1998-03-103816SENATE67301998-03-10The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid) took the chair at 2.00 p.m. and read prayers.Questions Without Notice673673673Collins, Sen JacintaSenator JACINTA COLLINSGB6VICALP00—My question is to Senator Vanstone representing the Attorney-General. Minister, are you aware that, as this government insists on careering down the path of outsourcing core Commonwealth services, the appeal, review and access to information rights of every Australian are being radically diminished? Do you agree that those Australians who receive Commonwealth services through a private contractor will no longer have a right to access their own private information held by a contractor through freedom of information laws? Do you also agree that, because clients are not party to contracts between the Commonwealth agency and the service provider, any access or review provisions in the contract are worthless because clients will have no standing to take legal action if their rights are breached?673Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPMinister for Justice10—I thank Senator Jacinta Collins for that question. Senator Collins, you ask generally about the principles of contracting out and how that relates to privacy and then you ask some specific questions. The situation is this: the government does recognise the importance of protecting individual privacy and providing access to documents under the Freedom of Information Act. Any steps to contract out government functions will take into account the importance of protecting privacy and providing access to documents under the Freedom of Information Act. Senator, you were not here at the time but, regrettably, when we were in opposition Senator Patterson and some other senators had to pursue your government time after time when it failed to protect the privacy of social security recipients, for example. I think it was Senator Patterson, if I recall correctly, who pursued your government in relation to social security recipients' information in the gutters of some suburb of Melbourne. And you have the cheek to come in here and ask this question! You have no corporate memory. It may be, Senator Collins, that you have no memory at all. In any event, plenty of Australians do.The government has decided that the Privacy Act will be extended to all contractors who hold personal information on behalf of the government. In order to give practical effect to that decision, the government has decided that the Freedom of Information Act will be extended to apply to requests by individuals for access to and correction of personal information about themselves held by contractors on behalf of the government.It is worth adding, speaking generally, that in a range of contracts entered into by the government there is a clause which allows the government to opt out of the contract. As I recall, that is certainly the case in relation to the employment services contracts. The contract can be terminated. That was one of the complaints that the then Australian Democrat, now the earth moves Labor Party member, raised with us. You raise, perhaps inadvertently, one of the very positive aspects of those contracts—there was planned to be the opportunity to opt out. If someone does not adequately protect privacy that would no doubt be an option that would be taken.673Collins, Sen JacintaSenator JACINTA COLLINSGB6VICALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Minister, do you agree with the Administrative Review Council view that contracting out of services raises the potential for a loss of accountability in relation to both the services provided to individual recipients and the broader questions of public interest, such as the evaluation of the performance of contractors? Or is this loss of accountability seen by this cynical government as an advantage of outsourcing?673Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPMinister for Justice10—Senator Collins, I do not know whether you woke up and had a bucket of nails for breakfast. You cannot resist trying to put the barb in there somewhere. It does seem, Senator, as though you can see no good in this government. The fact that this government was elected by a vast majority of Australians ought to indicate to you that if you can see no good in this government you are at odds with the majority of the Australian community.It is not for me to agree or disagree with the report. I will refer that matter to the Attorney and if he cares to add to the answer I have given you, he will. But I think the answer was pretty clear. You may have wanted a different one but the answer is clear: this government will protect the privacy of people in contracting out through the contracts. That has been made very clear, Senator. If you do not understand contract law, go and get yourself a little advice.674674Lightfoot, Sen PhillipSenator LIGHTFOOTWP6WALP10—My question is directed to the Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Parer. Minister, ATSIC, the peak body representing Aboriginal people, has acknowledged that native title, in particular the right to negotiate clause, has all but crippled the mining industry. What impact has it had on the gold mining industry and what will be the effects if those opposite persist in preventing the passage of the whole of the government's 10-point Wik legislation?674Parer, Sen WarwickSenator PARERKI4QLDLPResources and Energy10—I thank Senator Lightfoot for his question. I convened a gold round table last month to discuss ways in which government and industry could work together to improve the competitiveness of the goldmining industry and production in Australia. I might remind senators that it is the second largest export industry in this country. Some 85 delegates attended, representing not only goldmining companies but also suppliers and marketers, the scientific community, industry associations and state governments. Some very positive suggestions were raised which will be followed up by a high level group which I will chair.Do you know what the major problem raised by the industry was? The No. 1 problem was Wik and native title, and I point out that the other issue was the outdated and inefficient taxation system—both legacies of 13 years of Labor mismanagement and their total capitulation to the very vocal left wing lobby group in this country. Will they ever learn? I have waited in vain for some positive input from the shadow minister, Mr Stephen Smith. Mr Stephen Smith knows what the real problems are. He went to Kalgoorlie with his weak leader, Mr Beazley. Senator Crane and I were there at the time with the diggers and dealers, and do you know what they told us? They said that they were relaxed. They were relaxed because Mr Beazley and Mr Smith had assured them that they would support the coalition's amendments on native title in respect of mining. What happened afterwards? The loopy Left took over and rolled their weak leader. Mr Beazley knows that some 2,000 mining leases in his home state are bogged down for who knows how long under Labor's native title mess. The story is repeated in Queensland.Those opposite should have a look at what ATSIC itself says about the current process. I quote:. . . there are too many overlapping claims, requiring the limited resources of the Native Title Representative Body . . . and the Tribunal to be consumed by mediating intra-indigenous disputes rather than mediating claims. The major problem areas are the WA Goldfields, where of all claims, a total of 42 overlap, WA's Pilbara region, the north-east part of South Australia, north-west NSW, most of western Queensland and even the ACT.The ATSIC report also adds:The fact is that mining leases are being held up in the Right to Negotiate process—in WA alone some 1,913 out of the 2,094 tenements submitted to the process remain subject to negotiation. Furthermore, the rate of objection by native title parties to the grant of exploration licences is starting to increase significantly which will mean further delays.It is clear that the Labor Party is making a desperate effort to mollify the industry. It is even clearer that the industry sees right through them. The Association of Mining and Exploration Companies said last month:The ALP appears to have deserted its traditional support base—that is, Australian workers—in favour of the chattering classes. The ALP blithely pursues its outdated and irrelevant social policies most of which have proven worthless and in the end affect one person more than anyone else—the average worker.They go on to state:As every little Aussie battler knows, you go broke if you spend more than you can earn, a lesson the ALP has yet to learn.The Labor Party would do well to listen to the Aussie battlers, rather than being hooked into the chattering classes.675675Denman, Sen KaySenator DENMANFY5TASALP00—My question is to Senator Hill representing the Prime Minister. In light of this government's wholesale transfer of central Commonwealth government responsibilities and services to the private sector through outsourcing, contracting and corporatisation, can the minister inform the Senate whether there are any Commonwealth services which are too important in the lives of all Australians to be transferred to the vagaries of the market? Clearly you do not believe that labour market, social security or occupational rehabilitation services, for example, are sufficient matters to be core Commonwealth responsibilities. Or is it the case that, as with election promises, this government just fundamentally misunderstands what core responsibilities actually mean to ordinary Australians?675Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment10—The honourable senator could ask that question of her former leader, Mr Keating, who was one who drove this process forward when he was Labor Prime Minister of this country. He recognised that there were some services of government that could be more efficiently provided in terms of quality of output and from a cost point of view through the non-government sector. It was probably one of the few things that Mr Keating got right because there are some areas of service, and these matters are evolving as our economy evolves and as we face new elements of competition.One used to say that about such services as electricity provision in this country. The honourable senator could take that to Mr Carr and suggest to him that he has got it all wrong when he believes that electricity could be better provided by the non-government sector in New South Wales. The facts of life are that what was provided by government in the past may not be as effectively or efficiently provided by government in the future. Governments have to make a judgment as to how they can best deliver the services of government in a cost effective and efficient way.This government has addressed that issue in relation to the challenges before it, and it has seen opportunities in outsourcing, for example, as the honourable senator says. It has seen opportunities in privatisation. I think you will see much more efficient airports, for example, in the future in this country. Services will be delivered more effectively. I think history will show that the efforts we have made to bring the private sector within the labour market in the provision of employment services will be recorded as one of the great triumphs of this government. To provide real competition in the service of providing jobs to those who aspire to jobs I think will be a great achievement and will more effectively address the needs of the unemployed of this country. We do not shy away from making the judgement that in certain circumstances we believe that services could be better provided through non-government avenues. Where we think they can be provided more effectively, efficiently and cost effectively, in particular, we will do so.675675Ferris, Sen JeannieSenator FERRIS5L6SALP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for the Environment and it relates to the Natural Heritage Trust. In the coalition government's revegetation program, how critical is it to provide landowners and community groups with access to banks of native seeds? What is the government doing to overcome the longstanding deficiency in Australia's natural resource management?675Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment10—It is good to get a serious question on the Natural Heritage Trust. And it is true that in the revegetation of Australia, which is the principal purpose of the bushcare part of the Natural Heritage Trust, there has been a shortage of seed banks and there has been a shortage of good information for landowners and community groups in order to maximise their seed growing potential.The government, through the bushcare program, is pleased to be able to support the development of a network of regional seed banks in Australia. We are supporting in this coming year some two banks in Western Australia, two in Queensland, one in Tasmania, five in New South Wales and one in Victoria. These seed banks will collect the seed of native trees, shrubs, herbs and grasses locally, where possible, and from seed orchards. Seed will then be stored under ideal conditions and distributed at optimal times for direct seeding and the raising of seedlings.This very important initiative will be complemented by better information. I make reference in particular to Flora bank—which is a project of the Australian National Botanic Gardens, CSIRO, Greening Australia and the Australian Tree Seed Centre—which will be able to provide to the community the best possible information on access to this genetic material, up-to-date information on the best plants to use in particular locations, revegetation techniques, and so on. These initiatives will better equip Australians to meet this enormous challenge of revegetating Australia, and it is an excellent initiative under the Natural Heritage Trust.Contrast that constructive approach of this government with that of the Labor Party, which is determined to wreck the Natural Heritage Trust. I have to say that those who read the Age over the weekend might have reflected on its attempts to destroy the Woodhouse Pastoral Company's contribution. They might have, in particular, noted the comment of Dr Brian Whelan of the Trust for Nature, Victoria, who said of that particular investment:For the investment of $52,900 not only the state—of Victoria—but also Australia has protected this prime area of box forest in perpetuity. It was a fantastic deal. To buy that land on the edge of Melbourne would have cost us millions.That was the view of the conservation movement; that was their endorsement of this particular initiative.Of course, what was said—and Senator Carr said it here the other day—was that the Labor Party does not support the concept of supporting conservation values on private land. But what Senator Carr should have done was refer to his own party policy. If he had read the platform released late last year, he would have seen that it said, `Labor is committed to off-reserve conservation programs developed in partnership with land-holders to ensure our native plants and animal habitats are maintained.'So what this government did in relation to the Woodhouse Pastoral Company, in actual fact, was exactly what the Labor Party said should be done. Of course, the difference here was the name `Baillieu'. Once you saw the name Baillieu, that was the end of the issue; all you could say was `political rort'.Senator Carr interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Carr.BH4Senator HILL—It is about time the Labor Party, and in particular Senator Faulkner, apologised to the Baillieu family for defaming the living and defaming the dead. Perhaps after that apology—Senator Faulkner interjecting—BH4Senator HILL—Just a little bit of leadership, Senator. After that apology, you might follow your own party platform and endorse these programs of conserving these important natural values on private land as well as public land.676Ferris, Sen JeannieSenator FERRIS5L6SALP10—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Does the minister have further information that he could give to the Senate on the proportion—Opposition senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! I would like to hear the question.5L6Senator FERRIS—Does the minister have further information on the proportion of funds allocated to the bushcare projects?676Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment10—I must say—particularly as a result of the useful question of Senator West, which was probably the best question to come from the Labor Party—I did get some further calculations made. One of the most interesting was that, in fact, as a result of my so-called intervention in the New South Wales projects, projects in Labor Party seats actually got more money than was recommended to me by the New South Wales Labor government.UNKNOWNGovernment senatorsGovernment senators—Ha, ha!BH4Senator HILL—But never let that get in the way of the chance of a political point. The other interesting statistics that have come out of this research—which do not surprise me because it was exactly what was intended—are that, as a result of that intervention also, when we look over the bushcare programs as a whole, more money went to community grants than was recommended. So more went to community grants, and less to state agencies; and more money went to capital works on the ground, and less to monitoring, inventory, investigations, et cetera. So, in actual fact, we are achieving exactly what we pledged. We are getting the money where we need it, projects on the ground. That is what was designed and that is what is occurring. (Time expired)677677Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRYZW4TASALP00—My question is addressed to Senator Kemp representing the Minister for Finance. Is the minister aware of the recent report produced by Deloitte & Touche Consulting which states:A whopping 60 per cent of public sector organisations that outsource IT functions do not achieve any cost savings, nearly twice the rate of the private sector.If this is the case, why should we believe that the government will achieve the $1 billion savings figure it claims for IT outsourcing? Can the government produce an authoritative study of outsourcing that supports its cost saving claims?677Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—As Senator Sherry will be aware, this government has pursued an outsourcing policy in relation to IT. I might say, the genesis of that policy, the basis of it, Senator Sherry, actually lay in the previous government. You would be aware of reports, which I do not happen to have here at the moment, but I daresay I could bring them down to the chamber—Senator Lundy interjecting—WW4Senator KEMP—Do not get sensitive, Senator Lundy. As I was saying, there are reports released by the former government which stressed the importance of outsourcing. In fact, the former government, of which you were a member, Senator Sherry, made some very important initiatives in this area. Only with the advent of this government did Senator Lundy discover that outsourcing was not appropriate. I must say that in a sense I was pleased that the Senator Lundy view of the world did not prevail at the ALP national conference. Senator Lundy, correct me if I am wrong, but it struck me on my reading of the motions that the national conference did give some endorsement to IT outsourcing.Senator Sherry, I do not know whether you have been at the estimates hearings but there have been very extensive debates—in fact, hugely extensive. Senator Lundy has trawled over every conceivable area and has run down every path in order to try to buttress a policy which her own party does not accept.We have been delighted that Mr Fahey, as I think you will be aware, has announced cluster 3. The savings in that cluster are very extensive. That has been reported, Senator Sherry. Let me make it clear that this government makes no apology for outsourcing IT. We regard it as a good policy, just as your government regarded it as a good policy—and, I might say, as your national conference motions regarded it as a good policy. As I said, we are moving very firmly and very strongly down this road of IT outsourcing. Senator Sherry, if you are going to adopt the Senator Lundy position, that is interesting, but I have to say that that has not been your previous style on these matters.677Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRYZW4TASALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Minister, my question went to Deloitte & Touche Consulting, which you failed to address totally. Going back to that issue, is it the case that this study was reported in the Australian Financial Review on 16 December 1997 and the minister's office demanded a meeting with the two Deloitte & Touche staff and pressured them to take action to counter the impression given by the newspaper story? Was the letter from Dr Lisle-Williams published in the Financial Review on 17 December provided to or cleared with the minister's office before being submitted for publication? Was an existing contract between Deloitte & Touche and the Department of Finance and Adminis tration used to pressure the firm to publish this letter? How can you justify this action?678Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—There are a whole host of assumptions in that question—none of which you are able to demonstrate. You have asked me about what Mr Fahey did. What I shall do, as you would expect, is refer your question to Mr Fahey and see whether he wishes to provide any further information to you.678678Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—My question is