way it was administered previously. I do not see any justification for expanding this and making it broader so that you can have families wrongfully claiming for support when they are perfectly able to provide a home for their child.19:45:00643Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEALB36NSWALP00—I do not know, Minister, whether you are intentionally misstating the effect of our amendment or you really do not understand. Our amendment does not extend to circumstances where parents refuse to have children at home. That is not included in our amendment and it is not envisaged to do so. All it does is cover a situation where the parents themselves do not have a home that their children, adult or under 18, can reside in. To say otherwise, to say it is extended to circumstances where parents might refuse, is not true.19:45:00643Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—I would not have wanted to mislead the Senate. I guess I was using a suggested response which actually applies to more than one of the amendments in this area. The amendment that is moved by Senator Neal for the opposition in fact does enable payment of the higher rate of youth allowance to young people whose parents do not have a home. Other similar exceptional circumstances include situations where parents are unable to provide a home for the young person because they themselves are homeless or in temporary accommodation because of a major personal crisis. I was referring to that earlier in my response. But extending the qualifications may encourage parents to rearrange their accommodation without fulfilling their primary responsibility to house their children. Parents who choose to move to new premises or interstate are still required and expected to make arrangements for their children to remain or to go with them, not to artificially cause them to be homeless and for the taxpayer to support them in that way. Where the parental home is not conducive to study or job search, for example because the parents have an itinerant lifestyle, the young person may in fact receive the away from home rate of youth allowance. So, Senator, I am sorry if I gave you some information you are not yet ready to receive in relation to Senator Stott-Despoja's subsequent amendment, but I have now given you the government's response focusing on your amendment alone.19:47:00644Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEALB36NSWALP00—I really find it hard to believe that there are large numbers of parents in the community who would intentionally make themselves homeless for the purpose of avoiding the independence test for the youth allowance. It seems a preposterous suggestion. In terms of the example that the minister gave about a parent moving into temporary accommodation in a refuge, that particular circumstance is covered by the bill presently because it relates to circumstances of domestic violence. So essentially what has happened is that the government has covered one possible example of the cause of homelessness, which is domestic violence, but in my view there are many possible causes for homelessness in the parents' circumstances and I think that, whatever the cause of their homelessness, you still cannot expect that a young person will do without support because of that parental situation.19:48:00644Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—Perhaps I could throw a question back to Senator Neal. If parents decided that they wanted to take a year off and take a tour around Australia and they had a young person in their care who fitted these criteria, would you regard it as being responsible of the parents to make no proper arrangements for their young person when they left? I would have thought your answer to that would have been no, but if you want to say yes, you think it is proper, I would be surprised.B36NEALSenator Neal—When you sit down, I will answer.DX5MARGETTSSenator Margetts—You're the one doing it to people; now you're blaming the parents.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Order! Hopefully we can conduct this discussion in an orderly and cordial way.BE4Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMAN—Mr Chairman, as you may know, I worked for a state Labor government on child protection for a number of years, so I certainly have a good understanding that some parents in this country are irresponsible; very few, but some are. It does not matter whether we are talking about babies, toddlers, primary school children or older young people, it is not acceptable for parents not to take on their responsibilities to the children they bring into the world. If parents were in fact to take this trip around Australia, which can be a great experience for anybody, we would expect them to make proper provision, whether by way of a family member to act in their place while they are gone or to pay for stable and reasonable accommodation for the young person. I hope you would see that we should not allow this to be broadened to allow similar circumstances to that, to allow people to shrug their shoulders and let the taxpayer provide.19:50:00644Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEALB36NSWALP00—This bill really is not about making moral judgments about particular parents. You may say it is responsible or not responsible—BE4NEWMANSenator Newman—Don't you? It is abandoning your child.DX5MARGETTSSenator Margetts—Or adult, as the case may be.B36Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEAL—That is not the question. Whether we can say the parent has behaved badly or not, the repercussions of that behaviour, even if we make moral judgments about it being wrong, do not rebound on the parent. If you are actually going to collect the money from the parents and then pay it on to the children, I suppose to some extent I could understand your argument. But if you are saying that the parents have done something that you think is morally bad and therefore we should punish the children by leaving them unsupported, I really do not understand the logic in that. If a parent is not providing a home for the children, whether or not you make the moral judgment that that is wrong, I think some people would have dispute with your view that past the age of 18 parents have a moral responsibility to support their children. I do not think that is the accepted view, that once you have children you have to support them until the day they die.There are some community groups that believe that you have a responsibility to support your parents as well. That is not a view that we have included in our law, although I understand that they have in some countries such as Singapore. I do not think it is universally accepted that, once you have a child, you must support them until whatever age. But putting that argument aside for the moment, I do not believe we can punish the child of one of those parents who has not behaved properly by depriving them of support.19:52:00645Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—Just a further question to the minister on that level: I wonder whether we could clarify it by putting in the legislation the example of the working couple who are perhaps close to the age of retirement and who have finally saved up enough to get in their camper van and go around Australia on whatever superannuation might be left to them. Perhaps you could write into the legislation that, if they are renting a house, they will have to take their 20-year-old with them and that would be a really nice way to spend their retirement trip going around Australia in their camper van.19:53:00645Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—The amendment is that they are `unable to provide the person with a suitable home because they lack stable accommodation'. If they are homeless and they have their young person with them, then the entitlements do flow. If they set out to deliberately not have stable accommodation, then why should their neighbour be asked to support their child? DX5MARGETTSSenator Margetts—They are adult.BE4Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMAN—They are a financially dependant child while they are on these payments just as they are up to the age of 25 if they are a student. Is it right that parents should be abrogating their responsibility and handing it over to their neighbours without making proper arrangements for the accommodation of their child? If they were homeless and they were together, that would be a different matter—they would be entitled.19:54:00645Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEALB36NSWALP00—This sort of red herring that the minister keeps raising about these irresponsible parents who intentionally become homeless themselves is quite preposterous. Some people's lifestyles quite validly involve moving around—occupations such as fruit picker, people who run shows and construction workers. There is a whole raft of lifestyles that provide some families with incomes all around Australia. We are not all professionals and small businessmen. Some people do have a shifting lifestyle. In those circumstances, I think we still have to support their children and to accept that particular variation from the middle-class norm.19:55:00645Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—Senator Neal has made a very good point. It is one that I was going to raise. It is something that the minister should have a look at. I do not know how far it goes, but there may be some response. The example that was given by Senator Neal is a very good one. There are quite a number of people who are working casually in a particular industry. Shearers are another example.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Murphy)—I was waiting for that.6H4Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE—I thought you might have been, Mr Chairman. One of the purposes of this legislation is to encourage persons to get into work and to retain their work. Here is a situation whereby this might work in the other direction. I wonder whether you would be good enough to respond to the very valid point that Senator Neal has just made.19:57:00645Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—Can I give you another example: if a shearer is travelling around Australia taking work as he goes and he has his young person with him—10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Him or her!BE4Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMAN—Yes, there are some female shearers now, aren't there? If there is no extreme family breakdown, the young person could receive the at home or away if appropriate but subject to the parental means test. The circumstances are that if there is extreme family breakdown then the young person would be deemed to be eligible because of independence criteria. The safety net is there, but the opposition's amendment is just extending the clause too widely.AW5CARRSenator Carr—Not all families live like you.BE4Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMAN—No, and I do not suppose they live like you either.19:58:00646Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—We are not talking about the question of extreme family breakdown; we are talking about a working situation in which many people find themselves. It just seems to me that you are almost condemning—perhaps I am going too far here—the young people to shift with their parents when those parents are in the type of work such as described by Senator Neal. Or, indeed, it must be somewhere in the legislation that if a parent does have a transfer in a particular job from, say, Hobart to Melbourne, then the students or the unemployed aged 18, 19 and 20 surely do not have to shift. But, by the same token, I think you would need to do something to cater for the group that Senator Neal pointed to.20:00:00646Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—Some of the current limitations in the unreasonable live-at-home provisions have been made clear to this chamber by virtue of the fact that at least three separate sets of amendments, albeit in slight conflict with one another, have been moved to try to value-add or improve this section in some way. I concur with the sentiments of Senators Neal, Margetts and Harradine in the debate so far. Of course, we think the Democrats amendment is the best one. Suffice to say, I am prepared to support the amendments moved by the other two parties because it is really important that we improve this section so that it does not simply take into account extreme situations—albeit it should take into account extreme situations in family and home life where it may be deemed unreasonable to live at home—but also some of the slightly unusual circumstances. Some of those have been described. As in this amendment's case, it may be the inability of a family to provide a stable home environment or it may have to do with itinerant work, or what have you. It has been demonstrated quite clearly to this chamber that such consideration should be included in the determination of this particular criteria.The Democrats amendment is more comprehensive. However, we have all taken into account bits and pieces of not only the current provision but also each other's. I speak very much in favour of all the amendments so far but commend ours when the debate moves on. Minister, I implore you to take into account some of the issues that have been raised in this committee stage. I do not think that this part of the bill as proposed can stay as it stands.20:02:00646Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—I hear the sentiments expressed by honourable senators. I emphasise that the government does not believe that people should be able to choose to not be subject to the parental means test. That is our concern in this area. Maybe the opposition will be prepared to consider inserting some words into their amendment which the government would be prepared to accept—after the words `or (iii)', insert the words `for reasons beyond the parents control are unable to provide the person with a suitable home'.20:02:00646Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEALB36NSWALP00—It really does not satisfy the problem. If you are an itinerant worker—I do not really like that term, but I suppose it describes it—and you choose to move around to follow a job, it is not for reasons beyond your control; you choose to pack up and move to the next place. You are not forced to do it. It is just your particular lifestyle. It really does not deal with that problem.20:03:00647Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—In the case of where the parental home is not conducive to study or Jobsearch, such as in the case of an itinerant lifestyle, the young person may receive the away-from-home rate of youth allowance. I do not think that that is sufficient objection, Senator. Do you want time to think about it?B36NEALSenator Neal—No.20:03:00647Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I put this into context. Remember, when we talk about industrial relations we talk about the fact that people can choose to take or not take a job.AW5CARRSenator Carr—They demand flexibility in the workplace.DX5Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTS—That is right. But here we have a situation where people, in order to earn a living, either have chosen a lifestyle or have not had a great deal of choice and follow a lifestyle in order to earn a living. It might be fruit picking or rodeos. Perhaps we can have a special program all over Australia and people can ring in with their examples of where it is going to be a ridiculous situation—for instance, when an otherwise independent 20-year-old is going to have to travel around Australia with their parents—3I6STOTT DESPOJASenator Stott Despoja—In a campervan.DX5Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTS—in a campervan, to the great joy of both the 20-year-old and the parents.20:04:00647Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—I think the government needs a little bit more time to think about this. I am inclined to vote for the amendment as it is and see what happens later.Request agreed to.