addressed to the Minister for the Environment. I refer the minister to his discussion paper on reform of Commonwealth environmental legislation. This paper indicates that provisions in the new biodiversity act will completely replace the World Heritage Properties Conservation Act. The minister will be aware that rain forest logging in the Daintree and Wet Tropics and development at the Hinchinbrook Channel and at the Franklin Dam are held back only by virtue of proclamations under that act. The minister will also be aware that state governments want those proclamations to be lifted. Can the minister give a categorical assurance to the Australian public right now that the existing proclamations under that act will be remade under the new act to protect those places forever?678Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment10—That really will be something that the Australian Democrats will be able to contribute to when we get to the legislative phase of this project. By way of background, I think everyone agrees that the Commonwealth government's environment law is outdated. It should have been updated years ago, but, of course, we had 13 years of a Labor government that had no interest in these matters. The concept of biodiversity has been introduced; national strategies on biodiversity have been agreed to between the Commonwealth and states; and there have been national strategies on ecologically sustainable development. None of these concepts were really brought within contemporary environmental law.We have picked up the challenge and started a process of evaluation and negotiation with the states as to what could comprise a new and better mix of environmental laws, Commonwealth and state, to better achieve the best environmental outcomes for our nation. We reached a situation of agreement in principle at the last COAG meeting towards the end of last year on what the best mix of roles and responsibilities would be.As a result of that, we have built on that agreement and produced a consultation paper, which I released a week or two ago, which looks at our preferred option for legislative implementation. First, there will be a new environmental protection act. Second, as the honourable senator says, for the first time there will be a biodiversity act. Third, and ultimately, there will be a new heritage act to update the provisions of the Australian Heritage Commission legislation. The biodiversity act, which the honourable senator alludes to, will better be able to protect such values as world heritage and other values which we describe within the context of national environmental significance. That is going to be the goal of the legislation in that regard.You would be aware also of the deficiencies in the existing world heritage legislation. It does not, for example, trigger our environmental protection legislation at all—the EP(IP) legislation—which has caused the need for these proclamations in the past. The need may well be overtaken by the act itself being the primary trigger capacity for the new environmental protection act. So we may well be able to achieve—in fact, our goal is to achieve this—more effective outcomes and more direct outcomes, not indirect outcomes of the type that the honourable senator referred to, through legislation that is directly targeted at these particular needs.The next stage, as I said, will be the drafting and introduction of this legislation into the parliament. I expect then that, within the Senate, it will go to the relevant Senate committee for further consideration and there will be debate on the details of that legislation. I would hope that before the end of this year we will have enacted through this parliament this contemporary environmental legislation which will bring us up to world's best standard. Certainly, in a vitally important area, we will have achieved something that the former Labor government in 13 years was not even prepared to attempt.679Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Minister, I think your answer was no. But let us get this clear, because I think we are having difficulty in believing that what your government does is in the best interests of the environment. I ask you again: can you give us a cast-iron guarantee that under this act the Franklin cannot be dammed, that there can be no rainforest logging in the wet tropics and that the Hinchinbrook Channel cannot be ruined?679Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment10—This government is not going to dam the Franklin. This government is not going to reintroduce logging in the wet tropics. This government is actually acting to protect the conservation values of the Hinchinbrook Channel. As you know, that is why we are in the process of drafting a regional plan for the whole of that Hinchinbrook area in conjunction with the Queensland government. It is under the chairmanship of Dr Joe Baker. It will provide a regime to ensure that all future developments in that region are in fact compatible with the important conservation values which must be preserved.The senator can rest at ease. This government is taking its responsibility in this area seriously. It will ensure that these vitally important values are properly protected through the Commonwealth and through a more effective cooperative regime with each of the states.679679Quirke, Sen JohnSenator QUIRKEZS6SAALP00—My question is to Senator Parer, the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy. Can the minister confirm the information he provided to Senator Faulkner in his answer to question on notice No. 817 that the primary industries and energy portfolio contracted the firm of Burson-Marstellar to `organise a sod-turning ceremony at the new Australian Geological Survey Organisation building site'? Can you also confirm that Burson-Marstellar was paid a total of $25,328 for this sod-turning ceremony and that the contract was not awarded following an open tender pro cess, supposedly because Burson-Marstellar had undertaken recent Commonwealth work of a similar nature? Which other sod-turning ceremonies, other than Senator Eric over there, has Burson-Marstellar been paid an outrageous amount of Commonwealth money to organise? How can you justify paying this ludicrous amount of money for a sod-turning ceremony without testing the market? Minister, did this money actually purchase—(Time expired)679Parer, Sen WarwickSenator PARERKI4QLDLPResources and Energy10—I am unaware of the detail of that particular contract to which you refer. I am not sure whether Senator Quirke is referring to the sod-turning ceremony or the opening of the AGSO building.ZS6QUIRKESenator Quirke—Sod-turning.KI4Senator PARER—That was two years ago.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—How do you know?KI4Senator PARER—I was the one that put the shovel in the dirt two years ago.Senator Ian Macdonald interjecting—KI4Senator PARER—I will take Senator Ian Macdonald's interjection and promise to speak in words of one syllable. I suspect that Senator Quirke is talking about the opening of the new building, but I will check on that. I am unaware of who was given the job of the opening.But let me say this: the opening of the AGSO building was a major feature in the Australian Capital Territory, notwithstanding the budget constraints we had when the decision was made just over two years ago to go ahead and build the AGSO building. It recognised the great contribution that is made by the Australian Geological Survey Organisation to the minerals industry in this country.I might say that, notwithstanding invitations that were offered to people, as I understand it, on both sides of the chamber, the only one I can recall who was there was Senator Calvert. I know Senator Lundy was invited, but she did not show up.YW4MACDONALDSenator Ian Macdonald—Madam President was there.KI4Senator PARER—Madam President was there. The Chief Minister of the Australian Capital Territory, Kate Carnell, was also there.It was a big day not just for the members of parliament and AGSO but also for the staff of AGSO. I think the whole staff of AGSO were invited to that opening. It is, as everyone would be aware, very much a specialist building. It is also very much a state-of-the-art building; the heating and cooling of that building is carried out by geothermal methods. It is the biggest building, I think, in Australia—and I think it might have been said to be the biggest in the world—that actually uses geothermal type heating and cooling for the air conditioning system.On the detail that Senator Quirke has asked—and Senator Quirke does ask sensible questions as a general rule—I suspect that he is talking about the opening of the building and not the turning of the first sod.680Quirke, Sen JohnSenator QUIRKEZS6SAALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Minister, while you are taking those bits on notice, can I give you a couple more? Did the money actually go to purchasing a solid gold shovel? Is Burson-Marstellar, who was paid $25,000 for this ceremony, the same firm that received an extremely lucrative public relations contract for the gun buyback through political favouritism and links with the Liberal Party?680Parer, Sen WarwickSenator PARERKI4QLDLPResources and Energy10—You are not good at those sorts of questions, Senator Quirke. Try asking a more serious question. In relation to the turning of the sod, I used a chrome-plated shovel which was made in Australia. Politics being what it is and in very unusual circumstances, two years later the same person who turned the sod opened the building. They actually gave me the shovel.680680Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade. I refer to the furore over Australia's bid to have Hobart become the Antarctic Treaty System Secretariat headquarters. It is in competition, as you know, with bids from Argentina, Chile, New Zealand and elsewhere, and the matter will be determined in Oslo in May. The problem is that the Australian government has said that it will not allow for the usual tax deductibility of wages and so on and will expect the Tasmanian government to pay that cost, which would be up to $700,000. All political parties in Tasmania are united with the business community in calling on the federal government to change that position, which is going to be very damaging to Australia's bid when it comes to Oslo. I ask the minister: has the federal government changed that position? (Time expired)680Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment10—I am of course aware of the issue.UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—Don't read your brief.BH4Senator HILL—Without reading the brief.RF4COOKSenator Cook—Close your book.BH4Senator HILL—I am quite aware of the issue of the location of the secretariat—thank you, Senator Cook—and the sensitivity of the issue, in particular the matters between Britain and Argentina.Opposition senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! A certain amount of levity is fine but we need to be able to hear the answer.BH4Senator HILL—We are very familiar with the matters between Britain and Argentina. The taxation matter that has been raised—I think I read about it when I was reading yesterday's Mercury —is incorrect in that, as I understand it, there is no circumstance being created that is unique for Tasmania. It is all hypothetical, of course, because we do not have the site of the secretariat. But if we were successful in doing so, the same rules would apply for Tasmania as apply to similar international organisations elsewhere in Australia.680Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I thank the minister for that answer but I would like to make that absolutely explicit. Is the minister saying that therefore the headquarters in Hobart would get the same taxation exemption facility that is usually applied to headquarters of secretariats under international treaties? Secondly, the minister mentioned the matter of Britain and Argentina. There is a report in today's press that says that the Australian government is lukewarm because it is waiting to see what Britain does and may go in behind the Argentinian bid. Will the minister scotch such rumours by informing the Senate that the government is wholeheartedly behind the Australian bid to have this headquarters in Hobart and make that clear well and truly before the Oslo meeting in May?681Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment10—The honourable senator would know that the position of the previous Labor government was to support Buenos Aires rather than Hobart. I guess that is not surprising; that is what you would expect from Labor. We took a decision rather to pursue Australia's national interest. That is the process that is taking place at the moment and ultimately will be determined.We are quite proud of the role that Hobart plays as a gateway to the Antarctic, its role in relation to the CCAMLR treaty, its role in servicing our bases and its role in facilitating the service of other bases. It makes a very important contribution to the economy of Hobart as well as an important contribution to our overall national interest. In relation to the issue of tax exemptions, as I understand it, exactly the same rules will apply to Tasmania as apply to the rest of Australia.681681Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—My question is directed to Senator Herron, the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Family Services. Minister, are you aware of the impending corporatisation of the Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service and the resulting system of competitive tendering for CRS's role of rehabilitation and return to work for injured and disabled workers? Minister, are you also aware that staff, clients and community groups are seriously concerned about this outsourcing having the effect of denying seriously injured or disabled workers any access to a service at all, either to the CRS or a private agency, because the priority criteria for tendering will be the cost of provision and the likelihood of an early return to the workplace? Is this not just another example of the government abandoning its responsibilities to another disadvan taged group in the labour market and, accordingly, another that the government should be condemned for?681Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—I thank Senator Forshaw for the question. I do not have an answer in the briefing notes that I have with me. It amazes me that the Labor Party brings up the health care system in this country after what they did to it over the 13 years that they were in government. Just in relation to private health care, we have 61 per cent of the population insured.656FORSHAWSenator Forshaw—I rise on a point of order, Madam President. Senator Herron has once again acknowledged that he does not have any real grasp of his portfolio responsibilities in this chamber. He said that he could not answer the question and he did not have any information, so he should sit down and stop talking about something totally irrelevant to the question, as he started to do on private health insurance. Then I would like to ask a supplementary question after you have ruled on my point of order.VW4Senator HERRON—Madam President, on the point of order: I point out to Senator Forshaw that it is not my portfolio. He said that in his point of order. I am representing the minister for health here; it is not my portfolio. Even Senator Forshaw should be aware of that.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Herron is able to address the issue as long as he keeps to the issue of the question that was asked, although I did note that he indicated that he would not have information—AW5CARRSenator Carr—No idea!10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Don't shout when I am speaking. I draw Senator Herron's attention to the question. If he is not able to answer it, he should perhaps leave time for others to proceed.VW4Senator HERRON—I have not finished my answer. As I said, there is no brief here. I will get back to Senator Forshaw with an answer to the question about competitive tendering and rehabilitation services. I am happy to do that, but I would also, in answering that question, point out that the rehabilitation services of this country were run down by the Labor Party in the 13 years they were in government. The reason we have to do something about it is that these services were left in such tatters by the previous government.The answer to this is competitive tendering. We know that in the majority of instances, as has been demonstrated in other portfolios, competitive tendering gives the opportunity for more efficient delivery of services. I am quite confident that that will be in the answer that is supplied by the minister, and I am happy to get back to Senator Forshaw with it as soon as it is available.682Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Whilst, Minister, you can go away and update yourself on your portfolio responsibilities in this chamber with respect to rehabilitation services, I would also like you to answer this supplementary question. Minister, isn't it the case that the corporatisation of CRS and the outsourcing of work undertaken by CRS until now will also have the effect of denying injured and disabled clients any protection of their rights through the Privacy Act, the Freedom of Information Act and the rest of the administrative law system? Won't these actions of the government leave these workers even more vulnerable and unable to exercise rights that they have been able to exercise until now?682Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—It is obvious that the answer to that question was covered by my colleague Senator Vanstone when answering a similar question in relation to other competitive tendering within the government. She said within that answer that she will get back—656FORSHAWSenator Forshaw—I am asking you about this one.VW4Senator HERRON—Senator Forshaw is a bit unhappy that he has not been able to get a complete answer to that. Senator Vanstone said that she would come back to the Labor Party with an answer to a similar question about competitive tendering. I am sure the same principle will apply: that we will deliver to the Australian public much better quality services at a greater rate than the previous government was capable of providing in the 13 years they had to run down the system.682682Abetz, Sen EricSenator ABETZN26TASLP10—My question is directed to the Minister for Justice. Senator Bolkus, in defending his leak of confidential Federal Court documents, has alleged that the information he revealed had already been made public in that morning's Daily Telegraph . Will the minister confirm that the Daily Telegraph had not revealed, firstly, the location of the legal action; secondly, the location of Skase's assets; or, thirdly, that Mr Donnelly had court orders ready to serve? Will the minister confirm that this information was revealed at the notorious Bolkus press conference?682Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPMinister for Justice10—I thank Senator Abetz for his determined and dogged pursuit of Senator Bolkus for his absolute failure to maintain standards in this place—standards that would be expected of any senator and which absolutely should be held up, not just by any senator but particularly by someone who markets himself as the alternative first law officer of the Commonwealth.Senator Abetz is correct in what he says. Senator Bolkus seeks to say, `Look, it doesn't matter that I read from a Federal Court affidavit that wasn't mine, that belonged to someone else, that the court had not revealed.' He seeks to say that I leaked the information, irrespective of the fact I never had this affidavit—XE4BOLKUSSenator Bolkus—It was already in the paper. Your office had already leaked it. Andrew Taylor had leaked it, and you know it.7E4Senator VANSTONE—We have a video of Senator Bolkus reading out the affidavit sotto voce, off the record, to journalists and he then seeks to say, `It doesn't matter. It was all public anyway.'XE4BOLKUSSenator Bolkus—Squealing like a stuck pig.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Bolkus, cease interjecting.7E4Senator VANSTONE—This is the information. Senator Bolkus says that asset lo cation was revealed by the media. The Tele article says, `The location of Skase's hidden fortune which has been identified has not been revealed.' That is what the Tele says. That is straight out of the Tele . Senator Bolkus says the location of legal proceedings was revealed by the media. All the Telegraph says is `international proceedings'. So Mr Skase would have been thinking, `How many countries or cities in the world could they possibly be at?' and Senator Bolkus helped him out later in the morning by telling him exactly where.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Vanstone, you ought not to be canvassing any matters that may come up later in the day under a matter that is on the Notice Paper .7E4Senator VANSTONE—Yes. Additionally, the Telegraph made no mention that court orders were ready to be served. Senator Bolkus, by these two quotes from his press conference, revealed an amount of information. He said:In terms of secrecy, 4 courts across the world have deemed it appropriate for the proceedings to be in secret, in Spain, in London, in the Cayman Islands and in our own Federal Court, the courts have held proceedings in camera—Then he went on to say that proceedings were to be served. In other words, he put Skase and Skase's friends and family on notice that proceedings had been held and that service was around the corner—`Lock up your house! Don't go out! You might get served with a document.'Senator Bolkus's defence is that what he says was revealed was already on the public record. That is shown not to be the case. It was not on the public record. But, even if it were on the public record, you still cannot defend reading from a confidential Federal Court affidavit on that basis. The release of that document had not been authorised, he had no right to possess it and he had no right to reveal its contents.683683Lundy, Sen KateSenator LUNDY7G6ACTALP00—My question is directed to Senator Kemp, the Minister representing the Minister for Finance. Why was the former chief executive of the Office of Government Information Technology, Mr McDonald, permitted to enter into a $4 million to $5 million contract with the US legal firm Shaw, Pittman, Potts and Trowbridge without a competitive tendering process? Is it true that Mr McDonald acted on an informal recommendation of the former Premier of South Australia, Mr Dean Brown? What action does the government propose to take with regard to this blatant breach of the Department of Finance's competitive tendering and contracting guidelines which all other departments are required to follow?683Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—I must say that I am surprised by this question, because Senator Lundy again trawled over this for at least two hours about five or six days ago.9L6MACKAYSenator Mackay—So what's the answer?WW4Senator KEMP—I will repeat the answer for you, if you like. Senator Lundy, if you want to ask these sorts of questions in this chamber, do not take up two hours elsewhere in the building trawling over precisely the same question. I will go through it again for Senator Lundy; I am happy to do that. I think we have about two minutes or three minutes.Shaw Pittman were engaged by OGIT as IT outsourcing consultants because of their significant international and Australian experience in large, complex IT and other outsourcing transactions; absence of conflict of interest as they do not act for IT vendors; and the Commonwealth's need for extremely high levels of strategic and subject matter expertise and experience that they bring to the project, particularly in negotiations with IT vendors.The procurement of consultancy services by sole sourcing is not excluded. Do you remember that we went through that five or six times? Do you remember what we said? The procurement of consultancy services by sole sourcing is not excluded under the Commonwealth procurement guidelines. Each requirement for services and the decision regarding the method of procurement is made by the appropriately authorised officer within the agency on a case by case basis.9L6MACKAYSenator Mackay—Very good. You can read. Well done.WW4Senator KEMP—You drive me to despair, Senator Mackay. I am repeating exactly the answer that Senator Lundy was given in the Senate estimates, and Senator Mackay says, `You're reading.' Yes, I am reading, Senator Mackay. You got that right; you absolutely got that right.In consultancies such as Shaw Pittman, the Chief Government Information Officer was the authorised officer. I repeat that there is no requirement under the guidelines for ministers to be briefed on the method of procurement of consultancies, irrespective of the value of the contract. Flexible Resources was engaged by the office, and the answer goes on. So we have covered the matters that were extensively questioned by you. I do not really know how we solve this problem, Madam President. The information given to Senator Lundy was huge. We are quite happy to provide her with copies of the Hansard. I do not know what more one can do to assist Senator Lundy in this matter.684Lundy, Sen KateSenator LUNDY7G6ACTALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Minister, perhaps you could make a grand effort to depart from your tedious waffle and answer this supplementary question. Minister, can you justify the payment of over one-third of OGIT's whole operating budget to a US based legal firm which, under the terms of the contract, provides only three consultants working as required?684Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Beneath all that shouting, I did note that you were actually reading your question. It really is a bit rich. I get attacked for reading a brief from Mr Fahey and Senator Lundy cannot even remember her own question. She gets up and reads her question. Senator Lundy, we have gone through this at some length, as you know. Your shouting and abusive comments will not hide the fact—9L6MACKAYSenator Mackay—That you haven't got an answer.WW4Senator KEMP—We have two hours of answers actually for Senator Lundy. I refer you to the Hansard of the estimates committee. You were there and you posed all these questions, all of which were extensively answered. But, again, as I always do out of courtesy to Senator Lundy, despite her very aggressive question, I will refer this to Mr Fahey and see whether he has any other information he would like to provide to you. (Time expired)684684Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—My question is directed to the Minister for Justice. Minister, are you concerned by the attempts by the governments of the Northern Territory, Western Australia, Victoria and, of course, now Queensland to water down the national gun code, the one agreed to by state, territory and Commonwealth governments? Minister, can you assure the thousands and thousands of Australians who paid their extra Medicare levy that their efforts were not in vain? Will you, as justice minister, take a degree of personal responsibility to keep the states and the territories to the agreement?684Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPMinister for Justice10—I thank Senator Stott Despoja for the question.XE4BOLKUSSenator Bolkus—You rolled over in Melbourne.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Bolkus, I do not expect to have to speak to you again in breach of the standing orders.7E4Senator VANSTONE—Senator Stott Despoja, you will remember that when the national gun policy was in fact achieved it was achieved very largely because the current Prime Minister was prepared to basically put his head on the line in order to ensure that we came to something that I think most Australians—I hesitate to nominate a percentage, but a very significant percentage of Australians—are very supportive of.It was in the end a bipartisan policy on which the Prime Minister worked very hard to bring the states on board. It is true that around Australia there might be some finetuning of implementation differences, but this much is absolutely certain: the Prime Minister did not put all that effort in to see it go asunder.4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—He dumped on you on Sunday, I noticed.7E4Senator VANSTONE—I am 100 per cent behind him in his absolute commitment to maintain a national gun policy. When I was in Victoria recently, Senator, I made the point that we would be silly to turn our heads away if someone suggested an improvement. Contrary to the policy that some people adopt of never being prepared to listen, it is always worth listening to what someone else proposes.The bottom line is that the Prime Minister remains, this government remains, absolutely committed to a gun policy which was largely introduced because of his courage and political leadership, to a gun policy which has resulted in some 630,000 or 640,000 guns being returned, a gun policy which has resulted in Australia being a safer place. You can rest assured that we all remain 100 per cent behind that.685Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I thank the minister for that assurance but I ask for one point of clarification. Minister, do you define as finetuning or improvements to the laws the idea of a reduction in the waiting period or the extension of semi-automatic weapons to some groups that previously were not able to use them under the national gun code so that these changes actually breach the letter of the gun code as it stands? We acknowledge that the Prime Minister has said he will not tolerate any tinkering with the laws, any watering down, but how far can those states go before the Prime Minister steps in and shows some leadership—Government senators interjecting—3I6SENATOR STOTT DESPOJA—like he did the first time; we acknowledge that. How far can the states and territories go before he will step in and say, `No more'?685Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPMinister for Justice10—Far be it from me to suggest that Senator Stott Despoja's remark then was somewhat contemptuous. Fancy suggesting that the Prime Minister, who put his head on the line to get this policy through in relation to this matter—well before your party was out in favour of it—needs to show some leadership! We would not have the policy without the leadership that he showed. When there are changes and when anything needs to be done, what you might like to see is one party in one corner and one in another so you can conveniently sit in the middle. Frankly, the Australian community is sick to death of that. They want politicians to work together. We are working with the states on this matter and when I have something more to say to you about that, I will. You are not in government, so you are not included in the meetings. But try harder in the next 20 or 30 years and you might actually get there.BH4HILLSenator Hill—Madam President, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper .Questions Without Notice685685685Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment10—I have an answer to a question that Senator Bishop asked me last week in relation to an FOI request of my department, which I will seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard .Leave granted.The answer read as follows—THE AUSTRALIAN FOI REQUESTTalking PointsIn relation to questions asked in the Senate last week about the FOI request from the Australian newspaper, about Natural Heritage Trust projects I table information that has been provided by my Department. As Honourable Senators would be aware, the FOI request from Mr Lunn of `The Australian' was made to my Department and it was my Department which processed the request. I had no involvement in responding to the request.As noted in the Departmental advice, not all projects in Western Australia were included in the announcement lists. The Yallobup project mentioned during Question Time last week was one of approximately 70 projects to be discussed with the applicants and was therefore not included in the electorate list for O'Connor. The project applicants had sought $109,260 but had been approved at a reduced level of $85,500On the basis of experience with the Western Australian announcement, where some confusion was created, this approach was not followed in relation to announcements in other States where all successful projects, even those modified, were announced.As also set out in the Departmental advice, the Cairns City Council incentives project, also mentioned during Question Time last week, was not included in the electorate list for Leichhardt due to an error in the data fields relating to the electorate. This project was not included in any electorate list, nor the list of regional and Statewide projects and was therefore not in the copies provided to Mr Lunn under FOI. This was simply a Departmental error contained in the documents.68615:03:00686Lundy, Sen KateSenator LUNDY7G6ACTALP00—I move:That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Assistant Treasurer (Senator Kemp), to questions without notice asked by Senators Lundy and Sherry today, relating to proposals to `outsource' services.The whole issue of outsourcing of the Commonwealth government is one worthy of a great deal of scrutiny. It is worthy of scrutiny for about six different reasons, one of which is the protection of consumers and of the people that actually utilise Commonwealth services. Through the process of contracting out, a whole series of legal issues is raised about the consumers' ability to access remedies if they do not receive an adequate service or if they require some legal remedy. All of these issues were raised quite succinctly in the Ombudsman's 1996-97 annual report. Since then a Senate committee inquiry has embarked on an exploration of those issues even further. But what we see in this government is the progressive outsourcing of a whole range of Commonwealth services without adequate attention to detail of what these implications are.I would like to turn firstly to the issue of privacy of citizens in relation to IT outsourcing. The personal information held by those vast multinational corporations is at risk because, contrary to the assurances given by the Minister for Finance and Administration (Mr Fahey) when this project was embarked upon, the privacy legislation is not through. But, lo and behold, on the day that the first significant IT outsourcing contract is announced, the Privacy Amendment Bill 1998 hits the lower House—it is about time.The commitment that Mr Fahey gave to enact those privacy laws was, in the first instance, a backdown from his initial assertion: `We don't need to legislate for the protection of people's privacy. We can just put it in the contract clause and deal with it that way.' What Mr Fahey neglected to mention at that time was that it also stipulated that none of these contracts would be available for public scrutiny in any shape or form. The contradictions of this government about privacy laws are first that they hedge their bets on whether or not citizens have a right to privacy and, second, when it comes to their original argument for the privacy clauses to be protected, they are not prepared to let the terms and conditions of those contracts have any degree of parliamentary or public scrutiny whatsoever. The next issue that is highly pertinent with respect to outsourcing relates to the cost savings. People will recall that very early on in this debate a cabinet submission was leaked. That cabinet submission contained a number of references to the views of the actual departments about some of the proposed outsourcing that would take place. It also contained a number of views about the anticipated ability of those departments to achieve the savings that the government had already promised. This cabinet submission was the same cabinet submission on which this government based its whole decision to outsource in the IT area. What came to light was that the actual information contained in that submission did not substantiate what they had put out as part of their 1997-98 budget statement.We have since then had systematic qualification of this government's ability to actually achieve those savings, to the point now where they are vastly diminished. We have experience from the South Australian example which shows that in fact, despite promises and assurances from the then Premier, Mr Dean Brown, the company contracted to deliver those savings and those services has not be able to reach the targets of the original estimation of savings. We have got global evidence that, when it comes particularly to IT outsourcing but also to the outsourcing of government contracts generally, the skill of the contract negotiators in the corporate sector far outweighs the skill and the ability of the Commonwealth agencies to negotiate a good deal. The money for government outsourcing in these contracts may not be in the initial contract but you can be sure that the money is in the continued variation of contract through which the threat of litigation hangs over the Commonwealth forever. (Time expired)15:08:00687Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Senator Lundy raises a variety of issues dealing with privacy, with savings and with issues of general policy. In my brief time I will re-run those, not because those matters have not been stated before, but because Senator Lundy never seems to listen. I thought when Senator Lundy got on to the savings from IT outsourcing that she was about to correct the misleading information that she gave just before Christmas in this chamber when I presented some figures to this parliament. Senator Lundy, I give you the advice of Mr Fahey, the man responsible for this area:The government has in no way re-estimated or downgraded its original cost saving estimates. The government conservatively expects potential savings to taxpayers of approximately $1 billion over seven years.That is what we stated then and that is what we state now. This is where you got it wrong last time. Your colleagues may not know this. You asked me a supplementary question on what the savings are and I read you the savings from the budget papers. You got up and said `Ha, they have downgraded their estimates.' Over the next three years the forward estimates, as previously stated in this parliament and written in the budget papers, are in 1998-99 $38.1 million, in 1999-2000 $89.5 million and in 2000-01 $103.5 million. That is what was stated in the budget papers and that has not been downgraded. These basic facts, Senator Lundy, you did not seem to know.7G6LUNDYSenator Lundy—This is where you are contradicting yourself, Senator Kemp.WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—They are ones which were in the budget papers, and you got up and said we had downgraded the budget estimates.7G6LUNDYSenator Lundy—You're the one that told me.WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—I am trying to assist you in this but it is extraordinary that you should get that wrong, in my view. That is the advice that I have from Mr Fahey.7G6LUNDYSenator Lundy—You told me, Minister, that it was $250 million.WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—I do not know, Senator Lundy. One tries to assist. The advice continues:On the privacy issue, the security procedures and requirements presently applying to Commonwealth law enforcement agencies will also apply to any private sector IT infrastructure provider. Each government agency will specify the applicable security standards in the RFT documentation. All RFTs will require tenderers to propose detailed technological and procedural security safeguards to meet the prescribed standards, which will be contractually binding. Tender proposals and technical security specifications will be evaluated by the Commonwealth Defence Signals Directorate, the standard setter of the Commonwealth security requirements. Any tender that cannot make the required security standards will be rejected.This is a general brief on security that I have received. This has been stated here, but I have some more information for you, and I think from memory this has been discussed in the whole issue of Senate estimates and the questioning by Senator Lundy. It is worth noting those words from Mr Fahey on cluster 3. You will be aware that cluster 3 was announced, I presume. This is the advice that I have:The contract is valued at around $160 million over five years. Agencies will save over $60 million, which represents a saving of around 30 per cent—Senator Lundy relentlessly gets up in this chamber and says there is no saving—overall on their projected IT costs while improving services.The important point that is worth noting here is that Senator Lundy does not seem to have any history on this issue whatsoever. Let me read from a Department of Finance circular regarding IT outsourcing. It has not got the date on it but from what I can ascertain it was issued during your period.The revised IT purchasing policy, amongst other things, requires agencies to test the market for the outsourcing of both new and existing information technology IT service requirements as an alternative to the maintenance of in-house capabilities.This was the policy that was issued by your government. I have got reports here, including Clients first: The challenge of government information technology . Have you read Clients first ? It was put out by your government. Have you read Building a competitive Australia , put out on 12 March 1991 by Mr Hawke, Treasurer Paul Keating and the industry minister?7G6LUNDYSenator Lundy—Are you testing in-house capability? You don't even know. You don't even know what you are testing.WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—Don't get excited, Senator Lundy. You have had your chance and I'm going to have mine. (Time expired)15:13:00688Hogg, Sen JohnSenator HOGG7L6QLDALP00—I have listened with interest to what the Assistant Treasurer (Senator Kemp) had to say, but he did not canvass the issue that is at hand. Of course, the issue at hand is a fact that we need transparency in the process. It is not about whether outsourcing is good, bad or different; it is transparency in the process and the fact that we can find out what is actually going on in the process.WW4KEMPSenator Kemp—Thank you for those comments.7L6Hogg, Sen JohnSenator HOGG—The minister referred to cluster 3. There is an interesting evaluation of cluster 3 done by Mark Hollands, editor of Computers and High Technology , in the Australian today. He talks about cluster 3 quite specifically:Some of the losers are dismissive of CSC's undertakings.This is in respect of undertakings given by CSC in respect of that particular cluster. It goes on to say:They say CSC might achieve 50 per cent, but not 80—this is in respect of efficiencies within the contract—Critical to this argument is the fact that the Government has kept the penalty clauses secret.So we start to get to the truth of the matter: transparency. Then the article goes on:No-one outside the deal knows what will happen if CSC does not deliver.At the end it says:One theorist says CSC has risked large promises against reduced penalties.The article goes on:Fahey has been obsessed about the secrecy of this