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Senator Stott Despoja, do you intend to move amendment 8? Senator Margetts, do the Greens (WA) intend to move amendment No.16?20:05:00647Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—Our understanding is that the passage of opposition amendment No. 7 ensured that our concerns were taken care of. Does that mean we are up to Democrat amendment No. 9?10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—That will depend on what Senator Margetts has to say.20:06:00647Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I am rapturous to see that at least opposition amendment No. 7, which is the same as Democrats amendment No. 8 and Greens (WA) amendment No. 16, was passed. Therefore, it is not necessary for those to be put.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Senator Stott Despoja, I have a note here which advises that your amendment 9 is in conflict with the amendment that we have just dealt with—amendment 7. Is it your intention to now not proceed with that?20:06:00647Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—I think you are referring to opposition amendment No. 8, with which it was in conflict. Number 7 was the same as Democrats amendment No. 8. I acknowledge Democrats amendment No. 9 is in conflict with opposition amendment No. 8. I seek advice from the chamber. I recognise it is in conflict, but, as I mentioned, I think it is a good and a more comprehensive amendment. Is there reason why I cannot pursue the Democrats preferred definition of what is unreasonable circumstances for living at home?10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Senator Stott Despoja, the ball is in your court. You certainly can move the amendment and it is really up to the honourable senators to then decide how they are going to vote on it.3I6Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA—Fair enough. I move:That the House of Representatives be requested to make the following amendment:(9) Schedule 2, item 8, page 126 (lines 8 to 25), omit subsection (9), substitute:Unreasonable to live at home(9) A person is independent if: (a) the person cannot live at the home of either or both of his or her parents: (i) because it would be unreasonable to expect the person to do so as there would be a serious risk to his or her physical or mental well-being due to violence, sexual abuse or other similar unreasonable circumstances; or (ii) because there is no parental home or homes; or (iii) because the parents refuse to provide a home; or (iv) because of extreme family breakdown or other similar exceptional circumstances; and (b) the person is not receiving adequate and continuous support.As I said, the amendment substitutes `unreasonable to live at home' with a new definition. This amendment, I believe, is more comprehensive than the Greens (WA) amendment to follow or the amendment just moved by the opposition. We seek to ensure that young people who are genuinely independent of or not supported by their parents are not forced to become or, indeed, to remain homeless. If it is unreasonable that they live in the parental home, and no other support of a continuous nature is available, then they will be eligible for the independent rate and they will not be assessed according to the means of the very people who cannot or will not support them.We seek to achieve a similar purpose to that of the amendment we have just dealt with and the Greens one to follow but, again, we think that perhaps we have encompassed some of their concerns, whether they relate to the issue of continuity of support or a range of other potential problems that have been taken into account with this amendment.20:09:00648Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEALB36NSWALP00—I must say that I am at a bit of a loss to understand why the Democrats are proceeding with this. Obviously the amendment was constructed in a slightly different way but the end result seems to be much the same. I am a little bit concerned about the effect of having two amendments lumped on top of each other and attacking different parts of the legislation. Unless the Democrats can explain to me what additional advantage we will gain from this I am a bit loath to support it.20:09:00648Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—As I outlined, what the opposition amendment has done is insert an additional line in relation to being unable to provide a person with a suitable home because they lack stable accommodation. What the Democrats and the Greens have done in consultation with the Welfare Rights Centre and other people is to draft an amendment which takes into account some of the sentiments and the gist of the government proposal—but we think it is more refined and comprehensive.The reason we are proceeding with this is that we think it is a better amendment and it takes into account a range of other provisions including the lack of parental home or homes and the parental refusal to provide home or homes. We think ours is drafted in a better fashion. It is simply up to you, Senator Neal, through you, Mr Temporary Chairman, as to whether you like it. We took on board a number of concerns and drafted this in a way that is different from your amendment; and, with all due respect, it is better.20:10:00648Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—The opposition's amendment No. 8 states:(8) Schedule 2, item 8, page 126 (line 17), after subparagraph (ii), insert: ; or (iii) are unable to provide the person with a suitable home because they lack stable accommodation;Certainly, the proposed amendments by the Greens (WA) add something else to that. Our amendment No. 17 largely is covered under what occurred in relation to opposition amendment No. 8 but there are other elements of it in relation to continuous support which have not been addressed in the opposition's amendment.Senator Stott Despoja's amendment talks about a person not receiving adequate and continuous support. The main difference between that and the Greens (WA) amendment is that we have defined `adequate' as an amount which is equivalent to the maximum rate of youth allowance. That is for when you are at home but your parents are not giving you any money. Just because you are at home does not mean you are going to get any support. Either way, if there were support for Senator Stott Despoja's amendment in relation to that I would think it would be a step forward.Contrary to the advice we have just been given by Senator Neal, I think only some elements of those amendments are covered by the opposition's amendments and there are some improvements that can be made. I would be prepared to accept `not receiving adequate and continuous support', although to define it might have been useful.20:12:00649Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—I am just wondering why Senator Stott Despoja has just lifted the government's (ii) and put it as her (i). I think it is exactly the same, isn't it? It says:because it would be unreasonable to expect the person to do so as there would be a serious risk to his or her physical or mental well-being due to violence, sexual abuse or other similar unreasonable circumstances;That is there already. Those other ones taken together with what the committee has just done I see as dealing with the matter.20:14:00649Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—I acknowledge that as one component of our criteria we have one of the same aspects as the government's. That is because we thought it was an appropriate and good part of the eligibility criteria. We probably could have drafted the amendment around it but because we are substituting that proposed section we included that.6H4HARRADINESenator Harradine—It was well phrased.6H4Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA—I think the government would like to hear that it is well phrased too. The difference—this is again a feature of the Greens (WA) amendment—is that, along with that particular provision, we specify, `because there is no parental home or homes; or because the parents refuse to provide a home.' That is my answer to Senator Neal as well. That is a major distinction and one that I would have thought was included in the opposition amendments. That is a fundamental difference and one that we consider, as I am sure you would agree, Mr Temporary Chairman, quite important.I take on board Senator Margetts's additions in the way that she has measured the level of continuous support against the youth allowance. I think that is an appropriate way to go.Request not agreed to.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Murphy)—We now move to Greens (WA) amendments Nos. 17 and 19. Do you intend to move those, Senator Margetts?20:16:00649Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I think there is no need to move amendment 17 now because we have at least got an improvement on the issue of parental homes and compulsory movement of 20-year-olds around the country. It would seem quite obvious that there is little support for getting fair and reasonable support for young people if they are at home. If they are not receiving it, it looks like they are not going to get the support of the government and potentially the opposition. So I will not be moving amendment 19.BE4NEWMANSenator Newman—What about 18?10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—I assume, Senator Margetts, that that is inclusive of amendment 18?DX5Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTS—Yes. To a certain extent, I think my amendment 18 may not be in conflict with what other people are doing. Amendment 19 related to a person `not receiving adequate and continuous support, whether directly or indirectly and whether financial or otherwise, at an amount which is equivalent to the maximum rate of Youth Allowance'. Amendment 18 was substituting `a person cannot' with `it is unreasonable for the person to'.I seek leave to move those amendments because I think it is worthwhile putting them to the Senate. It is part of the debate we have had about what is reasonable and what is unreasonable. I think there should be the ability for discretion to be used in this case. When you have to prove that a person cannot, firstly, it can be very intrusive and, secondly, it can be very difficult in a family situation which may already be extremely difficult and also very difficult for people to try to prove. I think unreasonability is better than to have something in legislation which says that the person cannot, because that becomes very difficult to actually prove.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—You are seeking leave to move amendments 18 and 19. Is leave granted?20:18:00650Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—I suppose it is. Senator, have you had a look at what the impact would be if we agreed to your amendment 18? I was just getting advice on it.20:18:00650Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—I thought we had dealt with amendments 17 and 19. I thought we had a vote on it.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—No. Initially Senator Margetts withdrew from moving amendments 17 to 19. The question came up about amendment 18 from the minister. On reconsidering the issue, Senator Margetts has now sought leave to move amendments 18 and 19.20:19:00650Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—I am advised that the impact of amendment 18 would be that we would have a provision that says, `It is unreasonable to live at home because it is unreasonable to live at home.' Maybe you do not intend that.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Senator Margetts, leave has been granted for you to move your amendments. Please do so.Requests (Senator Margetts's)—by leave—proposed:That the House of Representatives be requested to make the following amendments:(18) Schedule 2, item 8, page 126 (line 10), omit "the person cannot", substitute "it is unreasonable for the person to".(19) Schedule 2, item 8, page 126 (lines 18 to 21), omit paragraph (9)(b), substitute:(b) the person is not receiving adequate and continuous support, whether directly or indirectly and whether financial or otherwise, at an amount which is equivalent to the maximum rate of Youth Allowance; and20:19:00650Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—I have just put the proposition to Senator Margetts for her consideration. She may not wish to proceed with amendment 18 in the circumstances.20:20:00650Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I do not actually think it is unreasonable. Line (10) starts with the words, `A person is independent'. We are substituting `cannot' with `it is unreasonable for the person to live at the home of either or both of his or her parents'. Then it has the reasons why. I think you should perhaps read it again, Minister. I see now—`unreasonable to live at home'.BE4NEWMANSenator Newman—The first element is `because it is unreasonable to live at home'. It is repetitive.DX5Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTS—This is actually a subtitle—`Unreasonable to live at home'. It says, `A person is independent if the person cannot', et cetera.BE4NEWMANSenator Newman—`It is unreasonable to live at home'.DX5Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTS—You have got subtitles, such as `Person who is self-supporting'. They are in italics and I am assuming they are a broad description of what is underneath it.20:21:00650Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—Senator, if you want to have that amendment, you have it. We will call it `the Margetts amendment' and all it does is look like poor drafting. It is not going to change anything.20:21:00650Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—There is much in this legislation which is more than poor drafting, I would have to say, and this is not a sentence. You cannot read it, `It is unreasonable to live at home because it is unreasonable to live at home'. It is actually in italics, as in, `People who are self-supporting'. The next section does not say, `People who are self-supporting because people who are self-supporting'.