deal.His department has insisted everyone involved sign non-disclosure agreements related to Cluster 3 in government policy on outsourcing.The real truth is in the next sentence:Finding the truth and assessing the Government's performance, is impossible.This is the problem that we have with the government's current outsourcing program: it cannot be assessed; there is no transparency. It is fair and easy to say that these will be the savings but, at the end of the day, there is no absolute proof that the savings are there.Of course, this whole issue tends to be shrouded in secrecy; it tends to be shrouded in technology speak which masks what is truly going on. We end up with a whole heap of bureaucratic jargon which further muddies and causes confusion. At the end of the day, it is impossible to test the relative merits of the tenderers. We are told it is commercial-in-confidence and we are given a whole host of reasons why we should not know what the true cost benefit will be. We are given a figure but no means of testing it. There is no means of testing the savings, just as there is no means of testing what jobs are going to be lost out of the whole process. That is something that the government has forgotten about completely. One of the things that has happened as a result of IT outsourcing is that no consideration has been given as to the number of jobs that are lost as a result of the outsourcing. Nowhere do we see any figures which show how many jobs have been lost. They are not transferred from the government sector to the private sector. I would suspect that there is, in every instance, a net loss of jobs.One of the things that they have tried to lay claim to in cluster 3 is that a number of jobs are to be created. It is fine to say that a number of jobs are going to be created, but tell us how many have been lost in the public sector. That is the concern the government continually overlooks, because the number 1 issue for people in this nation is the issue of job security, the issue of transparency. If you do not provide that transparency, no-one can have faith in your process. That is the problem that we have got here.As Senator Lundy said, there is no guarantee of delivery of the savings. Look at the question asked today by my colleague, Senator Sherry. He quoted from a report made by Deloitte Touche Consulting which states that `a whopping 60 per cent of public sector organisations that outsource IT functions do not achieve any cost savings, nearly twice the rate of the private sector.' Of course the minister could not answer that because he does not know. He cannot tell us; he does not have the facts and figures at his disposal. Let us not kid each other; we want the plain facts about the outsourcing. We want it to be transparent and we want to know what the results are. (Time expired)15:10:00689Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEYO15NSWLP10—This is certainly IT outsourcing day, isn't it? Half the questions today were running on IT outsourcing. We have taking note of answers taking up another half hour and we have a matter of public importance on the topic. It actually begs the questions: why on earth have we got a matter of public importance on this topic if you are going to take up half of question time and all of taking note? As a matter of fact, it is an abuse of Senate procedures. Why would you have a matter of public importance listed, which is going to take up an hour and a half of debate, if you are going to take up the best part of an hour at this stage? It is an abuse of Senate time.Maybe we could even justify it if they were running with anything. Like the estimates process last week, we are seeing here yet another trawl, another lot of rumour with very little whatsoever to back it up in substance. Last week we saw Senator Lundy and Senator Carr trying this strategy. The strategy basically is that you take a great government success story and you get up in estimates or in the chamber and you say, `It's a failure.' You do not put forward any evidence that it is a failure. You might put up an occasional flimsy example where something is going wrong. What you are trying to demonstrate is that the underlying processes are wrong, but you have failed in this debate and in last week's debate to demonstrate any such thing. Last week Senator Carr wasted two days of Senate estimates time trawling through and getting absolutely nothing. I think he got one small reference in the Australian with a Yes, Minister type statement and that was it. That was all that was reported for all that time.This government has set up a number of procedures with great probity—unlike its predecessor. Of course, what this Labor opposition is doing is saying, `Well, we know how we used to do things, so if they are doing it the same way as we used to do it, there must be a rat here somewhere.' Well, of course, we are not doing it the same way that you did it; we are doing it a very different way indeed.When we come to this whole policy of IT outsourcing, the Labor Party opposite cannot even agree on the basic approach they are taking. From the sorts of things Senator Lundy was saying in this debate to take note, she seems to be against outsourcing. Then we had Senator Hogg getting up and saying, `Oh, no, we're for outsourcing, but we just want a more transparent process.' So the ALP in here cannot agree. Certainly it does not seem as though the parliamentary representatives can get the agreement of their national party conference because, as Senator Kemp pointed out at question time, Senator Lundy seemed to have got rolled on the basic approach in the national conference at the end of last year.We must remind the people of Australia what the source of all this was. Who started outsourcing of government services in this country? Who was it? It was the socialists opposite. It was the people who believe government should be doing everything. It was the socialists, and they finally decided that their approach—like they discovered in the rest of the world—was not really working, and they had to move to a more private approach. That is why we had Paul Keating as one of the great advocates of this approach. His government, in 1995, came out with this report: Clients first: the challenge of Government information technology. It has some very interesting sections, which I will read through:The Role of Information Technology as an Agent of ChangeMission for Information TechnologyMoving ForwardImproving Return on IT InvestmentDiversity of Choice and DeliveryWe are all inspired by what you are doing there. As a matter of fact, we have taken this further, and we are showing how this can be a major job generator for Australia. The processes which this government have put in place will be helping develop the IT industry in this country. As our leader, Senator Hill, said, this was the start of it. It goes back to your government; it goes back to Paul Keating. He moved to this policy and it will create, in the IT environment, greater competition and a greater number of jobs.(Time expired)15:24:00690Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEYSF4VICALP00—Far from spending too much time on this subject, parliament ought to be spending a lot more. The work done in this area by Senator Lundy and Senator Carr is not only to be praised, but it is to be emulated. That is made quite clear by the very thought of what parliament is all about. One of the fundamental tasks of parliament is to see how the taxpayer's dollar is spent.Again and again over the centuries, people have said, `Parliament should ensure that the executive spends the taxpayer's dollar and spends it right.' That is exactly what this motion is all about. That is exactly what Senator Lundy is doing today, and it is exactly what Senator Lundy and Senator Carr have been doing in estimates. That is clearly brought out in a report from the Industry Commission which was published on 24 January 1996, where the commission had this to say on page 81:Using competitive tendering and contracting (CTC) as a tool to achieve its various objectives more efficiently and effectively involves some fundamental—and they use the word advisedly—re-thinking of how government operates.And indeed it does. The second last sentence of that paragraph, of which I have just read the first sentence, reads:This raises questions about who is accountable, to whom, and for what.The last sentence reads:For some, the accountability-related issues such as privacy and discretion are so critical for some public services as to render them unsuitable for CTC.As has been said in the chamber today, of course the actual money that may or may not be saved is important. But the more fundamental question, for us as a Senate and as part of the parliament, is to have the machinery available whereby we can properly supervise what the executive is doing. I intend to move a motion later on which asks these questions.For example, when a government engages a consultant or when it outsources, it should inform the Senate that it has done so, it should state who the consultant is, it should identify the areas of the consultant's learning, it should set out the consultant's qualifications and it should tell the Senate what fee is paid to the consultant. That is machinery which would enable this chamber to see how government spends money.If the money is spent by the Public Service itself—if it is not outsourced—then all those facilities are available to this chamber to ascertain whether it is a wise spending of money that has occurred. Once you outsource, questions of commercial confidentiality are legitimately raised, and of course private companies do not want to let out their secrets. But it does mean that the people who want to know how we, as a parliament—as an executive—are spending their dollars are denied the facility that they have when the matter is carried out by public servants.The issue of privacy is this: the only way privacy is going to be protected is through the contractual relationship that is set up between the government and the person who is carrying out the outsourcing. Who can enforce that contract? Can the ordinary civilian enforce that contract? Probably not. Even if he or she could enforce that contract, the amount of money involved would be prohibitive. That is what we are talking about today: how can that fundamental duty of parliament to supervise the executive be carried out when the functions that have been performed by the executive are being contracted out?15:29:00691Chapman, Sen GrantSenator CHAPMANFF4SALP10—What gall we have heard from these Labor senators opposite today in terms of raising the issue of privacy with regard to the contracting out of information technology. Have Senator Lundy and her colleagues forgotten Labor Prime Minister Bob Hawke's 1991 industry statement, Building a Competitive Australia , which firmly established contracting out of government information technology services as a Labor government policy? Have they forgotten about the outsourcing of information technology when they were in government—an example being the Department of Veterans' Affairs which first outsourced its information technology requirements in 1991? Have they forgotten the statement of their now leader, Kim Beazley, in December 1995, when they were still in government? Framework and strategies for information technology in the Commonwealth of Australia was a document which reaffirmed outsourcing of information technology as Labor government policy, stating that the agencies had to:. . . test the market for the outsourcing of both new and existing information technology services as an alternative to the maintenance of in-house capabilities.So the outsourcing of the provision of information technology was firmly entrenched as Labor government policy when they were in office. And yet, was a single word uttered about privacy considerations when they were in government? Of course not. Not one word was uttered about privacy when Labor was in government and implementing outsourcing of information technology.They had five years from the time they introduced outsourcing as a policy to amend the Privacy Act to account for the impact of outsourced information technology and what did they do? Absolutely nothing. Not one thing. I see Senator Stott Despoja is nodding in agreement with me. The previous government was laggard on this issue. And they have the hypocrisy to jump up in this chamber today and criticise the government on matters of privacy with regard to information technology.Under Labor, information technology outsourcing required only contract negotiations between the vendor and client department or agency to provide adequate privacy protection. In contrast to that, this government is determined to ensure that privacy provisions are exemplary with regard to this matter. And that is why we have introduced the Privacy Amendment Bill. It was introduced by the Attorney-General last week to amend the privacy legislation to ensure that, with regard to personal information held by contractors on behalf of the government, privacy is protected.The government has also foreshadowed that it will extend the Freedom of Information Act to cover documents held by a private sector provider where the contracting agency itself has a right of access. This means that there will be the same right of access as there would be if the services were being provided by the private sector. Of course, as with any in-house project, the Auditor-General will also have the same right of access to the documents. So there is a marked contrast between what the present Liberal-National Party government is doing with regard to privacy in outsourcing of information technology and what the previous Labor government failed to do in the five years in which it was involved in outsourcing. Under this government the privacy of personal information is protected by strict contractual conditions. And, as I said, extra protection will be provided by our legislative amendments to the Privacy Act.In the seven years since the Veterans' Affairs information technology was outsourced there has not been one breach of privacy. There was one: Senator Faulkner's admission that Labor told the Department of Veterans' Affairs to supply lists of names so they could help their Brisbane Labor mate Jim Soorley send out his Christmas cards. That was the one and only breach of privacy and it was at the hands of the minister himself. So there we are. All this cant and hypocrisy means absolutely nothing. The fact is that privacy will be protected by this government under its outsourcing policy. What really makes Senator Lundy mad about this issue is headlines like this: `Computer contract delivers ACT jobs'. That is the real source of her sourpuss attitude to this issue and that is why she is raising these furphies and non-issues.Senator Ian Campbell interjecting—FF4Chapman, Sen GrantSenator CHAPMAN—That is right; only union jobs count. That is why she is really raising this issue. She has wasted half of question time, all of taking note of answers and then we are going to have to deal with this issue again in a matter of public importance debate all because this government will provide jobs in the ACT from outsourcing. (Time expired)Question resolved in the affirmative.Miscellaneous69215:34:00692Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—by leave—in the Age today there is a letter written by a Mr Alastair Gaisford of the ACT. The letter deals with the issue of the current coroner's inquiry into the tragic death of David Wilson in Cambodia in 1994. Madam Deputy President, as a member of the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee, you will recall that the Senate committee conducted an inquiry into the provision of consular services for Australians overseas and, in particular, took evidence and examined the circumstances surrounding the tragic death of David Wilson. David Wilson, as all senators are aware, was murdered by the Khmer Rouge after having been taken hostage in 1994.My purpose in seeking leave to make a statement is to refute allegations that are made in the correspondence from Mr Gaisford against the Senate committee—allegations that he has made on other occasions as well, not just in the letter. In particular, he states in the letter that the Senate committee has:. . . dissembled a selective, self-serving blameless "truth".He further states, in respect of the coroner's inquiry, that he has confidence that the coroner will do what:. . . the Senate committee and the Government have failed to do.That is, to reveal the whole truth . . .about the matter.His particular allegations are that there is supposedly a conspiracy, a cover-up, in the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. He has alleged that the Senate committee is part of that cover-up. For the record, as you will no doubt recall, Madam Deputy President, the Senate committee invited Mr Gaisford to give evidence to the inquiry. I remind the Senate that Mr Gaisford sat through many public hearings of the Senate committee and left it until the last possible moment before he volunteered to appear before the committee. The committee did give him that invitation.However, he placed impossible conditions on the committee. He sought, firstly, to be represented by legal counsel. Secondly, he sought to appear as a witness on behalf of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. That was impossible for him to do: one, because the department had already appeared before the committee in its own right and, two, Mr Gaisford was a suspended officer. Thirdly, Mr Gaisford in the end declined to accept the committee's invitation to give his evidence.I note that subsequently in the coroner's inquiry in Victoria he again left it until the last possible moment before he approached the coroner to give evidence. Indeed, as I understand it, it was on the last day when the coroner was about to conclude his hearing that Mr Gaisford came forward. I hope like all members of parliament that, if there is any information Mr Gaisford can provide that would shed some further light on the tragic death of David Wilson, he comes forward and presents that information.To date, as his performance before the Senate committee demonstrates, he makes a lot of allegations. He alleges conspiracies and cover-ups. He alleges that the responsibility for David Wilson's death somehow ultimately lies with the Australian government and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade rather than with the murderous Khmer Rouge. I find that an incredible allegation to make. I wish Mr Gaisford would either put up or shut up. I thought it was important to put on the record what precisely occurred in the Senate committee given the scurrilous, outrageous allegations he has made about the conduct of the committee.69310001CLERK ASSISTANTThe Clerk—A petition has been lodged for presentation as follows:6935VW4Herron Sen JohnTo the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembledThe petition of certain citizens of Australia, draws to the attention of the Senate the fact that members of the Royal Australian Navy who served in Malaya between 1955 and 1960 are the only Australians to be deliberately excluded from eligibility for repatriation benefits in the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 (the Act) for honourable `active service'. Australian Archives records show that the only reason for the exclusion was to save money. Members of the Australian Army and Air Force serving in Malaya were not excluded, and the costs associated with the land forces was one of the main reasons for the exclusion of the Navy. An injustice was done which later events have compounded.There are two forms of benefits for ex-servicemen, Disability Pensions for war caused disabilities (denied the sailors referred to but introduced in 1972 for `Defence Service' within Australia) and Service Pensions. Allied veterans of 55 nations involved in conflicts with Australian forces until the end of the Vietnam War can have qualifying eligibility for Service Pensions under the Act. Service by 5 countries in Vietnam was recognised after RAN service in Malaya was excluded. The Department of Veterans' Affairs confirms that 686 ex-members of the South Vietnamese Armed Forces are in receipt of Australian Service Pensions; 571 on married rate and 115 on single rate. In effect, 1,257 Service Pensions, denied to ex-members of the RAN, are being paid for serving alongside Australians in Vietnam.It is claimed that:(a) Naval personnel were engaged on operational duties that applied to all other Australian service personnel serving overseas on `active service'. They bombarded enemy positions in Malaya and secretly intercepted enemy communications;(b) Naval personnel were subject to similar dangers as all other Australian service personnel serving in Malaya and there were RAN casualties, none of which appear on the Roll of Honour at the Australian War Memorial;(c) the Royal Australian Navy was `allotted' for operational service from 1st July 1955 and this is documented in Navy Office Minute No. 011448 of 11 November 1955, signed by the Secretary to the Department of the Navy. The RAN was then apparently `unallotted' secretly to enable the excluding legislation to be introduced;(d) the Department of Veterans' Affairs has said it can find no written reason(s) for the RAN exclusion in the Act. In two independent Federal Court cases (Davis WA G130 of 1989 and Doessel Qld G62 of 1990) the courts found the two ex-members of the RAN had been `allotted'. Davis had served in Malaya in 1956 and 57. As a result of these cases ex-members of the RAN who served in Malaya and who had, at that time, claims before the Department of Veterans' Affairs for benefits, had their claims accepted. Eight weeks after the Doessel decision the Act was amended to require allotment to have been by written instrument. In parliament, it was claimed the amendment was necessary to restore the intended purpose of the exclusion, reasons for which can not, allegedly, be found.(e) Naval personnel were not, as claimed, bound by the `Special Overseas Service' requirements, introduced in the Repatriation (Special Overseas Service) Act 1962. This Act became law some two years after the war in Malaya ended;(f) as Australian citizens serving with the Royal Australian Navy they complied with three of the four requirements for `active service'. The fourth, for `military occupation of a foreign country' did not apply to Malaya.Your petitioners therefore request the Senate to remove the discriminatory exclusion in the Act thereby restoring justice and recognition of honourable `active service' with the Royal Australian Navy in direct support of British and Malayan forces during the Malayan Emergency between 1955 and 1960.Senator HerronVW4Senator Herron(from 5 citizens)Petition received.Notices693693693Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the provisions of paragraphs (5) to (7) of standing order 111 not apply to the Native Title Amendment Bill 1997 [No. 2], allowing it to be considered during this period of sittings.H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—I also table a statement of reasons justifying the need for this bill to be considered during these sittings. I seek leave to have the statement incorporated in Hansard .Leave granted.The statement read as follows—NATIVE TITLE AMENDMENT BILL 1997 [No. 2]Upon election, amending the Native Title Act 1993 to make it workable was one of the government's top priorities. After a period of consultation the Native Title Amendment Bill 1996 was introduced into the Parliament in June 1996. Before the amendments were debated, the Wik decision was handed down by the High Court on 23 December 1996.The decision held that native title was capable of coexisting on pastoral leases, reversing a widely held presumption when the Act was passed in 1993. The Wik decision has led to intense public debate and uncertainty in rural areas about what activities pastoralists can currently perform on their leases. There are real difficulties with proceeding with pastoral business in some jurisdictions and consequent pressures on the government to provide certainty for government granted interests on all forms of tenure where native title coexistence is possible.A replacement Bill incorporating the Government's response to the Wik decision was introduced on 4 September 1997 and passed by the House of Representatives in late October. After consideration by the Senate, the House laid the Bill aside on 6 December 1997 after indicating that some Senate amendments were not acceptable.The Treasury and resources and farming/pastoral industry associations have indicated that there is a need for a response as soon as possible to the issues raised by the Wik decision. If not, uncertainty may reduce and delay investment in mining, petroleum and rural industries and, consequently, slow the rate of economic growth.(Circulated by authority of the Prime Minister, the Hon John Howard, MP)694694Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAYUI4VICALP00—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the Senate—(a) notes: (i) that the anti-HIV drug, Nar DG-35, developed by Narhex Operations, is the first such drug to reach the stage of human trials in Australia, (ii) that the continuation of trials and the development of this drug for sale in Australia is at risk because of a lack of research funding, (iii) that repeated attempts by Narhex Operations to obtain Federal Government support have been unsuccessful, (iv) that the Chief Executive of Narhex Operations has recently signed a letter of intent with China's largest pharmaceutical manufacturer, the North China Pharmaceutical Company, which will now continue the trials;(b) calls on the Federal Government to reconsider its position on this matter and to offer support to Narhex to develop the drug wholly within Australia.694694Lees, Sen MegSenator LEES8U4SAAD00—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the Senate—(a) notes: (i) the high degree of public concern about the Government's regulation of alternative and complementary medicines, as evident from the large amount of correspondence received by Senator Lees on this issue, including a petition signed by 5 000 people, (ii) that there is some degree of confusion among consumers about the role and responsibilities of the Government in the regulation of complementary medicines;(b) recognises the need for consumers, small business owners and others involved with the complementary medical products industry to have access to clear information about the laws and regulations governing the manufacture, retail and promotion of complementary medicines; and(c) requests that the Government produce a plain English guide to the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989, and accompanying regulations, to enable consumers, manufacturers and retailers to obtain clear and concise information about the role of the Government in the regulation of complementary medicines and the rights and responsibilities of all parties involved with this sector of the therapeutic goods industry.694694Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the Senate— (a) notes that: (i) the Liberal Party of Australia has received a $4 million loan from an organisation, the Greenfields Foundation, breaching the spirit of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, (ii) the Liberal Party has used this loan to sidestep the disclosure provisions of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 for party political donations, (iii) the Liberal Party previously used the Free Enterprise Foundation to launder electoral funds, thus avoiding disclosure to the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC), (iv) the Greenfields Foundation shares two of its three trustees with the Free Enterprise Foundation, (v) the trustees of the Free Enterprise Foundation gave the same postal address as that now used by the Greenfields Foundation; and(b) calls on the Special Minister of State (Senator Minchin) to direct the AEC to investigate the Greenfields Foundation and the nature of its loan to the Liberal Party.695695Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT5F4TASLP10—At the request of Senator Abetz, I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, he will move: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 23 March 1998.695695Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRYZW4TASALP00—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the Senate—(a) congratulates the Tasmanian Health Coalition, composed of the Australian Medical Association, the College of Surgeons, the Australian Nursing Federation, the Health and Community Services Union and the Community and Public Sector Union, for its visit to Canberra to inform Tasmanian members and senators about the disastrous condition of the Tasmanian public health system.(b) notes: (i) the formal rejection by all State health ministers and the Northern Territory Health Minister of the Commonwealth Medicare funding offer, describing it as `inadequate to meet the health care needs of Australia over the next five years', (ii) that in their announcement of this rejection they go on to state, `we are quibbling over dollars to prop up a system which needs massive injections of funds to ease the current pressures each state and territory is facing', (iii) that, in the case of Tasmania, approximately $30 million more a year over the life of the new agreement is necessary just to maintain current service levels in public hospitals, (iv) the continuing trenchant criticism by the Tasmanian State Liberal Health Minister, Mr McKay, of his Federal Liberal colleague, Dr Wooldridge, who has said, `the Coalition has been in office for over two years and must match its rhetoric with money. I expect to see the money owed to Tasmania on the table as a starter when we meet the Minister's band-aid approach to public hospitals'; and(c) calls on the Federal Health Minister to meet the reasonable funding requests of the States to secure the future health of all Australians.695695Bourne, Sen VickiSenator BOURNETW4NSWAD00—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the Senate—(a) recalls United Nations (UN) resolution 1273 of 1961, calling for the cessation of practices which deprive the Tibetan people of their fundamental human rights and freedoms, including their right to self determination;(b) notes an open letter to this Parliament from the Australian Tibetan community which appeals to the Australian Government to address the issue of Tibet; and(c) notes that the letter calls on the Australian Government to: (i) recognise the rights of the Tibetan people to full independence, (ii) recognise Tibet as a sovereign nation, (iii) support any future UN resolution condemning China's human rights abuses, (iv) establish a bureau within the Department of Foreign Affairs dedicated to Tibetan affairs, (v) reinstate bilateral human rights discussions with the Chinese Government at the highest political level, and (vi) encourage the Chinese Government to: (A) commence open discussions with the Dalai Lama, (B) immediately release the true Panchen Lama, Gendhun Choekyi Nyima, (C) release all political prisoners of conscience in Tibet, in accordance with the Chinese Constitution which allows freedom of speech, (D) restore full religious freedom in Tibet, (E) cease cultural genocide and government-encouraged population transfers, and (F) cease environmental exploitation and the dumping of nuclear waste.696696Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the Senate notes that:(a) the $9 billion Australian National Training Authority (ANTA) Technical and Further Education (TAFE) agreement remains in disarray with a new agreement before June 1998 unlikely;(b) advice given to the Employment, Education and Training Legislation Committee by senior departmental officials has revealed that bilateral negotiations with the States have stalled without one State meeting the 20 February 1998 deadline for the provision of draft efficiency agreements;(c) the grandstanding and bitter feuding by the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs (Dr Kemp) with State Ministers, during which he sought to bludgeon the States into submission;(d) the States, while initialling a proposed ANTA agreement, have continued their fierce resistance to Dr Kemp's attempt to cost-shift to the States by making them pay for Commonwealth initiatives in vocational education;(e) Dr Kemp has been vociferous in his attacks upon the States and has demanded that growth in TAFE places be funded by the States without additional Commonwealth resources when in fact the Commonwealth has cut funding for vocational education in the last two Budgets;(f) State Ministers remain angry that the Commonwealth decisions were imposing additional costs in the areas of youth allowance, the so-called new apprenticeships and traineeships, new national training packages and Vocational Education and Training in schools, as well as the normal growth in demand for TAFE places;(g) Australia is facing a serious skills shortage and the Commonwealth Government's failure to meet the challenges in TAFE funding is aggravating the situation;(h) international benchmarking of education and training places in Australia is a long way behind; and(i) Australia is falling further behind as a result of the Government's inability to resolve the issue of funding additional TAFE places.696696Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT4J4SAALP00—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the Senate notes that:(a) at midnight on 28 February 1998 the Golden West Television Network in Western Australia went off air for most of the outback area of Western Australia;(b) as many as 100 000 viewers lost their television service;(c) the shutdown occurred because the Minister for Communications, the Information Economy and the Arts (Senator Alston) ignored the advice of the Deputy Premier of Western Australia (Mr Cowan) and did not follow through to ensure that during the transition from analogue to digital broadcasting the signal would be simulcast; and(d) Senator Alston now has the dubious record of being the first communications minister in the history of Australian television broadcasting to allow a service to go off the air to the detriment of many tens of thousands of viewers.696696Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY9L6TASALP00—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the Senate notes with concern:(a) that despite being elected on the promise of a `relaxed and comfortable' future, the Howard Government, through its industrial relations and employment policies, has in fact delivered exactly the opposite;(b) the increasing sense of workplace insecurity in the community brought about by the Government's deliberate campaign to under mine the hard-fought-for wages and conditions of ordinary workers, particularly women and people from non-English speaking backgrounds, through the promotion of Australian Workplace Agreements and award simplification; and(c) the mean-spirited, systemically-flawed and ideologically-driven approach of the Government to the employment services market, which, when taken in its totality, excludes hundreds of thousands of unemployed Australians from employment services through the application of crude market values to resource allocation.697697Quirke, Sen JohnSenator QUIRKEZS6SAALP00—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the Senate notes:(a) the failure of the Howard Liberal Government to adequately fund public health in Australia;(b) that, as a result, the waiting lists of medical procedures have grown and, in particular, the waiting lists for dentistry have blown-out to years in states such as South Australia;(c) that currently in South Australia, 78 000 people are waiting an average of 27 months for treatment, and that 11 000 others are waiting a similar time for denture repair or provision; and(d) that the supposed surplus in the forthcoming 1998-99 Budget has been achieved over the decaying teeth of many of South Australians.697697Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—I give notice that, on Monday, 23 March 1998, I shall move:That the Therapeutic Goods Regulations (Amendment), as contained in Statutory Rules 1997 No. 401 and made under the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989, be disallowed.697697Campbell, Sen GeorgeSenator GEORGE CAMPBELLNB5NSWALP00—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the Senate—(a) notes that: (i) the Federal Government has shamefully ended funding of the highly successful and important AusIndustry program, (ii) the withdrawal of funding of AusIndustry, previously funded at around $40 million per year, would mean around $120 million lost to Australian businesses over a 3-year parliamentary term, (iii) the average amount of a grant under an AusIndustry program would be around $10 000, meaning that around 12 000 businesses in Australia would miss out on grants, (iv) the recent AC Nielson `Survey of AusIndustry Client Firms', prepared for the Department of Industry, Science and Technology, points to a difference of percentage growth in export sales of AusIndustry participants with a median of 85 per cent and others at only 27.5 per cent, (v) the survey concludes that `AusIndustry firms were more likely to have developed into competitive firms, experiencing a period of sustained growth' and also that `AusIndustry programs have achieved their overall objectives', (vi) these cuts to the AusIndustry program will severely affect the ability of Australian small- and medium-sized businesses to become export ready, particularly in light of the Asian financial crisis and the strain that will have on small exporters, and (vii) in New South Wales alone over the past year AusIndustry programs have created more than 1 300 jobs and $45 million in new exports and enabled $20 million to be spent on research and development;(b) calls on the Federal Government and, in particular, the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business (Mr Reith) to immediately restore and extend funding to the highly successful AusIndustry program; and(c) notes that the AusIndustry program is clearly the best way for the Australian Government to assist small businesses to become export ready and it must be maintained.697697McKiernan, Sen JamesSenator McKIERNAN1I4WAALP00—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the Senate—(a) views, with grave concern, the provocative statements by the Minister for Health and Family Services (Dr Wooldridge) in relation to State and Northern Territory health funding;(b) notes that such aggressive statements are not helpful and nor are they conducive to meaningful negotiations;(c) welcomes the positive actions of State and Northern Territory health ministers in their attempts to attract more appropriate levels of funding from the Commonwealth; and(d) calls on Dr Wooldridge to adopt a more conciliatory attitude to the State and Northern Territory health ministers, with a view to taking a submission to Cabinet requesting that State and Northern Territory health funding allocations be set at a more realistic level.698698Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the Senate notes:(a) the failure of the Government to respond, within the required 3-month time period, to the following reports of the Senate Employment, Education and Training References Committee: (i) Childhood Matters: The report on the inquiry into early childhood education , which was produced in July 1996 and the Government has still not responded, (ii) Beyond Cinderella: Towards a learning society , which was produced in April 1997 and the Government has still not responded, and (iii) Not a level playground: The private and commercial funding of government schools , which was produced in June 1997 and the Government has still not responded; and(b) that this refusal to provide responses within the normal time period is a further example of this Government's disregard for the processes of the Parliament and the committee system.698698Gibbs, Sen BrendaSenator GIBBS6L6QLDALP00—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the Senate— (a) notes, with extreme concern, the delay in the signing of a new Commonwealth/State Disability Agreement after a series of paltry offers by the Commonwealth to the States;(b) condemns the Howard Government for endangering the multilateral nature of the proposed agreement by secretly negotiating bilateral agreements, with individual States;(c) recognises that the process of bilateral agreements will put in jeopardy more than a decade of uniformity between the Commonwealth and the States in the area of disability services;(d) notes that a state of confusion and chaos exists in the disability services sector in Australia and that several non-government service providers are on the brink of collapse due to the uncertainty of the signing of a new agreement; and(e) calls on the Commonwealth Government to increase its offer to the States and to maintain uniformity in the approach to disability services in Australia.698698Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to protect the genetic privacy of individuals, to prohibit genetic discrimination and to provide for the collection, storage and analysis of DNA samples, and for related purposes. Genetic Privacy and Non-discrimination Bill 1998 .698698Crowley, Sen RosemarySenator CROWLEYZF4SAALP00—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the Senate condemns the Howard Government for its total failure in the area of private health insurance, and for its wanton waste of $1.7 billion of taxpayers' dollars for private health insurance rebates.698698Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEALB36NSWALP00—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the Senate—(a) notes: (i) that 8 March 1998 was International Women's Day, and (ii) Labor's proud record on women's right, in particular, its development of a world-class child care system;(b) condemns the Government's attack on women's rights to economic independence through cuts to child care, in particular: (i) its withdrawal of the operational subsidy for outside school hours care, (ii) its abolition of the additional income allowance for other dependent children when calculating child care assistance, (iii) its reduction of income cut-off points for families with more than one dependent child when calculating child care assistance, (iv) its freeze on the income test ceiling for child care assistance, (v) its removal of the managed growth strategy for long day care, and (vi) its reduction of funding for children's services which catered for children with special needs;(c) notes that the damage done to the system by cuts of $820 million, mostly through attacks on child care assistance which was targeted to low- and middle-income families, has been exacerbated by the administrative incompetence and policy reversals which have characterised the Government's policies; and(d) calls on the Government to deliver affordable, high quality, accessible child care to enable the women of Australia to participate fully in the paid work force.699699Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the Senate—(a) notes: (i) the continually emerging evidence that salary repackaging is spreading in the public service with some departments