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Perhaps we might progress a little. As I understand, Minister, you said you were going to agree with the amendments. Is that correct?20:22:00650Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—If she wants it so badly. I think Senator Margetts is simply hung up on the heading `Unreasonable to live at home'.DX5MARGETTSSenator Margetts—It's you who's unreasonable.DX5Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMAN—No, you have to look further down, Senator. You are inserting the words `unreasonable to live at home'. Look down at (ii)—`because it would be unreasonable to expect the person to do so'. That is where it is repetitive drafting. If you want to have it as your memorial, then so be it.20:22:00651Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEALB36NSWALP00—I must say I find it very difficult to understand how this in any way changes the legislation as it stands. But, if a church can split over an iota, I suppose this chamber can split over two words.20:23:00651Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I would like the final word. It is really interesting that the minister had that argument, considering she has a subtitle `Unreasonable' and then said the person cannot. They are talking about unreasonableness and in fact saying unreasonableness means impossibility. I think they are different, and I was trying to make them match.20:23:00651Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—I hate to stop Senator Margetts having the last word but I did want to rise briefly in support of her amendment 19—extending the provision so that not only is the young person receiving adequate and continuous support, but that support is measured against the standard of the youth allowance. That seems entirely reasonable.We do not think it is a particularly unduly or liberal request, given that it will apply only when the parent has absolved himself or herself of responsibility towards that young person by the previously mentioned conditions—for example, through violence, abuse, refusal of the parents to allow the young person to live in the parental home, et cetera. I think amendment 19 is a good amendment. I hope that the opposition will support it.20:24:00651Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEALB36NSWALP00—I have to say I think there are again serious problems with the drafting of 19. In terms of the intended principle, it would be very difficult to assess. But, putting that aside for the moment, in my opinion the amendment as presently worded says that if any parent provides less than the equivalent youth allowance, no matter how little less than the whole youth allowance, the person becomes eligible for the entire independent youth allowance. I do not know whether that is what you intended but it seems to say that.Requests not agreed to.20:25:00651Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—I move:That the House of Representatives be requested to make the following amendment:(10) Schedule 2, item 8, page 126 (line 31), omit "20 hours", substitute "15 hours".We have moved this amendment to the section relating to people who are self-supporting for the purposes of establishing their independence. The change is to (b)—`part-time employment of at least 20 hours per week for at least 2 years since the person last left secondary school'. The Democrat amendment omits `20 hours' and substitutes `15 hours'.We have moved this amendment in recognition that the criteria for independence in this bill have been made far too stringent. We are also aware of the government's attitude and policy—we have been debating it most of today—towards independence definitions. In fact, on 26 August last year, when asked in question time why the government had changed the definition of an employment placement for the purposes of paying a success fee for new private employment agencies from 20 hours a week to 15 hours a week, oddly enough, and additionally whether the government believed 15 hours a week was a real job, the former minister responded:. . . the purpose of the employment services reforms is to make you independent, to give you sufficient work that you could at least say, `I am now responsible for myself,' and no longer be dependent. The calculation is that about that level of hours a week is when you will be in that position.If 15 hours was good enough for the former minister, then why isn't it good enough now? Why not be consistent in this particular legislation? I hope that we are not setting another double standard.First of all, I would like to ask the government why the government chose the 20-hour figure per week for that two-year period as the criteria for independence. Perhaps this is based on Working Nation.20:27:00652Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—It might short-circuit things a bit if I indicate that the government is prepared to accept this amendment. It is also prepared to accept the next amendments—11 and 12—from the Democrats and amendment 20 from the Greens (WA).3I6STOTT DESPOJASenator Stott Despoja—I thank the minister.20:27:00652Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—As can be seen from the sheet, there is a fair amount of common ground between these amendments. I indicate that we believe that the Greens (WA) amendment 20 is slightly different from the Australian Democrat amendment 10 but is subsumed into Democrat amendment 11 and the effect is the same. If Senator Stott Despoja puts Democrat amendments 10, 11 and 12, we will be prepared to support all three.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Murphy)—And withdraw yours.DX5Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTS—Yes.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Senator Stott Despoja, would you like to move amendments 11 and 12 in addition to amendment 10, which you have already moved?Requests (by Senator Stott Despoja) agreed to:That the House of Representatives be requested to make the following amendments:(11) Schedule 2, item 8, page 126 (line 34) to page 127 (line 1), omit "50% of average weekly earnings", substitute "the equivalent of 75% of the maximum Commonwealth training award payments".(12) Schedule 2, item 8, page 127 (lines 5 to 12), omit subsection (11).Request (by Senator Margetts, at the request of Senator Brown) not agreed to:That the House of Representatives be requested to make the following amendment:(7) Schedule 2, item 8, page 127 (after line 26), at the end of section 1967A, add:When is a 15 year old regarded as independent(13) A person is independent if the person: (a) is at least 15 years old but under 16 years old; and (b) would be entitled to receive youth allowance if the person had been at least 16 years old; and (c) satisfies the Secretary that the person: (i) has an employment history involving full-time employment that was on either a permanent basis or a regular casual basis; or (ii) has received an offer of employment of that kind but has been unable to take up the offer for reasons beyond his or her control; or (iii) has been registered as being unemployed for at least 13 weeks; and (d) either: (i) has reached the minimum school leaving age for the State or Territory in which the person is living; or (ii) has been granted a formal exemption from attending school by the education authority of that State or Territory.20:29:00652Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—by leave—I move:That the House of Representatives be requested to make the following amendments:(21) Schedule 2, item 8, page 128 (line 20), after "opposite", insert "or same".(24) Schedule 2, item 8, page 129 (line 18), after "opposite", insert "or same".This relates to changes to the definition of `youth allowance couple' and it includes same sex relationships. Basically a person is classed as independent if they are part of a youth allowance couple. There is no reason why we need to discriminate against same sex couples if they are covered under the normal criteria. There is no reason at all to actually single out a group of people and say, `You've satisfied all the other criteria except that you're a couple of the same sex.' I urge the Senate to support commonsense in relation to Greens (WA) amendment Nos 21 and 24.20:30:00652Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—The Democrats will be supporting the Greens (WA) amendments. I understand these amendments amend the use of words `opposite sex partner' to recognise the de facto relationships of same sex couples. These amendments are consistent with the Australian Democrats proposal to have discrimination on the basis of sexuality outlawed—that is, removed from Commonwealth law. We believe it is unreasonable to disenfranchise persons in same sex relationships. Same sex couples are in large numbers in Australia and they contribute, as all other citizens, to taxes, laws, the running of our country, et cetera. They are entitled to the same consideration as couples of the opposite sex.20:31:00653Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEALB36NSWALP00—Essentially the whole Social Security Act does not provide for same sex couples. To change it for one small splinter out of the whole Social Security Act would really make for an absurd situation. Maybe one day we will have that debate for the whole act. But to do it just here does not really help anyone.20:32:00653Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—Not a good argument, Senator Neal. I can be relied upon to put this kind of amendment for just about every social security bill that comes through which deliberately discriminates against same sex couples. We could have changed half of the Social Security Act by now if we had had some support on this perfectly reasonable and rational proposal. If this means that if there is an opportunity in the future to have a multiple change—and I am not sure how you would actually effect a multiple change; perhaps it is possible—B36NEALSenator Neal—A private member's bill.DX5Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTS—And we have seen what has happened to private member's bills on sexuality—so far nothing, but we live in hope. Basically, I think it is perfectly reasonable to point the way where things can go and we all live in hope that the Labor Party, with the Greens and Democrats, will support sensible changes when those finally do come about in an all-inclusive way. Given that any of these social security changes do happen in a totally all-inclusive way, perhaps we might still work bit by bit and point the way. I would very much appreciate working with the Labor Party for any ideas they have about a way that can be done en masse. Next time we come up with that proposal, I will look forward to their support.20:33:00653Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—Given that the question was raised by Senator Neal, I would like to recognise, as I have done once or twice before in this debate and many other times on social security legislation, the potential problematic nature of having anomalies across the act. To that extent, I recognise the argument that Senator Neal has made. But if that is her sole problem with this amendment, I am quite sure, given that we do have other pieces of social security amending legislation coming up in this session, that an amendment could be provided to one of those future bills which ensures that this amendment, which Senator Margetts is putting forward here, does extend consistently across the entire act.Perhaps Senator Neal would give some indication, if she has some support for the principle of what Senator Margetts is putting here, that she would be willing to support such an amendment and we could remove that whole problem of an anomaly that she is so concerned about at the moment. We could deal with that quickly now to save having to deal with it over an extended period the next time we deal with social security bills.Requests not agreed to.20:35:00653Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—by leave—I move:That the House of Representatives be requested to make the following amendments:(22) Schedule 2, item 8, page 128 (line 23), omit "2 years", substitute "12 months".(23) Schedule 2, item 8 page 128 (line 26), omit "2 years", substitute "12 months".(25) Schedule 2, item 8, page 129 (line 21), omit "2 years", substitute "12 months".(26) Schedule 2, item 8, page 129 (line 25), omit "2 years", substitute "12 months or, in special circumstances determined by the Secretary, at least 6 months".What we are dealing with here are changes in the definition of `youth allowance couple', so that a marriage-like relationship of 12 months or six months in special circumstances is recognised as a youth allowance couple. The current provision is two years. I believe what we are suggesting is reasonable. If they have been in a marriage-like relationship for more than 12 months, we wonder what they are going to live on for the next year while they are waiting to be declared independent.BE4NEWMANSenator Newman—I was just catching up on the fact that we had jumped Senator Stott Despoja's amendments.