and agencies seeking to repackage up to 50 per cent of salaries in order to minimise tax, (ii) that salary repackaging enables high income earners to avoid meeting their tax obligations, something that is denied to most PAYE taxpayers, (iii) that the Treasurer (Mr Costello) has specifically identified salary repackaging as a form of tax avoidance and a threat to the integrity of the tax system, (iv) that, on 26 February 1998, the Commission of Taxation, Mr Carmody, stated in a note to staff that salary repackaging or salary sacrifice arrangements were being used to avoid: (a) the new 15 per cent superannuation tax, (b) full child support liabilities, (c) sales tax liabilities for exempt bodies, and (d) Medicare and Higher Education Contribution Scheme payments, and in some cases they were being used to access: (a) social security payments, (b) the family tax initiative; and (c) Austudy and other benefits, (v) that, as a consequence of this emerging evidence, the Commissioner also stated, `In the light of these concerns and given our role, I have asked that we embark on a detailed analysis of the extent and growth of salary sacrifice arrangements and their impact on the fairness of our tax, child support and social welfare systems', (vi) that no other Australian Public Service (APS) department or agency has publicly stated that it is observing the Taxation Department's standards on salary packaging, which restrict repackaging to include a motor vehicle only, and (vii) that the Government, at an estimates committee hearing in February 1998, was dismissive of the inequity and the threat to revenue posed by salary repacking in both the APS and the private sector, despite the Treasurer's statement to the contrary; and(b) calls on the Treasurer, as an example to the rest of the community, to set clear guidelines based upon the standards set by the Australian Taxation Office.699699Bishop, Sen MarkSenator BISHOP2L6WAALP00—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the Senate—(a) notes the adverse impact on Western Australians of the closure of several Medicare offices;(b) regrets: (i) the significant inconvenience caused to many residents of Eastern suburbs of Perth by the closure of the East Victoria Park Medicare office, and (ii) the ongoing decline of government services to pensioners, aged persons and parents with dependent children in the localities formerly served by the East Victoria Park Medicare office;(d) notes the financial hardship caused by week-long delays in Medicare rebate payments;(e) condemns the local Member for Swan (Mr Randall) for his failure to resolve this continuing problem; and(f) calls on the Government to direct Medicare to re-open the East Victoria Park office.700700Collins, Sen JacintaSenator JACINTA COLLINSGB6VICALP00—I give notice that, on Thursday, 12 March, I shall move:That the Senate—(a) notes the massacre of more than 30 Albanians in the Drenica region of Kosova on the weekend of 7 and 8 March 1998, and the further attacks on demonstrators in the city of Prishtina; and(b) calls on the Australian Government to: (i) immediately denounce and condemn the acts of violence committed by Serbian Government forces against Albanian citizens, (ii) publicly support calls from the international community for the Serbian Government to ensure that the Serbian police and the Yugoslav army act with maximum restraint and take no further action that may lead to further violence, and (iii) urge all sides in the dispute to enter into unconditional dialogue and call upon the Serbian Government to take legitimate steps to address the legitimate grievances of the Kosovo Albanian communities, including the implementation of the Kosova Education Agreement on an effective basis.700700Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEYSF4VICALP00—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the Senate calls on the Government, when it engages a consultant or a contractor, to:(a) inform the Senate that it has done so; (b) state who the consultant or contractor is;(c) identify the area of the consultant's learning or the contractor's skills;(d) set out the consultant's or contractor's qualifications; and(e) tell the Senate what reward is paid to the consultant or the contractor.700700Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the Senate notes that the introduction of the Common Youth Allowance is not being supported by the provision of adequate additional resources by the Commonwealth and, in particular, notes:(a) that schools are facing major growth in student numbers which this Government has not adequately prepared for;(b) the August 1997 Cabinet submission which states that 27 000 extra students will stay at school as a result of the changes;(c) that the increased retention rate will particularly impact on the Government school system;(d) that the Commonwealth Government's package of $42 million falls well short of the $140 million called for in a departmental Cabinet submission and the $189 million called for by the States; and(e) that the States have described the Common Youth Allowance as an unexpected imposition on schools and school systems, which was initially implemented without consultation, and have called on the Commonwealth to meet all additional costs which result from the Common Youth Allowance.700700Bishop, Sen MarkSenator BISHOP2L6WAALP00—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the Senate—(a) notes, with concern, the Government's acceptance of timed local data calls;(b) acknowledges: (i) the significant financial difficulty this Government decision will place on Australian small businesses, and (ii) the significant number of complaints that have been lodged with senators concerning the acceptance of timed local data calls; and(c) calls on the Government to immediately disallow regulations that grant communica tion carriers the right to charge timed local data calls.701701Denman, Sen KaySenator DENMANFY5TASALP00—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the Senate—(a) notes the recent needs analysis report for sexual minority youth in north west Tasmania, entitled, Working It Out ;(b) recognises that there are a number of young people on the north west coast of Tasmania struggling with their sexuality, and that there is a general lack of understanding among service providers about the issues that these young people face;(c) notes, with approval, the recommendations of the report, in particular that: (i) a project officer be employed for an initial period of 3 years to facilitate and coordinate the educational and community development aspects of the Working It Out project, (ii) an education plan be implemented and a resource package be developed to assist service providers in the region, and (iii) there should be a comprehensive sexual health survey implemented throughout the education system in Tasmania, in order to gather vital data in the area of youth sexuality;(d) commends the Australian Youth Foundation for funding the project; and(e) congratulates the members of the Project Committee and, in particular, the Project Officer, Rachael Hogge, for their work in compiling the report.701701Hogg, Sen JohnSenator HOGG7L6QLDALP00—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the Senate—(a) condemns the Government on the handling of the tender process for employment services, as it: (i) ignored the capacity of small business operators to play an integral role in resolving the unemployment issue by denying these `coal face' organisations the right to continue their participation in resolving unemployment in their local communities, (ii) denied previously viable small businesses the right to a continuing existence, (iii) drastically reduced the role of church organisations in dealing in a broad and compassionate way with the evil of unemployment, and (iv) did not give the vast majority of existing providers their current geographical sites, where they had built-up proven placement records and solid local community links; and(b) calls on the Government to: (i) recall tenders to ensure that a fair and transparent tender process takes place, (ii) ensure that small businesses and community groups are not disadvantaged in the process by the usurping of the contracts by major national and international corporations, and (iii) apologise to church organisations for causing distress and dismay to people in the community who look to the churches for support.701701Reynolds, Sen MargaretSenator REYNOLDSXI4QLDALP00—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the Senate:(a) Welcomes the decision of the Government of Israel to release a number of prisoners to mark the celebration of Israel's 50 Year Jubilee—H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—Where is Nick Bolkus? Did he run away?10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Reynolds, please continue.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—I just want to know where Nick Bolkus is.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Campbell!H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—The Australian people want to know where Nick Bolkus is.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order!H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—Peter Cook, do you stand by Nick Bolkus?XI4Reynolds, Sen MargaretSenator REYNOLDS—I will start again, Madam Deputy President. I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the Senate:(a) Welcomes the decision of the Government of Israel to release a number of prisoners to mark the celebration of Israel's 50 Year Jubilee, recognising the establishment of the State of Israel on 15 May 1948; (b) notes that nuclear whistleblower, Mordechai Vanunu, has now been in solitary imprisonment for 11 years and 5 months, but becomes eligible for parole on 21 April 1998; and(c) calls on the President of Israel to include Mordechai Vanunu in the Jubilee release of Israeli prisoners.702702Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the Senate—(a) notes: (i) the potentially serious consequences of the Year 2000 computer bug, (ii) the possibility of considerable economic and social costs from this phenomenon, and (iii) with concern, the report by James Riley in the Australian of 10 March 1998 of the apathy setting in over this phenomenon;(b) expresses its concern that the Government is not taking a leading role in assisting the Australian community to understand and deal with this phenomenon; and(c) notes that the Government has allowed another 6 months to pass without concerted action and has kept quarterly progress reports to itself.702702Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the Senate—(a) notes: (i) that the company, Careers Advancement College Pty Ltd, has provided training and employment placement services in southern Sydney for more than 10 years, (ii) that Careers Advancement College Pty Ltd has offices in Sutherland and Hurstville which employ 12 staff and has a job placement success rate in excess of the area and national average, (iii) that, notwithstanding their expertise and experience, Careers Advancement College Pty Ltd was not successful in its tender for employment services contracts recently awarded by the Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs, and (iv) that, in contrast, Mr Khader Roude, who has no office, no staff, no fax machine, no computer and no experience, won a contract worth nearly $1 million to provide employment services in the same areas in southern Sydney; and(b) condemns the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs (Dr Kemp) for this scandalous waste of taxpayers' money in awarding contracts to persons and companies with little or no experience in providing employment services.702702Bishop, Sen MarkSenator BISHOP2L6WAALP00—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the Senate(a) Notes the decline in dental care services since the election of the colation in March 1966;H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—Why did you support Bolkus on native title?2L6Bishop, Sen MarkSenator BISHOP—It continues:(b) particularly expresses its concern at the removal by the Coalition of the Commonwealth dental health program;(c) notes that the removal of the Commonwealth dental health program by the Coalition is a broken Government promise;H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—You are a traitor to Western Australia.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Campbell.2L6Bishop, Sen MarkSenator BISHOP—It continues:(d) recognises the financial hardship this cut has placed on elderly Australians; and(e) calls on the Government to reinstate funding levels for the Commonwealth dental health program.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—Why do you support Nick Bolkus? Why are you covering up Nick Bolkus?10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Campbell!Honourable senators interjecting—10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Order! Senator Campbell, I am on my feet. I would appreciate some silence from both sides please.703703Quirke, Sen JohnSenator QUIRKEZS6SAALP00—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the Senate notes:(a) the failure of the Howard government to adequately address the problems associated with aged care—H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—We want to hear from Nick Bolkus not from you.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Campbell!H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—Come on you stupid sod, do you stand by Bolkus?ZS6Quirke, Sen JohnSenator QUIRKE—I will continue:(b) The obscene attempt by the Howard Liberal Government to force elderly patients pay huge accommodation bonds prior to nursing home entry, to line the pockets of some Liberal Party donor proprietors—At least I have never been a bloody Democrat.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order!Senator Stott Despoja interjecting—ZS6Quirke, Sen JohnSenator QUIRKE—I am sorry; I know that you did not want him.656FORSHAWSenator Forshaw—We will give you leave to make a personal explanation.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Could the chamber please settle down.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—We want to know where Nick Bolkus is. We want Nick Bolkus in here.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Campbell!H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—Where's Nick Bolkus hiding?AX5EVANSSenator Chris Evans—Take another Mogadon, will you.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—We want Bolkus in here for a censure motion. We don't want you to cover him up. Bring him in. Where's he hiding?10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Campbell, we are currently on notices of motion. We will move through the orders of the day. If I can have some silence please.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—Bolkus is a—10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Campbell, you have said enough thank you.ZS6Quirke, Sen JohnSenator QUIRKE—The notice of motion continues:(c) the huge increases in fees for elderly patients entering nursing homes, which in some instances leave little or nothing left of pension entitlements; and(d) the failure of the Howard Liberal Government to put in place public policies to help improve the standard, and availability of, and access to, nursing homes.703703Bishop, Sen MarkSenator BISHOP2L6WAALP00—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the Senate—(a) notes that the impact of the decision by the Government to introduce its drug tax has been to: (i) increase costs for specialised drugs where a generic brand is not appropriate, (ii) introduce a system where many patients can only afford second-best treatment due to the increase in the cost of pharmaceuticals stemming from the drug tax, and (iii) place a significant financial burden on the elderly and on Australian families in pursuing safe and adequate health care;(b) notes that the new drug tax will save the Government $561 million over 4 years at the expense of the Australian community; and(c) calls on the Government to reconsider its approach to health care funding and the priority which it granted to it.703703Hogg, Sen JohnSenator HOGG7L6QLDALP00—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the Senate—(a) recognises: (i) the importance of a free and independent media, and (ii) the need for a media outlet free of commercial control with guaranteed funding;(b) notes, with concern, the Government's funding cuts to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation; (c) acknowledges the widespread community dissatisfaction with the Government's decision; and(d) calls on the Government to commit to a viable free and independent media with sustained funding levels.704704Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the Senate condemns the Howard Government for its complacent attitude to the Asian currency crisis, in particular:(a) the fatuous assurances by the Treasurer (Mr Costello) that Australia is fireproofed from the effects of the crisis;(b) the failure of the Government to adequately respond early enough to the inevitable economic impact the loss of key markets in south-east and north Asia would have on export industries and jobs;(c) the refusal of the Government to spell out what the anticipated impact will be on: (i) economic growth, (ii) jobs, (iii) the current account deficit, and (iv) interest rates; and(d) the mounting evidence, most recently contained in the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry and Westpac `Survey of Industrial Trends', of 10 March 1998, which shows a collapse of confidence among Australian manufacturing exporters with `exports to crash to the worst level since 1991'.704704Quirke, Sen JohnSenator QUIRKEZS6SAALP00—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the Senate notes:(a) the need to provide special assistance to regional economies to ensure that all Australians can have access to adequate employment opportunities;(b) that, in framing the Federal Budget, the Treasurer (Mr Costello) needs to place importance on achieving balanced development across the whole of Australia; and(c) that, to date, the Howard Coalition Government has shown a complete disregard for important regional economies such as South Australia.704704Lundy, Sen KateSenator LUNDY7G6ACTALP00—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the Senate notes with concern the continued reduction of the budget of the Commonwealth Ombudsman, particularly in light of the increased workload that has occurred as a result of the implementation of the Government's expanded contracting out program as highlighted in the annual report of the Commonwealth Ombudsman.Notice amended by Madam President pursuant to standing order 76.704704Bishop, Sen MarkSenator BISHOP2L6WAALP00—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the Senate—(a) notes, with continued concern, the impact of workplace agreements in Western Australia;(b) recognises that workplace agreements play a key role in reducing the rights and benefits of Western Australian workers;(c) notes the Western Australian Government's repeated attempts to provoke Western Australian unions into industrial disputes; and(d) calls on the Western Australian Government to repeal the workplace agreements legislation immediately.704704Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the Senate—(a) notes the public announcement of the Taxation Commissioner to crack down on salary packaging following concern that salary sacrifice arrangements were being exploited in the public service as well as in the private sector;(b) expresses its concern that the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business (Mr Reith) is encouraging his department's employees to package up to 50 per cent of total salary as non-salary benefits;(c) notes that, as a result of the Minister's actions, his department's senior employees will be able to avoid their proper taxation liability and escape the Government's superannuation and Medicare surcharges; and(d) calls on the Treasurer (Mr Costello) to ensure that the Taxation Commissioner effectively brings to an end tax avoidance measures being promoted among Commonwealth public servants.705705Bishop, Sen MarkSenator BISHOP2L6WAALP00—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the Senate—(a) recognises the serious disquiet amongst the Australian community with regard to bank fees;(b) takes particular note of the impact of increasing bank fees on low income earners, pensioners and families; and(c) calls on the Government to initiate a study into the impact on savings of low income earners, pensioners and families as a consequence of increasing bank fees.705705Bishop, Sen MarkSenator BISHOP2L6WAALP00—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the Senate—(a) condemns the Government for abolishing operational subsidies for community-based long day care;(b) recognises that the Government's decision has cost Australian families with children in long day care in excess of $14 per week;(c) notes the Government's lack of commitment, in general, to family support services; and(d) calls on the Government to reinstate operational subsidies for community-based long day care.705705Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY3L6VICALP00—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the Senate—(a) notes: (i) evidence given before the Senate Economics Legislation Committee on 25 February 1998 contradicts the claims in the Government publication, The Australian Taxation System in need of Reform' , (ii) the Australian Taxation Office's recent publication, A Report into Taxpayer Costs of Compliance, demonstrates that the costs, particularly to small business, of introducing a goods and services tax are far greater than the Government is willing to admit, and (iii) that the publication is nothing more than Coalition propaganda; and(b) calls on the Coalition parties to refund the $10 000 of taxpayers' money used to produce the document.705705Murphy, Sen ShayneSenator MURPHYFX5TASALP00—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the Senate—(a) notes: (i) that, on a number of occasions, the Minister for Communications, the Information Economy and the Arts (Senator Alston) has publicly stated that the Government will be strengthening Australia's copyright laws by reversing the onus of proof, and (ii) that, on 27 February 1998, the Attorney-General's Department, in giving evidence to the Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee, contradicted the Minister's public undertakings by indicating that the Government would not be reversing onus of proof; and(b) calls on the Minister and the Attorney-General (Mr Williams) to identify which statement is correct and to then apologise either to the public or the Senate committee for misleading them.705705Bishop, Sen MarkSenator BISHOP2L6WAALP00—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the Senate—(a) notes the Government's: (i) attacks on Australian industry through its cuts to research and development and other `industry assistance measures', and (ii) acceptance of Australian Labor Party (ALP) industry policy, with particular reference to the textiles and clothing and the automotive industries; and(b) calls on the Government to further accept ALP industry policy and implement a strategic review of its approach to assisting Australian industry and business.706706Bishop, Sen MarkSenator BISHOP2L6WAALP00—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the Senate—(a) notes: (i) the impact of cuts in operational grants to Australian universities, and (ii) the financial hardship that has resulted from dramatically reducing the Higher Education Contribution Scheme (HECS) repayment threshold; and(b) calls on the Government to increase funding levels to universities and to increase the HECS repayment threshold to the level of average weekly earnings.706706Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the Senate(a) notes: (i) that, on 10 March 1998, Australian Labor Party (ALP) senators gave more than 38 notices of motion in an attempt to filibuster away time to ensure, in a show of fraternity with their comrade, that the commencement of a government business notice of motion of censure against Senator Bolkus would be delayed, and (ii) that the ALP will go to any length to stop a debate on the actions of Senator Bolkus in leaking confidential court documents relating to the recovery of assets from Mr Christopher Skase; and(b) asks why: (i) the ALP is protecting Senator Bolkus, as they did with Dr Lawrence, and (ii) Senator Bolkus is taking action that assists Mr Skase.AW5CARRSenator Carr—Where's the government business? This is a loss of government business time.