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Knowles)—Senator Stott Despoja is not moving her amendments.BE4NEWMANSenator Newman—At all?10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—No. We are on Greens (WA) amendments 22, 23, 25 and 26.20:36:00654Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—Minister, I actually did not announce that I was withdrawing those amendments. That explains why people were not aware. I apologise for any confusion. I have withdrawn those amendments in favour of the Greens (WA) amendments. We agree with their proposal for a one-year waiting period, as opposed to those arrangements of two years set out in the bill. We will be supporting those amendments because we believe they are a reasonable compromise. I hope they will achieve and receive the support of the Senate.I note for the record that it is not simple for those in the youth allowance categories to establish a marriage-like relationship, perhaps not as simple as it is for two people to go out and get married. Perhaps that is what the minister was suggesting earlier—that I was suggesting people would go off and get married. I am not. I am just hoping that the government's strict criteria and changed attitude to the independence of young unemployed does not convince young people to enter into such an arrangement out of desperation. Many of us have seen it happen.20:38:00654Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—Could I just explain, for the sake of the Senate, that this was the bringing together of two payments that had quite different eligibility in this area. We have tried to strike a balance whereby young people on unemployment benefits, for instance, could have a de facto relationship declared from day one, whereas for young people on Austudy it would not have mattered how long they had a de facto relationship; it would not have affected their entitlement. That is why the government has brought it to two years—to try to meet the payments, if you like, halfway.It was not through any attempt to make it very difficult for young people on the youth allowance. It was trying to bring together two payments and have something that was relatively consistent with somebody who is independent on the grounds of marriage. Two years we thought was a reasonable parallel. I would like to think marriage was going to be a great deal longer than two years.B36NEALSenator Neal—Are you accepting this?BE4Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMAN—Yes, we will not oppose it, but I was trying to explain why we made it two years.Requests agreed to.20:39:00654Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEALB36NSWALP00—I move:That the House of Representatives be requested to make the following amendment:(R10) Schedule 2, item 8, page 140 (line 21), at the end of paragraph (a), add: or (iii) is under 21 years old and is an independent young person (see subsection 5(1)); or (iv) is at least 21 years old and is living permanently and indefinitely away from the home of either or both of his or her parents;The opposition is not proceeding with its original amendment No. 9. The new R10, which has been circulated, replaces the original amendment No. 9. The effect of this amendment is to extend the eligibility for rental assistance for two groups. The first group is the under 21 year olds. This is fairly strict criteria and I would not expect it to apply to a large number of people, but I think it is reasonable in the circumstances to allow for it—that is, where a person under 21 has been out of home for 18 weeks and has either been employed or registered as employed for 13 of those 18 weeks. The second category we are including is for those people over the age of 21 years. If they are living permanently away from home then they should be eligible for rental assistance, in our view.20:41:00655Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—Rent assistance is available to all dependent young people who need to live away from their parents' home for educational training or because they are searching for employment or engaging in an activity that prepares them for employment—for example, voluntary work. That is talking about rent assistance being available to all dependent young people who need to live away from home for a variety of reasons, which I just listed. They are also entitled to rent assistance for safety reasons, because of exceptional circumstances in the parental household which pose a risk to the young person's physical or mental wellbeing.Rent assistance is available to all independent young people who are living away from the parental home and to independent young people with partners and/or children who are living in their parents' home. I do not support the extension of rent assistance to young people who do not need to live away from home. To do so may encourage them to leave home unnecessarily. I believe that rent assistance should be directed to those young people who have no choice about incurring accommodation costs rather than to those who can choose to either live at home or away. For those reasons, the government will not support this amendment.20:43:00655Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEALB36NSWALP00—I must say that this position the government is taking is really a bit extreme. To restrict it this much for people who are over 21 years old is probably taking it a bit far. I think it is not unreasonable that people over the age of 21 years who are in fact permanently living away from their parents' home should be entitled to rent assistance, and without having to establish that they have a need to. I think it is excessive in the circumstances to insist that adults over the age of 21 remain living with their parents.20:43:00655Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—I am just wondering whether the minister could address the point that was just made by Senator Neal. Say, for example, there are mates of a young person who want to have another person in a flat in order to share the costs and it is nearer to the university than the home of the parents. What about that situation? Isn't that reasonable if there has been an agreement reached between the parents and the young man or woman? Does this legislation cater for that situation? Will this amendment go to that problem? It is not a problem but something that I would have thought happens quite frequently.20:45:00655Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEALB36NSWALP00—Certainly, under this amendment anyone over 21 living away from their parents is covered. So anyone in the example you gave would be covered by this provision. Under the present provisions people in that situation would not be entitled to rent assistance, in my view—unless the minister has a different view.20:45:00655Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—The example that Senator Harradine gave would depend very much on whether the young person had to go away from home to study or whether it was simply a choice to move down to the next suburb to rent. If they had to go away to study then, of course, rent assistance would be applicable. If it was purely a question of personal choice then there is no reason why they are compelled to live at home but it would not be up to the taxpayer to support that choice. They would be seen to have an alternative to live at home. That is very much a question for families to decide rather than governments. The role of government is to decide that where there is a disadvantage to young people, for instance, from living a long way from their educational centre, then that is when rent assistance should be applicable, and it is under the legislation that we have.If the young people are involved in a variety of activities, as I said earlier, if they are dependent and need to live away from their parents' home for education or training or because they are searching for employment or engaging in an activity that prepares them for employment, like voluntary work, then they would be eligible for rent assistance. If dependent young people had to live away from home for safety reasons because of exceptionable circumstances in the parental household which posed a risk to the young person's physical and mental wellbeing then rent assistance would be applicable. It would also be applicable to independent young people living away from the parental home and to independent young people with partners or children who are living in their parents' home. For example, if a young, newly married couple with a child choose to live in the grandparents' home because it assists with child care, et cetera and reduces their living costs while one of the young parents is a student then they would be eligible for rent assistance.We have tried to cover all the areas where one could reasonably justify the payment of the taxpayers' dollar. But if people are choosing voluntarily to incur rentals that they do not need to for study or for job search then that is something that needs to be financed by the young person themselves or by their family, not by the taxpayer. Certainly this amendment would open the door very widely to increased costs for taxpayers. It would circumvent the whole purpose of rent assistance, which is to be very much targeted to people who have a special eligibility for getting it. As it is, that is something like 88,000 young people, which is a very reasonable coverage compared with the present availability of rent assistance, which is only to those who are unemployed. The government has expanded the coverage of rent assistance so widely that to expand it any more widely would be financially irresponsible of the Senate. I see this amendment as opening the door very widely indeed.20:49:00656Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—The Democrats will be supporting opposition amendment No. 10. We believe that this particular amendment has the effect of cutting out those young people who do need to live away from home to look for work. It maintains the proviso regarding education and training or job preparation but removes the section which states that the likelihood of a person getting employment will be significantly increased if the person lives away from home. We support the amendment before us.20:50:00656Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—I just emphasise to Senator Stott Despoja that the eligibility is there for somebody who has to move away from home to look for work.20:50:00656Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—The key words are `has to' move away from home. The nightmare continues: I will be supporting the opposition's amendment.Request not agreed to.20:51:00656Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—I will not be proceeding with the next amendment but the reason I raised it initially was out of curiosity. So instead of moving my amendment I ask the minister how the government can, on the one hand, refuse to recognise de facto relationships—initially, until we change the amendment—until they are more than two years standing while, on the other hand, penalise young people living in what the secretary determines as a marriage-like relationship with either or both the young people being below the age of consent? That is, having made that determination, how can the government then establish that those young persons' youth allowance rate shall be reduced to a level which would be payable if they were considered to have satisfied the youth allowance de facto relationship criteria? We thought it was rather strange that their youth allowance rate could be cut in some way.20:52:00656Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—The advice that I have received on Senator Stott Despoja's proposed request for amendment, which I understand she is now not proceeding with, is as follows: the request for amendment proposed by Senator Stott Despoja would remove a provision which has operated in the Social Security Act and for youth training allowance for some time.The intention of the provision is to ensure that young people living in an illegal relationship, because they are under age, do not benefit from the situation. It has been standard procedure to limit the rate for people in this situation to the rate they would receive if their relationship were legal. If the provisions were removed, young people living in a relationship which is not legally condoned would receive the higher single rate of payment and would not be subject to the partner income test—that is, they would be better off than young people in legal relationships. That is why the request for amendment is not acceptable to the government.20:53:00657Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEALB36NSWALP00—As a matter of curiosity, the relationship itself is not illegal; it is only if their relationship involves sexual activities taking place. Isn't that correct?BE4NEWMANSenator Newman—Under age.B36Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEAL—It is not actually illegal to be in a marriage-like relationship as long as you are not involved in sexual activities.BE4NEWMANSenator Newman—Get real!B36Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEAL—The law is that you do not necessarily have to have a sexual element in your relationship to be `marriage-like'.20:54:00657Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—by leave—I move:That the House of Representatives be requested to make the following amendments:(19) Schedule 2, item 8, page 135 (lines 1 to 9), omit Steps 10 and 11.(20) Schedule 2, item 8, page 135 (line 13), omit "Steps 8 and 10", substitute "Step 8".(21) Schedule 2, item 8, page 135 (line 17), omit "Steps 9 and 10", substitute "Step 9".(22) Schedule 2, item 8, page 135 (lines 19 to 26), omit paragraphs (c) and (d).These requests for amendments remove the references in this particular section to the means test—in this case, steps 10 and 11 of the youth allowance rate calculator.Further requests for amendments to be moved by the Democrats and the opposition will seek to remove additional references to the means test. I think some of these arguments were canvassed in second reading debates. It is on record what a debacle the operation of the means test has been as it applies under the Austudy regulations.We have since had the Ombudsman's report and her conclusions as to some of the ridiculous provisions in that particular means testing arrangement and we seek to delete references to it.20:55:00657Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—The Greens (WA) will be supporting Democrats requests for amendments Nos 19 to 22.20:55:00657Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—For the record, the requests for amendments would mean that families able to minimise taxable income through partnerships, trusts and self-employment would again qualify for welfare, although well able to provide for the support of their children. Youth allowance already provides that the AMT will not apply to independent young people.I do not know that there is any virtue in pursuing this. Certainly, the government is not happy to accept requests for amendments on this subject. It is very important that there not be an opportunity to rort the system that the taxpayer is paying for.Requests not agreed to.20:56:00657Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I move:That the House of Representatives be requested to make the following amendment:(27) Schedule 2, item 8, page 141 (after line 21) to page 142 (before line 1), column 3 of table items 1, 4, 5, 6 and 7, omit "$71.60", substitute "$55.75".At present, the rent assistance threshold rate, that is, the amount a person would have to pay in rent before receiving any rent assistance, is set at 21 per cent for most social security payments. However, as an anomaly, to make it more complex for the bureaucrats—and, of course, we do not want to do that—it is set for 27 per cent for the youth allowance. That means a person who is on youth allowance has to pay more before they are eligible for rent assistance. This request for amendment makes the youth allowance threshold 21 per cent. That actually makes it consistent with social security payments.20:57:00657Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—The govern ment is not disposed to support this request for amendment. Rent assistance is targeted to those who must pay higher rents. Young people who would benefit from the proposed request for amendment are those with more manageable housing costs. In general, these young people are paying less than 30 per cent of their incomes in rent. This bill will improve housing affordability for young people and provide them with more choices in terms of type and location of accommodation.I know that it may stick in the throats of some of the minor parties, but one of the major benefits of this legislation is that so many students—70,000—are expected to benefit by up to a maximum of $37.40 a week by gaining access to rent assistance for the first time. Around 350 young unemployed people aged 16 and 17 years will benefit by up to an average of $18 a week because of access to rent assistance. Those are important measures which should not be dismissed lightly. The proposal by Senator Margetts is simply not supported.20:58:00658Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—There you go, Minister, confusing the bureaucrats again. You are inconsistent in your call for consistency. In this particular instance, I am a bit surprised as to why you say that the housing costs are more affordable for young people. They may be forced into more affordable housing, but I have not actually seen ads which say, `If you are under 24, you will get this housing at a cheaper rate.' In fact, I have not seen that at all. I am suggesting that it is reasonable for those either on social security or youth allowance to have the same threshold.Request not agreed to.20:59:00658Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—I move:That the House of Representatives be requested to make the following amendment:(23) Schedule 2, item 8, page 143 (lines 10 to 15), omit paragraphs (a) and (b) (and the colon preceding paragraph (a)), substitute "Rate B for the person worked out using column 4".This request relates to rent assistance. I want to make the point to the Minister for Social Security that we are not upset about the idea of rent assistance being extended to students. We have commended it at every opportunity, but we have pointed out certain ironies along the way, including the fact that last year this government made a number of cuts to rent assistance entitlements, including the cut in relation to people living in shared accommodation—a cut by one-third. This is something which this particular amendment seeks to redress in relation to the rate of rent assistance specifically for single people in shared accommodation.I understand that the Greens (WA) will be moving a similar request. I will not hold up the debate, but I was curious to hear the minister's comments earlier about what was defined as reasonable rental costs for a young person on common youth allowance. Is it that the government is defining as reasonable the amount of rent assistance that is provided for accommodation? We strongly opposed at the time the cuts to rent assistance. We maintain that opposition. We seek to redress, by way of the request before the chamber, the cuts that have been made to rent assistance entitlements.21:02:00658Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—This is another double whammy for young people. As Senator Stott Despoja pointed out, Democrats request 23 is the same as Greens (WA) request 28. What we are seeking to do is remove the provision that those in shared housing receive only two-thirds of the maximum rent assistance otherwise payable. This impacts specifically on students.We believe there is a problem in that the two-third rate for sharers is already affecting those on Newstart and other dole payments. The Greens (WA) spoke up strongly at the time because of the fact that we were aware that the only way for many people to survive was to share the same accommodation. That was the reality for many people struggling to survive in society. The government is trying to ensure that people have to live on their own in order to get full rent assistance. It is saying that students living in shared accommodation will receive only two-thirds of the maximum rent assistance otherwise payable. I am not sure where the logic is, except to reduce the payout for those people needing assistance.21:03:00659Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEALB36NSWALP00—I am always a bit loath to make changes for one particular group of people. I guess, to some extent, this could be argued to be one of those situations.DX5MARGETTSSenator Margetts—What would you do about the 21 to—B36Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEAL—Let me finish; you might be happy. This is a circumstance where I am prepared to take that step, bearing in mind there may be some difficulties with consistency, particularly because young people—whether they be students or unemployed—are probably the largest single group of people who share accommodation.I remember when this particular item went through for everybody. It did not seem entirely logical because you are restricted in your access to rental assistance by the fact that you have to be spending a minimum on rent before you can even access it. That already cuts out a vast majority of young people. I cannot see why they should be cut out just because they are sharing. It could impact quite severely on the group of people covered by the youth allowance. Because this particular group will be more affected than anyone else, I think this anomaly is justified.21:05:00659Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—Let me make it perfectly clear: the government is not prepared to accept a change to the rent assistance measure which went through the parliament just over a year ago. It is a very fair and equitable measure when you look at the comparison between how couples getting rent assistance are placed even by comparison now with the sharers. Two single people sharing are still substantially better off in terms of the rent assistance that is coming into that household compared with a couple. It was entirely out of kilter before.You are adding complexity to the system. That is exactly what you are doing in a huge way. You are also adding substantially to the revenue implications. After the long debate that we had in this place a year or so ago, I find it extraordinary that you would be prepared to take this step. There is no way that the government would be prepared to accept this. I find it amazing that you would try to overturn something which is established. As you said, the measure that was introduced goes very much to young people sharing, and there are a whole lot of reasons for them taking this preferred option.The revenue implications would be substantial. I do not think I have them here tonight, but I make it very clear that we would not be prepared to add to the cost of the youth allowance package, which involves spending over several years, by opening up this door and changing the rent assistance sharers rate that you are proposing.21:06:00659Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEALB36NSWALP00—We were opposed to this move when it first came in a year ago. We argued strongly against it. I remember you putting exactly the same argument then as you do now, which is somehow that there is a comparison between couples sharing and single people sharing. The obvious difference I would have thought the minister would be aware of is that generally couples share a room and they have to pay only for that one room. People who are single do not share the same room generally, unless they are in particularly desperate circumstances. As such, they have to pay for accommodation that provides additional rooms for each person. To say that they are the same circumstances is completely untrue.21:07:00659Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—Just briefly, I take issue with the minister's claim that this somehow makes this more complex. I accept the minister's claim that this adds expense; of course it does. But it does not necessarily make it more complex. Indeed, we believe that it makes it more fair, and we did oppose this. Just because it has been mandated or legislated, or whatever you might say, by the parliament previously does not mean we thought it was necessarily a good decision by this place. Indeed, the Democrats and others were outraged by the cuts to rent assistance occurring at the same time the government insisted on boasting about its budget measures and the proposed introduction of a common youth allowance, which did extend rent assistance.I just find it extraordinary and quite hypocritical, on the one hand, to be boasting about extensions in rent assistance and, on the other hand, to be cutting back on the amount available to certain groups—and groups that, I might suggest, are often in the least position to get quality and affordable, and perhaps convenient, housing. Once again, I think we are just hitting hardest at those least able to afford it. So I see this, as the bill currently stands, as quite a retrograde provision. I seek in these requests to make it fairer in terms of the amount available to those people in shared accommodation.Request not agreed to.21:09:00660Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—by leave—I move:That the House of Representatives be requested to make the following amendments:(24) Schedule 2, item 8, page 157 (line 19), omit paragraph 1067G-F22(a), substitute:(a) the relevant AWOTE; and(25) Schedule 2, item 8, page 157 (after line 21), after point 1067G-F22, insert:1067G-F22A For the purposes of this Module, the relevant AWOTE means the amount that, under the heading "Trends and Estimates" in the document entitled "Average Weekly Earnings, States and Australia", published by the Australian Bureau of Statistics in January in the year of income, is specified as being the full time ordinary earnings for Australia for the quarter to which the document relates.These requests relate to the parental income-free area for the purposes of this section. The Democrats seek to change the amount specified of $23,400 in terms of the income testing arrangements by inserting the relevant AWOTE—that is, average weekly ordinary times earning. We think this is a fairer definition. I understand that the Greens (WA) have a comparable request for amendment.As I say, we think this is one way of perhaps alleviating the harshness of one of the measures in this bill, and that is income test arrangements that kick in at an unusually—and I think unfair—early period. So this is an attempt to perhaps raise that threshold in some way. Also I think it is not only economically but legislatively quite fair and appropriate that it is matched with the relevant average weekly ordinary times earning.21:11:00660Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—As Senator Stott Despoja has indicated, in terms of the actual starting amount the Greens (WA) amendment seeks to achieve the same effect as the Democrats' amendment. The Democrats' amendment is linked to the average weekly ordinary time earnings index, which we believe makes it preferable to our amendment, which deals with a figure of $36,000. The current level is such that, even if only one parent is in employment, nearly 90 per cent of full-time adult workers are earning too much for their children to receive the full benefit. So, in some ways, it makes a bit of a farce of averages.Given that it is commonplace for both parents to be in paid employment, the test should reflect this fact. We could be talking about one partner who is on the wages of an unskilled labourer—let us just say $25,000—and the other one may be engaged in casual cleaning; and they could very easily get up to $36,000. We are not talking about rich people. The test should not adversely affect families in low to middle socioeconomic classes. They are exactly the people the government should be targeting in terms of higher education.21:12:00660Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEALB36NSWALP00—I would just indicate that the opposition has a similar amendment, although I suppose it is a bit more restrictive in that it applies only to the means test applied to parents of unemployed young people rather than students. I would indicate that we will be supporting this amendment, and we will persist with ours only if this amendment fails.Essentially, we believe that the means test commencing at $23,400 is too low. Certainly I do not believe that a family on such an income would have sufficient left over to support what is essentially another adult. This would mean that you are expected to support three adults on an income of $23,400. I think that is far too strict. Also, I think the average weekly earnings—or the AWOTE, as they now call it—is probably a more appropriate level at which the payment should start cutting out.21:13:00661Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—I can understand that Senator Margetts and Senator Stott Despoja might like to play around with this. But I find it breathtaking in the extreme to discover that Senator Neal—whose government was perfectly content with a threshold of $23,400 for families with two, three, et cetera, students—somehow finds it difficult to accept when it also applies to those same children during a period of their unemployment—B36NEALSenator Neal—They are not children.BE4Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMAN—They are children in the sense that they are financially dependent upon their parents. I am happy to say `young people' if you would like me to. But the reality is that your government considered $23,400 a perfectly reasonable threshold for the purposes of Austudy. Now that is translated for the purposes of youth allowance, which means for students and for the young unemployed—and sometimes they will be one and the same person, and sometimes