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Carr, please.H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—Madam Deputy President, I had better just repeat section 2 of that notice of motion.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—I think there is no need to, Senator Campbell.H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—I had better repeat section 2, which says—Opposition senators interjecting—H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—I will wait until we get some quiet. It continues:(ii) Notes that the ALP will go to any length—Opposition senators interjecting—10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order on my left. Senator Campbell, please continue with your notice of motion.H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—I will try to, Madam Deputy President. I thank you for your protection. It continues:(ii) that the ALP will go to any length to stop a debate on the actions of Senator Bolkus in leaking confidention court documents relating to the recovery of assets from Mr Christopher Skase; and(b) asks why (i) the ALP is protecting Senator Bolkus, as they did with Dr Lawrence, and (ii) Senator Bolkus is taking action that assists Mr Skase.RF4COOKSenator Cook—Madam Deputy President, I raise a point of order. I think the notice of motion just given is out of order, because it incorrectly refers to Senator Bolkus in part 1 of the notice as `Comrade Bolkus' when surely it should refer to him as `Comrade Senator Bolkus'.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—It will be edited to make sure it is in order.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—By leave I will amend the motion from saying `Comrade Bolkus' to saying `Christopher Skase's little mate'.RF4COOKSenator Cook—That would be out of order, Madam Deputy President.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—It will be edited to make sure that it is in compliance with standing orders.RF4COOKSenator Cook—I raise a point of order.Opposition senators interjecting—10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Cook is trying to take a point of order.RF4COOKSenator Cook—I am sorry, Madam Deputy President, I was not aware of your ruling on the last point of order.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—It shall be edited to make sure that it is in order.RF4COOKSenator Cook—That refers to the improper and incorrect allegation that Senator Campbell just made about Mr Skase and Senator Bolkus.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—`Murray Farquhar' or `little mate'—what was the bit you didn't like?RF4COOKSenator Cook—The improper reflection on the senator.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—The motion will be edited in accordance with standing orders.Business707707Motion (by Senator Chris Evans, at the request of Senator Faulkner) agreed to:That general business notice of motion No. 931 standing in the name of Senator Faulkner for today, relating to the appointment of a select committee on certain government accountability matters, be postponed till 23 March 1998.707Motion (by Senator Margetts) agreed to:That general business notices of motion Nos 927 and 938 standing in the name of Senator Margetts for today, relating to the Multilateral Agreement on Investment and the imprisonment of Romanian Mariana Cetiner, be postponed till the next day of sitting.707Motion (by Senator Stott Despoja, at the request of 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. 707Motion (by Senator Reynolds) agreed to:That general business notice of motion No. 948 standing in the name of Senator Reynolds for today, relating to recommendations of the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women, be postponed till the next day of sitting.707Motion (by Senator Calvert, at the request of Senator Troeth) agreed to:That general business notice of motion No. 947 standing in the name of Senator Troeth for today, relating to rural women, be postponed till the next day of sitting.707Motion (by Senator Stott Despoja) agreed to:That general business notice of motion No. 956 standing in the name of Senator Stott Despoja for today, relating to `Go Casual for a Cause' day, be postponed till the next day of sitting.707Motion (by Senator Stott Despoja, at the request of Senator Woodley) agreed to:That general business notice of motion No. 950 standing in the name of Senator Woodley for today, proposing an order for the production of documents by the Special Minister of State (Senator Minchin), be postponed till the next day of sitting.707Motion (by Senator Stott Despoja, at the request of Senator Allison) agreed to:That general business notice of motion No. 954 standing in the name of Senator Allison for today, relating to Commonwealth environment legislation, be postponed till the next day of sitting.707Motion (by Senator Stott Despoja, at the request of Senator Bourne) agreed to:That general business notice of motion No. 951 standing in the name of Senator Bourne for today, relating to Tibet, be postponed till the next day of sitting.Committees707707707Motion (by Senator Calvert, at the request of Senator Chapman) agreed to: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 1997.708708Motion (by Senator Calvert, at the request of Senator Abetz) agreed to: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) 1997.708708Motion (by Senator Calvert, at the request of Senator Abetz) agreed to: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.Matters of Public Importance70870810000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—The President has received a letter from Senator Lundy proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion, namely:The failure of the government to take effective action to ensure that the contracting out of taxpayer funded services does not result in a diminution of the level of government accountability for such services nor in a restriction of the administrative law remedies available to the clients of such services.I call upon those senators who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places—10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—I understand that informal arrangements have been made to allocate specific times to each of the speakers in today's debate. With the concurrence of the Senate, I shall ask the Clerks to set the clocks accordingly.16:33:00708Lundy, Sen KateSenator LUNDY7G6ACTALP00—The failure of this government to take effective action to ensure that the contracting out of taxpayer funded services does not result in this diminution is representative of this government's attitude to the services it provides. We are talking about a government that does not acknowledge or accept that there is a genuine role for government services in Australian society. Through the activities of this government, we know that not only are they committed to reducing the role of government in everybody's lives but their agenda is also an ideological one of trying to outsource everything that is conceivably possible, regardless of the impact on the citizens of Australia.The issue with respect to this matter of public importance is that the current program of the federal Liberal government to outsource government services is being handled in the most appalling way in three respects. Firstly, it does not acknowledge the rights of Australian citizens to be able to access an adequate and quality service on behalf of the government. Secondly, the government's proposal absolutely flouts and ignores the principles of sound administration when it comes to administering the process of the contractual outsourcing of such services. Thirdly, on the issue of public accountability relating to savings and government expenditure of taxpayers' money, this government has shown a continued departure from the evidence and facts that are available to it about their ability or otherwise to actually deliver those services and those savings. One of the best examples of this government's failure to address the issue of outsourcing services in the interests of Australians is the IT outsourcing, and we have already heard today how flippant, glib and shallow this government's defence of that policy is. Their continued references to Labor's previous policies in this regard show that they are not prepared to even acknowledge the issue at hand. The issue at hand is the way that this government is administering that process and their failings in that regard.We see blunder after blunder from the Minister for Finance and Administration in the way that he is managing the IT outsourcing program in particular. The first was the way that the minister managed to extend an existing contract to the Department of Finance and Administration through a piggyback after an unsolicited approach was received from IBM. This deal pre-empted the minister's own IT outsourcing strategy and shattered any credibility he may have had with industry, particularly seeing that there is no record of any other approach to the Department of Finance other than what has come to light through the estimates process—which was through a phone call. That contract scuttled the competitive tendering process outlined in the Department of Finance's own guidelines.We have now seen the Office of Government Information Technology—the agency that is charged with progressing this whole strategy—take up this habit with a vengeance. This time, evidence from estimates shows that more appointments of contractors were made without going through a competitive tendering process. In fact, officers of the government and of the department actually made approaches to potential contractors, totally departing from what is certainly sound, common practice of the competitive tendering and contracting procedure.It is worth noting at this point the Industry Commission report on competitive tendering and contracting out that was prepared to address such matters of probity and of process. The reason that report is called Competitive tendering and contracting out is quite specific. It is called that because the Industry Commission made it quite clear that if a government department contemplates contracting out a given service then they must assess the economic return, the savings and the public interest issues against providing that service in-house. Failure to provide for at least a comparison of the efficiencies and savings and public interest matters between an in-house service and a contracted-out service is a clear indicator of an ideological agenda on behalf of this government. With respect to the outsourcing of information technology services, the minister has specifically excluded the option of an in-house bid.Turning to those specific appointments, it turns out that Shaw Pittman Potts and Trowbridge and the Flexible Resources contract were given away by Mr Andy McDonald, the former chief executive of the Office of Government Information Technology, without that competitive process. It was also apparent, according to the evidence that came through the estimates process, that Mr McDonald appointed these contracts on the advice of colleagues in South Australia. Therefore, it comes as no surprise to me when we find out that Flexible Resources is in fact a one-person consultancy, with that work being performed by Yasmin King. Yasmin King apparently played a highly prominent role with respect to the whole of government IT outsourcing process in South Australia as a senior economic adviser to the former Premier of South Australia, Mr Dean Brown. Her contract, worth $320,000, is now with the Office of Asset Sales and Information Technology. It has also become apparent that it was Shaw Pittman Potts and Trowbridge that provided the consultancy to the South Australian government with respect to their whole of government IT outsourcing project.Continuing this never-ending saga of total contempt of public processes, the political pressure and industry concerns about conflict of interest eventually led to the appointment of a probity auditor to monitor the processes of the contracting out embarked upon by the Office of Government Information Technology. Fahey's efforts to address a political backlash from Australian IT companies have led to the waste of millions upon millions of dollars for the appointment of consultants to the Office of Government Information Technology specifically for the purposes of advising on industry development. However, in typical maladministration by Minister Fahey, it turns out that in fact it was the Department of Industry, Science and Tourism that ultimately drafted the clause relating specifically to industry development that was inserted in the Cluster 3 contract. So how can the minister justify this massive expenditure on consultants that were appointed without a competitive process to advise on the industry development matters?Further to this issue—and this goes to the very heart of what we are talking about when we make the legitimate claim that there is a lack of public accountability and a denial of due process and parliamentary scrutiny—is that the government has said that not only will the details of these contracts not be available for scrutiny, so that we cannot have the opportunity to assess whether taxpayers' money is being expended effectively, but the business case that is required to justify the outsourcing program in the first instance is also not to be made public. The point is this: we have a situation where a finance minister of Australia has had the responsibility of overseeing what would seem to be a relatively straightforward process, but systematically over the last two years we have seen blunder after blunder, to the point where the Cluster 3 contract, which was announced nearly one year ago, has just been let—3½ months out from the close of the fiscal year.16:43:00710Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEYO15NSWLP10—We have had an absolutely amazing waste of time in the Senate this afternoon. I think this would go down as a record in Senate history, certainly a record in my time here, of wasting the time of the Senate.5L6FERRISSenator Ferris—To protect Bolkus!O15Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEY—You are quite right, Senator, in that it is in part to protect Senator Bolkus that they have entered into this delay and time wasting process.DX5MARGETTSSenator Margetts—I was here in 1993 and your side weren't too special on filibustering.O15Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEY—If you have a look at what has happened today I am sure you would have to agree, Senator Margetts, that they have obviously got something terrible to hide if they are wasting so much time through notices of motion on this issue, wasting half of question time on this matter of IT outsourcing and taking note of answers, and now bringing forward this MPI. They have been trawling through this half the afternoon and they spent several days trawling through it last week. Compared to the Labor government, this government is showing up as a shining star in terms of the way in which it is handling things such as outsourcing. They bring up an occasional example here and there, and the main thing that Senator Lundy has been on about this afternoon—and she has been rabbiting on about it, as I recall, since three or four months ago—has gone absolutely nowhere.What this government is doing in the IT area is precisely the correct policy. We had one of the opposition senators claiming this afternoon that we were downgrading public services with this. What we are doing, of course, is reorientating the market to a more private approach which, in terms of IT, is far more appropriate. Even the socialists opposite recognise the need for this. In the early 1990s, your Prime Minister Paul Keating put forward a major approach which was leading to outsourcing of government sources. It is your policy and, as I will point out later, in terms of protection of privacy and protection of accountability—the sorts of things that Senator Lundy claims to be on about—this government has done far better than your government.It is important for us to move to a more private sector approach to this because IT is the way of the future, and it is absolutely essential that we develop local industries in this area. Have a look at what is happening in Malaysia, for example, with their multi-media super corridor where they are creating a new city called Cyberjaya, which is an information technology city. They are saying to world IT companies, `Come on down to Malaysia. We'll give you a five-year tax holiday. We'll allow 100 per cent foreign ownership.' They are setting up a system where they want to be a magnet for IT.We have to set up competing strategies in this country and we must encourage and develop the IT industry, and that is exactly what we are doing with this. The government outsourcing process, and particularly the way it is being managed at the moment, is a very successful kick-start to this. Let us have a look at some of the companies that benefit from this. As reported in the Australian today, about 24 per cent of the work will be carried out by local small and medium-sized businesses, such as IPEC, Call Express, Randata, Jtech, Execp, Century Software, Macro 4, CCA, SDA, CSS, Ubiquity and Tech Communications. These are small- to medium-sized Australian businesses that are going to benefit enormously from this, and they have expressed great satisfaction with the process.The local IT industry is delighted with the way in which this has developed. It is not just great news for industry in general but, if I can refer back to a notice of motion by Senator Quirk, it is also great news for regional Australia. Two of the great beneficiaries of this process are Canberra and the Hunter Valley. It is of some irony that the first speaker on this is Senator Lundy, followed by me, because the two great beneficiaries are Canberra and the Hunter Valley. We welcome it, we are delighted, and I wonder why Senator Lundy is putting up something against the interests of Canberra. I thought she was actually the senator representing Canberra.There has been a great benefit to regional Australia starting from this process and it will continue in the future because IT is one thing that will work extremely well out in regional centres, and in the Hunter, and I am sure in Canberra, people are totally delighted even though Senator Lundy may not be.The ALP—getting back to their rather spurious claims—claimed that this was not an open process. An article in last Friday's Australian Financial Review by Ian Davis puts the lie to this. He shows how open the government outsourcing program is. The article says:Australia's local information technology industry has expressed delightSenator