they will be separate.I find it incredible that the opposition would somehow find $23,400 all of a sudden to be an unacceptable threshold level. You know as well as I do that this means test for youth allowance is in fact slightly more generous than the one that you have had all this time for Austudy. So I find it just beyond belief, Senator. It is more to be expected perhaps from people who have not been in government and are not likely to be in government, where the cost of their promises does not count. But I warn you that you will be held accountable for the cost of amendments that you make of this type.Let me just make it clear the sorts of thing we are talking about. To increase the parental income threshold to either the level suggested by Senator Margetts, $36,000, or to the level suggested by Senator Stott-Despoja, $34,000 or $37,000, depending on which AWOTE is used, would add over $100 million per annum to the cost of the program. If you are authorised to go out endorsing that sort of expenditure, we will be asking Mr Beazley next where the money is coming from.This measure would not assist families most in need, that is, those with incomes below $23,400, because they are already completely provided for. You are trying to protect families with income in excess of $76,000 a year and allow them to a receive some assistance if they have two children living away from home. The current youth allowance parental income threshold applies also to Austudy and to the above minimum family allowance, and it seems strange that in all those years in government you found it was perfectly acceptable. Let me tell you that if you limited it simply to the unemployed, as you were talking about, I understand from the briefing note I have got here that it would be $30 million of expenditure purely for the unemployed, and it would be $70 million for students. I urge you to give serious consideration—B36NEALSenator Neal—Can you repeat those figures, please?BE4Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMAN—Certainly. The extra expenditure from either of these two measures proposed by Senator Margetts and Senator Stott-Despoja would be in the order of $30 million of extra expenditure for the unemployed and $70 million for students.21:17:00661Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I am always willing to be helpful. I suggest that the Greens (WA) are perfectly willing to vote for the wind-down of some of the very large amounts of corporate welfare under the diesel fuel rebate scheme to help you out with the money.21:18:00661Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—I have a question for the minister. Does the minister not expect any families to be adversely affected by this particular parental means threshold? Is that the case?21:18:00661Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—The reality is that, although it is the same starting point as for Austudy, because of a number of other entitlements that come with this reform of the youth allowance, most families will not in fact have any impact on their means test until they are in the vicinity of $30,000. I will not say none, but I would say to you that that is the advice I have received, that, where theoretically, on paper, it will cut in at $23,400, because of the additional money that comes into that family's hands for some of these complementary measures in this package, that is where it would really start to reduce on the basis of one dollar for every four dollars.21:19:00662Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—Looking at the government estimates before me, there are 33,600 18- to 20-year-olds who will have reduced payments as a consequence of being judged dependent on their parental income, as a result of being parentally means tested, until they achieve or meet the independent criteria. So 33,600 will be adversely affected, at least.21:20:00662Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—I confirm the figure of 33,600. Question put: That the requests (Senator Stott Despoja's ) be agreed to.21:24:00The committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman—Senator S.M. Murphy)32Allison, L. Bartlett, A. J. J.Bishop, M. Bourne, V.Brown, B. Campbell, G.Carr, K. Cook, P. F. S.Cooney, B. Crowley, R. A.Denman, K. J. Evans, C. V.*Faulkner, J. P. 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.33Abetz, E. Boswell, R. L. D.Brownhill, D. G. C. Calvert, P. H.*Campbell, I. G. Chapman, H. G. P.Coonan, H. Crane, W.Eggleston, A. Ellison, C.Ferguson, A. B. Gibson, B. F.Harradine, B. Heffernan, W.Herron, J. Hill, R. M.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.Tambling, G. E. J. Tierney, J.Troeth, J. Vanstone, A. E.Watson, J. O. W.Bolkus, N. Ferris, J.Collins, J. M. A. Synon, K. M.Collins, R. L. Kemp, R.Conroy, S. Macdonald, I.Forshaw, M. G. Alston, R. K. R.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the negative.21:28:00662Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEALB36NSWALP00—by leave—I move:The the House of Representatives be requested to make the following amendments:(10A) Schedule 2, item 8 page 157 (line 19), omit paragraph 1067G-F22(a), substitute: (a) if the person: (i) is undertaking full-time study (see section 541B)—$23,400; or (ii) is not undertaking full-time study—average weekly earnings multiplied by 52; and(10B) Schedule 2, item 8, page 157 (after line 21), after point 1067G-F22, insert: 1067G-F22A For the purposes of this module, average weekly earnings means average weekly earnings (full-time adult employees ordinary time earnings) specified in the document entitled "Average Weekly Earnings, States and Australia", publication number 6302.0, as published by the Australian Statistician most recently before 1 January in the current calendar year.These requests were foreshadowed in the previous debate. They request that the means test for the parents of unemployed young people should be raised from $23,400 to average weekly earnings, which is presently $36,000 but obviously that figure will vary. These requests attempt to soften and to apply more fairly the means test for what the government has been describing as `unemployed children'—but, in fact, being over the age of 18 years they are unemployed adults. I understand that the children of adults are always `the children of' but, in common usage, the term `children' is not normally defined as a person over the age of 18 years. We are probably all clear on the effect of the amendments, so I will not speak further.Requests not agreed to.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—We now move to opposition amendment No. 11 on sheet 864. There was a Greens (WA) amendment which, as I understand it, has been withdrawn in favour of the Democrats amendment.21:31:00663Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEALB36NSWALP00—There was an understanding between the opposition and the government in relation to amendment 11. The opposition was going to withdraw this on the basis that the government gave an undertaking to put what is called the module into the legislation itself. Maybe the minister would like to make a statement to that effect.21:31:00663Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—Yes, I confirm that. That was the agreement and that is what the government will do.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—With that agreement in place, the opposition is withdrawing that amendment. I understand that that is so for Democrats amendment No. 26 and the Greens (WA) amendment.21:32:00663Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—I seek clarification. My understanding is that the effect of the Democrats, Greens (WA) and the opposition amendments was to delete references to the actual means test. My understanding is the effect of the agreement that the opposition has just reached with the government is for inclusion of the module—it is not actually deleting references. Can someone enlighten me if I am wrong?10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Senator Neal or Senator Newman, would you like to throw some light on the subject?B36NEALSenator Neal—I am sorry; I missed that.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Senator Stott Despoja raised a question with regard to the opposition agreement reached with the government that allowed for the withdrawal of your amendment 11.21:33:00663Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—Minister, I understand that we have agreed—Senator Neal can confirm this, I hope—that, while the actual means test requirements are in regulations, they will be put into the consequential amendment bill when it comes before the Senate.21:33:00663Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEALB36NSWALP00—I do not think it was agreed exactly when it would come in, but I assume that the next most convenient time is with the consequential amendments so that it would be incorporated within the legislation itself.BE4NEWMANSenator Newman—It would be as soon as it is possible.21:33:00663Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—I move:That the House of Representatives be requested to make the following amendment:(26) Schedule 2, item 8, page 159 (line 20) to page 160 (line 22), omit Module G.My understanding from the reading of my amendment is that it is not inconsistent with what has just taken place. My amendment seeks to omit module G in relation to the family actual means test. I will proceed with that amendment. I will not engage in debate if that facilitates progress.21:34:00663Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I state here that I will be supporting Democrats amendment 26. It has the same effect as Senator Margetts's amendment.Request not agreed to.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—On behalf of Senator Margetts, I will move her amendment.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Senator Brown, just to save you some time, I have been advised that it is an identical amendment. It has been disposed of and you cannot move it again.21:35:00664Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—At this point, may I ask a question of the minister about the amendments that we have just dealt with because it has a bearing on where we are going?10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—You can certainly ask the minister a question.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—Senator Neal might also answer this. On the running sheet, it says the opposition amendment which was agreed to was to omit module G.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—No.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—Was that withdrawn?10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Senator Brown, opposition amendment No. 11 that you are referring to was not moved, on the basis of an agreement that was reached between the government and the opposition. Senator Stott Despoja decided then to proceed with her amendment, which was lost. Democrats amendment No. 26 and Greens (WA) amendment No. 30 are identical. The reason I said to you that you cannot move it is for that reason.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—Chair, your understanding is exactly the same as mine. Thank you.21:36:00664Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—I am not proceeding with an amendment; I am actually asking in the committee stage for clarification from the minister, or indeed from Senator Neal. I want to clarify the intent of what you have organised in terms of the module. You are actually seeking to have it—Senator Neal interjecting—3I6Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA—You do not want me to ask that question? Perhaps I could ask the minister, then. My understanding is that you have just arranged for this amendment in relation to module G to be dealt with in a different way—essentially, it is the module that provides for the actual means test. So you are not objecting, as such, to the actual means test and its operation in the context of the common youth allowance? So you are not objecting to the application of the AMT to the CYA; you would just prefer the module to be somewhere else?21:37:00664Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEALB36NSWALP00—We did object and, as you might recall, we actually moved amendments to it. Unfortunately, we were unsuccessful. Putting that aside, we think it is preferable to have it incorporated in the act rather than to have it separate so that people are aware of what is contained and there can be some certainty. It is not our preferred position but it deals with some problems that we see in the present act.21:38:00664Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—Thank you for that explanation. With all due respect, I make the point that the amendments we have just dealt with would have had a similar effect to those amendments we dealt with previously; that is, in relation to deleting references to the actual means test. May I suggest, and I am not sure whether this procedurally is unfounded, that had my amendment, which was identical to the Greens (WA) amendment, succeeded in relation to deleting references to the actual means test, we would have taken on board consequential amendments that would have done the same thing in the relevant and other sections of this bill.I do not accept, as an excuse, the fact that the amendment previously was not supported by the opposition because the amendments that we dealt with earlier in the committee stage in relation to AMT were not successful. I am sure that had mine been successful we could have gone back and fixed up the rest. I just wanted to get on record who was and who was not supporting the actual means test.21:39:00664Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—I think Senator Stott Despoja sees something nasty in the wood pile—there is not. Could I just go through the items now and see whether Senator Neal nods her head that she is in agreement with what I am saying, because this is the true source of events. Module G stays in the legislation because it empowers us to use an actual means test. Very soon, as soon as we possibly can, we will be tabling regulations in the Senate to implement that. Then, as soon as practicable, we will incorporate the regulations into the legislation. Did you understand that—and, in spite of all that, you said all that?21:40:00665Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—No, I understand that. I was interested in getting on record the rationale for the opposition's agreement and decision to withdraw their amendment. No, I understand what is happening. We just have a different philosophical position on the actual means test and whether or not it should stay, regardless of where it should stay, in the legislation. I was just trying to clarify what the opposition had actually achieved through their amendment. We disagree with the actual means test. That is the point I am making, Senator Neal, and you guys obviously do not do so.21:40:00665Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEALB36NSWALP00—It is not our position. We have attempted to deal with the matters relating to the means test on separate occasions. There are three or four different amendments that have dealt with that issue. This is a different aspect of it. Whatever the means test is, or is not—and we have debated that already—we think it should be in the act so people are aware of it. It is quite a separate issue. To try to say that because we want it to be contained in the act we support it as it now stands is really unfair and dishonest; and I really wish you would stop saying it.21:41:00665Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—As I understand it, this matter can be the subject of debate when the consequential legislation comes forward. There is nothing to stop us having a fairly fulsome debate on the AMT at that particular stage. That is as I see it, but I might be wrong.21:42:00665Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—When the regulations come into the Senate there will be another occasion as well.21:42:00665Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEYHX5QLDAD00—by leave—I move:That the House of Representatives be requested to make the following amendments: (1) Schedule 2, item 8, page 149 (line 12), after "1067G-E18", insert "1067G-E18A".(2) Schedule 2, item 8, page 149 (line 18), after "business", insert "which includes the provision of professional services".(3) Schedule 2, item 8, page 149 (after line 27), after point 1067G-E18, insert:Interest in business assets when business includes carrying on of primary production.1067-E18A Subject to point 1067G-E19, 100% of the value of a person's interest in the assets of a business which includes the carrying on of primary production is disregarded if the person, or his or her partner, is wholly or mainly engaged in the business and the business: (a) is owned by the person; or (b) is carried on by a partnership of which the person is a member; or (c) is carried on by a company of which the person is a member; or (d) is carried on by the trustee of a trust in which the person is a beneficiary.This is not the first occasion that I have moved these amendments. I was saying that, in fact, these are amendments that I have moved before on many occasions, including when the current position of seating in the chamber was the reverse to what it is now. In fact, on a number of occasions over the years colleagues of mine have moved similar amendments. They are amendments which attempt to help farm families. Senators will know that the current government are friends of farmers and so, no doubt, now that they are in government rather than in opposition, they will be prepared to look very kindly on this amendment which was defeated on a number of occasions over the years when there was a different government in the Senate.It is to do with Austudy, particularly the assets test for farming families. Senators will know that, as the proposed youth allowance replaces Austudy for students under 25 years of age, this again brings into the debate the issue that under the Austudy assets test farmers can discount the value of their farms by 50 per cent. That is already in place. I note that under the new arrangements this 50 per cent discount is to be retained. I must say that I was really quite amazed at that. If my amendments 1, 2 and 3 are not passed then in amendment No.4 I will be happy to remind the government of their promise during the last election. However, I am trying to achieve a little bit more than the government promised. I am actually trying to achieve what they agreed to prior to the election, when they were in opposition.I refer the committee to a report of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee dated March 1995. It was a report on an inquiry into the impact of assets tests on farming families access to social security and Austudy. It was quite an extensive inquiry. It was held over eight months and it received 250 very substantial submissions. The Department of Primary Industries and Energy gave evidence that about 5,400 students from farming families were being denied Austudy because of the assets test. Just to remind the Senate, the problem is that many farms have a book value which is quite high but, certainly over recent years, those same farms have had negative or very low incomes.Yet despite the fact that there have been farmers who for years have been struggling even to put food on the table, their children have not been able to access Austudy in order to continue their education because the assets test—the book value of the farm—has ruled them out. The phrase that is used so often is that they are asset rich and income poor. The report states:The Committee, however, considers that the assets test applied to farming families in order to determine eligibility for AUSTUDY, is an inappropriate policy instrument that does not take into account the nature of farm assets and their relationship with income.The majority recommendation of the committee was that farm assets should be excluded from the Austudy assets test. This recommendation was signed by the Chairman, Senator Brownhill, and also by Senators Calvert, Crane, Troeth and me.The amendments that I am moving tonight will implement that recommendation of the committee report, that is, to exempt the farm assets from the Austudy assets test. I have moved them in confidence that the government will agree to them, as there was such strong support from those particular members of the government, when they were in opposition, for the report of the Senate's Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee. At least on this matter the Labor Party has been consistent in that they did not agree with that report. I presume they still do not agree.Progress reported.Adjournment66610000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! It being after 9.50 p.m., I propose the question:That the Senate do now adjourn.66621:51:00666Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4NTCLP10—Defence support is now one of the four major industries of the Northern Territory. At a time of increasing political instability, it is salutary to focus on our defence assets in northern Australia. The Army Presence in the North project, the APIN project, stems from the 1987 defence white paper, Defence of Australia , and commenced in 1992 with the relocation of an armoured reconnaissance regiment to Darwin. It is a task of national importance and will significantly change the thrust of Australia's defence, particularly with the emphasis and priority given in recent years by the Howard government and the ministers Ian McLachlan and Bronwyn Bishop.APIN involves the relocation to Darwin of approximately 2,300 personnel, 200 armoured fighting vehicles, including Leopard tanks, ASLAV light armoured vehicles and M113 armoured personnel carriers and 500 support vehicles. A total of $850 million is to be spent on infrastructure development and relocation activities over the 10-year period from 1992. By the year 2001, Australian Defence Force numbers in the Northern Territory will stand at over 4,400. The total Defence Force `family', including dependants, will number well in excess of 10,000 people.In addition to APIN, there are many other exciting defence related activities taking place in the Northern Territory that will have a significant beneficial impact on the local economy and population, which I will get to shortly. Major focuses for APIN in 1998 include the completion of APIN stage 1, which is scheduled to be completed in the first half of 1998. This will see capital works costing $198 million finished, with most of the work completed at Robertson Barracks. APIN stage 1 includes new or additional facilities being built for the following units: Headquarters 1st Brigade, 1st Armoured Regiment of the Royal Australian Armoured Corps, 104th Signal Squadron of the Royal Australian Signals, the 161st Reconnaissance Squadron, Headquarters Army Support Unit Darwin and the 7th Training Group. There will be some additional facilities for the 2nd Cavalry Regiment.There will also be the important opening in May 1998 of a 70-place defence child-care facility at Fairway Waters, a suburb of Palmerston, greatly expanding child-care places available to all Palmerston residents. Palmerston is now the fastest growing town in Australia. It is adjacent to Robertson Barracks and is a satellite city in its own right of Darwin.APIN stage 2, which will cost $268 million, is proceeding and expected to take until the year 2000 or 2001 to complete. In 1998 there will be the biggest single move north under APIN. The 5th/7th Battalion, the Royal Australian Regiment of the 1st Brigade, will be relocated from Sydney to Darwin. As the mechanised infantry battalion of the 1st Brigade, 5/7 RAR is a key component and is the largest unit in the brigade. It has a current strength of 518 soldiers and is not expected to exceed 540 this year.Due to the fact that 5/7 RAR is a combat unit, it is an all male organisation and currently comprises 326 single soldiers and 192 married members. Approximately 675 dependants will be moving to Darwin with the soldiers of the 5/7 RAR. This important link and relocation is very important because Territorians have embraced this integration of defence families into the social infrastructure of the community, and the extra residents and expenditure they generate underpin programs in housing, health, education and recreation. I know and can say confidently that Territorians openly welcome ADF personnel and their families into the community. Additionally, the capital works program spending of $143 million this year is very much alive. Additionally, we have the participation of personnel in defence exercises.Based on these figures, a total of almost 1,200 people will be moving to Darwin and Palmerston in late 1998 and early 1999. Defence has worked very hard to ensure that the move will go as smoothly as possible and that integration takes place carefully. With the experience to draw on the move north of the 1st Armoured Regiment and the 2nd Cavalry Regiment, Defence do not anticipate any problems and there is excellent cooperation with the Northern Territory Department of Asian Relations, Trade and Industry, in particular their Defence and Space Industries Group.The Australian Defence Force will also ensure, through a community integration committee, that people will assimilate well into the community. It is a credit to the Northern Territory government that it is the first state government to create a ministry of defence support, and I note it is held by the Chief Minister. The Defence Force realises the importance of a soldier's family settling in and is taking great lengths to make sure this happens in the Top End.In 1998 infrastructure developments will be extended and relate to fields such as the Bradshaw Field Training Area. Fifty-four million dollars has been approved to develop Bradshaw, an 8,710 square kilometre property 600 kilometres south-west of Darwin, into a live fire and manoeuvring area to be used primarily by 1st Brigade. Approximately $14 million will be spent in 1998 on Bradshaw, with the remainder being spent through to the year 2000.At RAAF Darwin expenditure of $10 million this financial year will take place. This will see work continue on the $60 million development of operational facilities that include the provision of ordnance loading aprons for 10 FA18 or F111 aircraft, an operational and technical support facility, a base command post, additional fuel storage, a rescue and firefighting facility, and associated civil works and engineering services.At RAAF Tindal, whose personnel did such an excellent job recently in the Katherine flood disaster, work on stage 4 of development will proceed. About $13.5 million will be spent this year out of a budget of $31 million for the whole of stage 4. This will see the completion of facilities much like those described for RAAF Base Darwin with additional deployment accommodation and apron extensions. In Alice Springs a tremendous amount of work is being carried on for infrastructure development associated with the joint defence facility of Pine Gap. Total defence capital works spending in the Territory for 1997-98 is $143 million, an increase of $37 million over 1996-97 and a significant part of the annual defence expenditure of $385 million for the 1997-98 financial year.The Defence Force's annual program of exercises will also take place, and personnel from Australia, New Zealand, the United States, Singapore and Indonesia will participate in Australian Defence Force exercises in the Northern Territory. It is estimated that some 5,500 personnel will take part in exercises in 1998 and approximately half will be ADF personnel not normally based in the Northern Territory—a complementary exercise to Northern Territory tourism. This is another boost of tens of millions of dollars into the Northern Territory economy.In 1999, Exercise Crocodile 99, a replacement for the Kangaroo exercises, will take place in the Territory. Planning has commenced for this very significant operation.There is also significant economic benefit for Darwin and the rest of the Territory derived from visiting warships. Already this year six large vessels have stopped over in Darwin. These have included USS Peleliu, USS Juneau, USS Blue Ridge, USS Fife, USS Port Royal and USS Curtis Wilbur. They carried in total over 5,300 sailors, and the length of their stays varied from a couple of days to a week. At a very conservative estimate, these visits have injected $5 million into the Northern Territory economy.I believe the importance of defence to the Northern Territory cannot be overstated. I have described many examples in 1998 alone which will result in massive injections of cash and capital works into the Territory economy. There is also the fact that ADF personnel are now an integral part of the Territory's communities. I think it could safely be said that in past years many defence personnel based in the Territory left their hearts down south and returned to what they viewed as home after their stint in the north was finished. I do not believe this is now the case.The extension of time of people living in the north will be a credit to both the Defence Force and the Territory community. The majority of ADF personnel based in the Territory are there for the long term, and I believe they will view the Territory always as home. Their unstinting and selfless service in the Katherine flood disaster shows just how much a part of the community the ADF have become.66822:00:00668O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—Senators would be aware that the Senate supported a return to order in November last year requiring a number of documents relating to the government's waterfront strategy. The government refused to provide the material. It did so for one simple reason: to provide the material would expose the real agenda of the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business, Mr Reith—an agenda which is not based on good public policy and an agenda which is not about improving efficiency on the docks. Mr Reith's agenda is to get the ACTU through the Maritime Union of Australia. The agenda is about getting the unions. It is not party to any micro-economic reform agenda; it is a political campaign. Mr Reith gave Liberal pollster Mark Textor nearly $50,000 to do his political research. He also employed Liberal strategist Jon Gaul to develop a political communication strategy.It is also a campaign designed to beat Mr Reith's own legislation. The minister included in his industrial relations legislation the right of freedom of association. But he put it in there to beat the unions, not to protect them. He finalised a plan to override that basic right—the right of labour to organise—within weeks of the legislation being passed. That plan is to sack one work force and replace it with another before the commission could move to protect the rights of the sacked workers. The Reith plan requires a trained work force waiting in the wings. Let me quote from a minute to Mr Reith from his department, a minute that appears to reflect the work done by a number of consultants, starting with Mr David Trebeck. It states:What would be needed for the MUA's influence on the waterfront to be significantly weakened would be for a range of affected service users and providers to take decisive action to protect or advance their interests.It then goes on:Stevedores would need to activate well prepared strategies to dismiss their work force, and replace them with another, quickly, in a way that limited the prospect of, for example, the Commission ordering reinstatement of the current work force.This is a key part of the Reith strategy. Without a new trained up work force, the plan would not work, would it. The failed Dubai exercise was the first failed attempt to implement this part of Mr Reith's plan by Mr Corrigan. When Mr Reith said he knew nothing of Dubai, what he was saying was that he did not know where the training was going on, not that he knew nothing about the strategy.The strategy was agreed by the government in February last year and progressively refined through a number of consultancies. It is a plan designed specifically to dispose of workers because they are members of a union. Therefore it is a plan in breach of section 298A of the Workplace Relations Act—the freedom of association provision. In this plan, Patricks and Mr Corrigan were only lieutenants in the exercise. That company sought to implement that key part of the Reith plan in Dubai via Hong Kong. It failed. But the NFF is now the lieutenant attempting to do the same thing at Webb dock. They are also simply attempting to implement part of Mr Reith's strategy.There is little doubt that the waterfront needs further reform. There is little doubt that the whole transport chain needs further reform. It was the former government who, with the support of the employers and their workers, made significant gains. That momentum was lost in March 1996, when the agenda switched from economic reform to a political campaign to smash organised labour in this country.The public benefit of this political exercise has been put in context by a major user of the dock. This is the information that I have which I think completely refutes the argument that this government is putting about this particular exercise on the docks. The cost of stevedoring is around two per cent of total transport costs for a major user of the Melbourne docks and 0.2 of one per cent of the value of a container. That is the impact of stevedoring costs on the cost of a ship container—0.2 of one per cent. It is this company's view that the cost to the economy of the government's confrontationist approach to achieve a political outcome on the waterfront far outweighs the perceived economic benefits. I agree with that assessment.What we have here is a risk strategy in breach of the government's own legislation which will not make the savings that have been suggested. I know that Minister Reith has suggested that the cost of moving a container across the Melbourne waterfront is $200. That might well be the case in isolated examples. But for regular users, contract users, of the waterfront the actual cost is significantly less than that. For the company that I have been in contact with, the actual cost per container is not half of the $200—not $100—but $70. If there is a suggestion that you can reduce the cost from $200 to $100 per container by this exercise that is being implemented by the National Farmers Federation, in fact the real cost now is 30 per cent lower to this particular user than the cost which is being touted as the savings cost which will result from the so-called reform on the waterfront.So the argument that is being put forward, the public face of this exercise that is being put forward—the public face that I suggest is being developed by pollster Mr Mark Textor and refined by strategist Mr Jonathan Gaul, arising from ACIL consultancies—is based on non-fact and on an isolated and false example of the true cost of shipping containers across the waterfront. That is the very basis of this campaign—give out as much misleading information as you can, portray the work force in a particular way, pretend that the costs are higher than they really are and that savings are available. If the costs were that high they would be.The reality is that the real costs on the Melbourne waterfront of shipping a container for regular users is as low as $70 per container. If that is the truth—and I suggest it is because that is the information I have from a regular user—then Mr Reith had better set the record straight. He better step in to the parliament tomorrow and tell the parliament that, in reality, the costs to users of the Australian waterfront are significantly lower than the costs he suggested apply and that the savings that are available have already been achieved and were achieved by the WIRA reform of the previous Labor government.67022:08:00670Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—Tonight I wish to place on record some of the concerns that the Australian Democrats have with the tendering out of employment services in this country—in particular, our fear that the government has established an anti-competitive market designed to fatten up Employment National, which received the largest share of the overall market, for future privatisation. Indeed, some of this debate took place in taking note of answers after question time today. I certainly got more carried away with some of the interjections and I was not able to confine my remarks to some of the extraneous issues at hand, so I seek to do so now.The government has repeatedly assured and asserted to this chamber and to the community that, despite copious evidence, I believe, to the contrary, the unemployed in Australia will be better off under the new arrangements under this particular new scheme. The Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs (Dr Kemp) has claimed that there will be a greater choice of service providers available to the unemployed. This, so far, has appeared manifestly untrue. The number of providers of employment services to the disadvantaged has in fact fallen by around 61 per cent, I believe, to only 125 providers.One only needs to look at Lismore as an example, an area which had six sites providing case management services. As of 1 May, there will be only one site providing case management services, and that will be occupied by Employment National. We see that replicated in Grafton where the only provider of case management is, again, Employment National. So, far from promoting choice, the government has actually imposed its own monopoly in a number of towns and areas.The government, I note, has also sought to perpetuate the view that there will be greater access to services under the new scheme. I found it very hard to see how the government can maintain such a view, given that the number of sites where the long-term unemployed can get intensive training to prepare them for work has actually fallen from 869 to 715—a drop of around 18 per cent. St Mary's, an area with one of Sydney's highest unemployment rates, will see its two local groups servicing 600 people replaced by one company with a contract to serve just 110 people.The government has also asserted that services will improve under the new system. We are still wondering how this is actually going to be achieved, or how this can be the case. The inappropriate nature of many of the awards, whereby many organisations receive contracts for work in areas and in fields in which they have no previous or little experience or in areas where they have no record of operation, means that unemployed people face being assisted by inexperienced staff.It is a sad fact indeed that in the last week we have seen an embarrassing number of examples of awards being brought to the public's attention—obviously, in this place and in the media as well. Organisations specialising in the provision of services to Aboriginal people, the disabled, ex-offenders and the long-term unemployed have been overlooked in favour of organisations which, in some cases, have little or no experience. I gave the case today in my home state of South Australia where the Offenders Aid & Rehabilitation Services of South Australia Inc. received contracts for FLEX 1 and FLEX 2 services but not for FLEX 3, which was actually its area of expertise. The Gold Coast company Leonie Green & Associates won two contracts in Botany and Chatswood even though it has never operated in Sydney.So, despite the evidence of expertise and experience presented by tenderers to the government, it would appear that the more established and the more successful the organisation the less likely it was to actually be awarded a contract. The highly successful skillshare program, which has been debated and discussed on many occasions in this place, has seen just 50 out of its 300 service providers retain funding. In some cases, I wonder how they are going to remain financially or economically viable. My understanding is that, in its last year of operation, skillshare provided something like 60,000 placements. It had a very high comparable record of success. I think it is shameful that only 50 out of 300 service providers have retained their funding.The failure of many of the small organisations to win contracts has also resulted in the loss of community links and local expertise that you build up over the years of service in a particular area, and which are unlikely, certainly at this stage, to be replicated by organisations which have never operated in that location.There are also serious concerns that a number of the successful tenderers will not be ready by the starting date, by 1 May, as they are having to advertise for specialist staff, establish offices in new areas or subcontract out work. We have heard a number of cases presented to this place—and one particularly infamous case now—where this is the case. They simply cannot do this in the remaining six weeks. I ask the government how they envisage that in the next six weeks these particular arrangements will be put in place so that these providers meet their starting date requirements. In light of these issues, it is clear that the government's claim that the new system will see improvements in choice, access and services for the unemployed are demonstrably false, or certainly it will be a challenge to meet those claims.We believe the government has been somewhat cavalier in its treatment of service providers. Many small businesses that have been providing invaluable services to the unemployed and the community as a whole will go under as a result of having been ignored by the government. A significant proportion of successful tenderers have been awarded contracts which are not for what they tendered for. They are not necessarily financially viable and we will see them struggling to compete against Employment National.Many tendering organisations expected to be able to cross-subsidise their provision of FLEX 1 and FLEX 2 services with FLEX 3 work, yet a surprising amount of the latter work has been concentrated in the hands of only five organisations, most notably Employment National and Drake International. Employment National has been awarded 42 per cent of the FLEX 3 case management work, which represents around $700 million of the $1.7 billion allocated to this scheme. By any measure this disproportionality is inappropriate and raises serious questions about the motives underlying the tendering process.The Democrats would like to know why organisations with previous expertise and experience lost out to organisations with little or no capacity to deliver the services for which they were contracted and why Employment National was awarded a disproportionate amount of the most lucrative work at the expense, in many cases, of the smaller providers. We believe that Employment National has been handed the employment market on a plate. We will continue to call on the minister to explain why this is so and to provide, hopefully, an assurance that the government is not merely fattening up Employment National for future privatisation.We believe that the government's disregard for probity in its tendering processes and its repeated assertions that things are somehow going to get better under its new scheme and that everything is going to be in place to run like a well-oiled machine by 1 May are contrary to clear evidence that shows the government's contempt for service providers, the unemployed and, in this case, due process.22:17:00672Senate adjourned at 10.17 p.m.Documents672672The following documents were tabled by the Clerk:Civil Aviation Act—Civil Aviation Regulations—Civil Aviation Orders—Amendment of section 40, dated 27 February 1998.Fisheries Management Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 24.Migration Act—Notice under subsection— 96(1)—Pool mark, dated 27 February 1998. 96(2)—Pass mark, dated 27 February 1998.