Lundy, I hope you are listening to this-and surprise at the high levels of local industry participation in the Federal Government's first whole of government IT outsourcing process.Senator Lundy, why are you making this an MPI? We know you are trying to protect Senator Bolkus, but we are absolutely delight ed that you are enabling us to highlight the success of this government's outsourcing policy.Not only are there benefits to regional Australia, but also there are great benefits to costs in government. If we look at the savings that stem from this contract, agencies will save around 30 per cent over five years on their projected IT costs while improving services. Why on earth is the opposition complaining about that? It is a great outcome. The news gets even better. We should have Senator Parer here—the minister for good news—because here is more good news, and it is not in mineral exports; this is in IT exports. Out of this process that Senator Lundy is complaining about, the commitment to export is $55 million and, as I say, that is just the start. The Labor Party seems to be critical of all of these benefits.Since 1991, Labor's own policy on outsourcing of government IT, interestingly enough, given the remarks of Senator Lundy, had actually no protection in the privacy area. This is an area which the government is committed to. The ALP points to accountability as a problem with outsourcing. Yet, Senator Lundy, if you have a look at the Industry Commission report of 1996 on competitive tendering and contracting by Public Service agencies, it found that `when done well competitive tendering and contracting can lead to significant improvements in accountability. There is no doubt that the government is doing it well when it comes to outsourcing.7G6LUNDYSenator Lundy—The government is not doing it well!O15Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEY—You are asserting that, Senator. Of course, your whole strategy through these last two weeks has nothing to do with reality or truth. You get up in the Senate and you make an assertion: `This is not working. This is hopeless,' and you are wrong. It is working, and I have given evidence today of how it is working very well. It improves efficiency, it creates jobs and it saves Australian taxpayers money. If you had been listening a little earlier, instead of talking up the back, you would have seen how that was happening.We have heard in the chamber today from Senator Hill and Senator Kemp that outsourcing is a `triumph' for this government because it allows services to be better provided in a less costly and much more efficient way. In addition, this government has made it clear that the public sector cannot outsource accountability. Agencies remain accountable to government, to the parliament and, through the ministers, to their clients. The very nature of competitive tendering and contracting out will improve accountability and transparency because it requires clear specification of tasks. Senator Lundy has already been told today that it is ridiculous for her to criticise the coalition outsourcing policy when Labor had an outsourcing policy in 1991. I repeat Senator Hill's claim that this is a triumph for the government. That is precisely what it is. We are pleased that you have raised this matter today. It gives us the chance to highlight the government's great success in this area, and that will continue into the future.16:53:00712Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—The Democrats are genuinely pleased that this matter has been raised today. On behalf of the Democrats, we support this matter of public importance and we will put on record our concerns in relation to the contracting out of taxpayer funded services and the diminution of accountability or services as a consequence.This government's stubborn insistence on the outsourcing of services demonstrates that it is quite willing to gamble with what we consider quite a flawed ideology. Sadly, the losers from this kind of policy are often the most disadvantaged—those who find themselves disenfranchised. All too often, the winners are big business and the government itself.I refer in particular to the recent privatisation of employment services. This scheme has been shown to be flawed both in conception and now in operation. From the outset, the Democrats have had deep concerns regarding the accountability of service providers under the scheme to their clients. Despite the minister's repeated assertions, we see little in the verbal assurances to counter these fears. This morning the minister claimed, on the AM program, that:Drake have said if they come to us we'd consider taking them for that job along with everyone else who was the best person for the job.This is clearly no assurance whatsoever, but rather further evidence of the commitment to profits ahead of people. What of the thousands of unemployed people who will not be so easy to place? Drake and other commercial providers, including Employment National, are bound to maximise profits and will therefore not necessarily have a commitment to placing persons, who often include the long-term unemployed. We heard yesterday that those numbers have increased since this government came to power. We are talking about the disadvantaged, those with disabilities, people from traditionally disadvantaged groups, be they indigenous Australians, migrants or ex-offenders—those people who are not deemed by them to be the best person for the job.There are no incentives or supervision of private providers to ensure that they provide services to those with disabilities or those who may be difficult to place. These organisations will be paid according to results, and the incentive is there for them to maximise their profits and prioritise those who are easiest to place.Contrary to government claims today and at other times, services have been cut, access has been narrowed, choice has been decimated under this new scheme and significant delays in commencement are expected. In particular, the number of service providers of employment services to the disadvantaged has fallen by 61 per cent to 125. Figures released today from the Bureau of Statistics reveal that the effective number of unemployed persons is actually two million—almost 19 per cent, and double the official rate. Given the likelihood that many of these will re-enter the job market, how does the government expect the new system to cope?Of even greater concern are the widespread fears in the industry that the tendering process has operated to give Employment National the employment market on a plate. This is perhaps—and what we fear most—a move to fatten up Employment National in readiness for a future sell-off. So we could have future privatisation. We have seen organisations with proven experience lose out to organisations with little or no capacity to deliver the services for which they were contracted. Employment National has been awarded a disproportionate amount of the most lucrative work at the expense of the smaller providers.We believe that the government has callously disregarded the needs and interests of some of the most needy people in our community by once again placing profits before people and not only gambling away $1.7 billion of funding on a system which was unravelling even before it started but condemning hundreds of thousands of Australians to uncertainty.The Democrats welcome the Labor Party's return to recognising the importance of accountability and the role of administrative law as a central element of government accountability. However, their actions over the years have not necessarily matched this new found vigour, and I speak specifically in relation to privacy legislation.Over the last year, privacy has travelled a rocky road, and we heard some indication of this from Senator Chapman during taking note. On 12 September 1996, the Attorney-General (Mr Williams) released a discussion paper which set out a scheme based on the existing information privacy principles in the Privacy Act 1988 and adds to this codes of practice and a range of additional provisions which address the particular concerns of the private sector in relation to privacy. Then, on 21 March last year, the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) announced that the Privacy Act 1988 would not be extended to the private sector. The Prime Minister ended Australia's chance at an international best practice privacy scheme which had cross-party support in parliament. The reasons for this decision are still unclear, but it was another broken election promise.XH4McGAURANSenator McGauran—Privacy implications.3I6Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA—Senator McGauran, you can have your go. I have heard you on privacy. I have yet to hear a clear reason from the other side as to why they breached that election promise. Nevertheless, on 28 August 1997, I moved a motion referring the privacy debate to the legal and constitutional committee. This motion was rejected by the Senate—spectacularly, I admit—on 23 September, 41 votes to 10. The coalition and the Labor Party combined to vote against this motion; however, the Democrats, the Greens and Senator Harradine did support the motion. The reasons for the Labor Party backflip following their keen support in earlier debates is uncertain.Since then, the spokesperson for the Labor Party on this issue, Senator Bolkus, has indicated that the private sector must be subject to the Privacy Act. There is merit in that conclusion, except that they had a rather different line before the Prime Minister altered his conclusion. The Democrats have always advocated that the private sector should be covered by a legislated privacy scheme. This is particularly urgent in light of the contracting out of government services.There is clear evidence, we believe, that there has been a diminution in the nature and quality of services provided and in accountability in relation to those services as a result of the contracting out of taxpayer funded services. Perhaps the irony of this debate in relation to privacy is that the Labor Party and the coalition have both ignored some good ideas from the Democrats which would have resolved some of our present concerns. If the Labor Party had supported former Senator Janine Haines's amendments in 1988 there would be no debate about this issue in 1998 and we might have actually had laws that protected not only taxpayer funded services but also the interests of all Australians.17:00:00713Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—The Greens (WA) stand for on four basic principles: peace and disarmament, environmental sustainability, social justice and non-violence. It is not surprising therefore that we were concerned in 1995 about the competition policy which basically said that the profit motive will provide public services. We have been asked to talk about two main aspects today: accountability and redress.Accountability is about whether there is any comeback on what governments provide. The 1997 report from the Senate Finance and Public Administration References Committee on information technology and the contracting out of government services says:. . . the chain of responsibility for the conduct of those services goes from the hands-on operators through their superiors to senior officials and ultimately through the minister to Parliament.. . . . . . . . .When you impose a contract in the chain, service provision is placed in the hands of persons not under the day-to-day control of the government department or agency.Indeed, the Attorney-General's department said:. . . the contractor is an independent contractor which is responsible for its own actions in the course of the performance of the services. It is a principle under the general law that an employer is . . . liable for its employees (over whom it exercises direct control), but a principal is not held responsible for the actions of an independent contractor (over whom it does not have exercise direct control).It is all very well to say that when the contracts are renegotiated a contractor will get its comeuppance but it is not a great help to those people who require a remedy.That leads me to the right to redress. We have a situation where it is very difficult to access remedies via the Ombudsman, judicial review and freedom of information legislation because of the very nature of contracts and private contracts. I will give you an example from an administrative law forum of a case study involving a pensioner who was unsatisfied with his negotiations with an Australia Post contractor for compensation for damage caused by the contractor to his letterbox. The pensioner approached Australia Post about compensation but they refused payment. To cut a long story short, the contractor offered one-third of the money. Australia Post advised that the issue of compensation was a matter between the pensioner and the contractor on the basis that the contractor was not an employee of Australia Post and the mail delivery contract excluded Australia Post being liable.Australia Post said that it could not:compel the contractor to meet the cost of the damage; compel the contractor to reach an agreed settlement with the complainant; andand itself, admit vicarious responsibility.The outcome was that the office raised with Australia Post the issue of changes. This was in 1995.17:03:00714O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—This is a government that came into office with a deep suspicion of the public service. It ignored the fact that within its bureaucracy there was a large number of highly skilled professional officers with significant experience in a range of key areas.One of the areas I want to touch on in respect of the government's reaction to those facts that it commenced its office with is the maritime and waterfront area where just such expertise and experience existed. The former transport minister Mr Sharp, along with his ministerial staff, were key offenders in this regard. Following his appointment, Mr Sharp engaged consultants ACIL Economics to develop a waterfront strategy. But this was not a strategy designed to build on the gains made in this sector under the Labor government; it was a strategy designed first and foremost to achieve a political end—a plan to get the ACTU through the Maritime Union of Australia.The Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business (Mr Reith) became an active player in the development of that plan and in the end he took complete control. His control is now such that we have the illogical administrative arrangement with the Maritime Transport Division being shifted out of the Department of Transport and Regional Development along with the Australian Maritime Safety Authority and ANL into the Department of Workplace Relations and Small Business. This plan was built by former staffers of the Liberal Party and the National Farmers Federation. It was a plan that cost the taxpayers over $1½ million, with no accountability at all for the expenditure of those funds.The ACIL Economics contract was let on 15 May 1996. The value of that contract was $60,000 but it blew out to $80,000. The report was completed in August and was considered by a number of ministers, includ ing the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business. It was on Mr Reith's recommendation that the report was shelved until the new industrial relations laws came into play.Last night on Four Corners, Mr Reith said that he could vaguely remember reading the report, in which there was a reference to the use of Army personnel. He said he recalled:There was some reference in an ACIL report to that effect, that's true.He said that the government was opposed to the use of military personnel on the waterfront.Mr Reith's vagueness about the detail of the ACIL report is extremely hard to believe. After all, he was a member of the cabinet subcommittee on maritime reform. The other members were the Treasurer (Mr Costello), the Minister for Finance (Mr Fahey) and Mr Sharp before he was forced to resign. Mr Reith was the minister who recommended to that subcommittee that the recommendations of the ACIL report be held over. He was the minister who had on his desk on 27 February last year a waterfront reform strategy developed by his department in consultation with the Department of Transport and Regional Development that was built around the disposal of the entire work force and its replacement with non-union labour. That was the ACIL plan.The government does not have to use military personnel. Its lieutenants, the National Farmers Federation, are in the process of doing just that at the government's behest. Patrick, the stevedoring company, was commissioned to do the task but it failed and the job was given to the National Farmers Federation. A number of the Dubai mercenaries trained for Patrick are now on the job at Webb Dock.I turn again to the consultancies let by this government in relation to its waterfront strategy. These consultancies have been used to refine the ACIL plan embraced by Mr Reith at the end of 1996. On 20 June last year another ACIL contract was signed, and that contract was valued at up to $600,000. It was done without any tender process at the direction of the minister, Mr Sharp. Some 10 days later Mr Reith got into the act again. He organised for a consultancy to be let to a former Liberal staffer, Dr Stephen Webster, again on waterfront reform, but he did not pay. He organised for Mr Sharp's department to pay. It was his consultancy, but it was not on the books of his department.A senior officer in the maritime transport division told the Senate estimates committee that Mr Sharp directed him to engage Dr Webster. Dr Feeney, the Assistant Secretary of the Maritime Division, told the committee:The then minister, Mr Sharp, instructed us to engage Dr Webster on the basis of the discussion that he had had with some of his cabinet colleagues.Dr Feeney said that there had been a subcommittee of cabinet established to look at maritime reform issues. He said that Mr Sharp consulted with those ministers and instructed him to engage Dr Webster. Dr Webster was given his head to hire anyone he liked. He employed a former colleague Dr John Davies. Dr Webster received $95,000 and Dr Davies was paid approximately $96,000. Dr Webster also engaged Corrs Chamber Westgarth, David Webb, BGC Media and the National Institute of Labour Studies.Not to be outdone, Mr Sharp engaged Minter Ellison at a cost of nearly $160,000, and ACIL then engaged Liberal pollster Mark Textor's company, Australasian Research Strategies, at a cost of $42,000 to do the political research for the government's plan to destroy the MUA. Liberal strategist Jonathan Gaul was also employed to build a political communications strategy around the Textor research. All these consultancies which the government has refused to provide to the Senate were not related to micro-economic reform; they were part of a political and industrial campaign designed to get the ACTU and the MUA and to advance the industrial agenda of the Howard government and the National Farmers Federation.Why are we speaking about this in relation to this particular motion? Because the government denies the Senate—even though the Senate has ordered the minister to produce the results of those consultancies—the reports arising from those consultancies on the basis that they are allegedly commercial in confidence or cabinet in confidence. At the same time we now have evidence that those same consultancies that were commercial and cabinet in confidence have been revealed at meetings involving officers other than members of parliament and members of the Public Service. We believe—in fact, we are certain—that those other people were officers of the National Farmers Federation. So much for commercial in confidence and cabinet in confidence.What has the government done in relation to the situation where Mr Hoolihan, one of the ACIL consultancy consultants, is now on the board of P&C Stevedoring, yet he was part of the development of the first ACIL consultancy reports? What has the government done in relation to ensuring that there is not a conflict of interest? I can tell you because we dealt with this in estimates: absolutely nothing. There is no strategy to do anything because no-one allegedly who is in a position to do anything or wants to do anything has seen these reports. They are not in a position to do anything. So much for government accountability and the government pursuing the interests of the public in terms of enforcing contracts that it let without a tendering process for its political ends and not in the interests of the Australian people.17:11:00716Ferris, Sen JeannieSenator FERRIS5L6SALP10—That was a very interesting discourse on accountability. I think what Senator O'Brien strangely neglected to talk about was the attempts to make the Australian waterfront accountable to those people who use it, as well as the rest of Australia. Senator Lundy's motion today purports to be concerned with government accountability. She gave some examples of it here this afternoon, and Senator Stott Despoja also talked about accountability in relation to aspects of privacy. It is useful to repeat what Senator Lundy talked about in her motion. She wants to ensure that the contracting out of taxpayer funded services does not result in a diminution of the level of government accountability. I could not agree more, but let us have a look at the benchmark of accountability in this place: the Labor Party's record of accountability in government; a very appropriate benchmark of accountability.It seems to me that Labor are the last people—and I am sorry that Senator Lundy is not here and, for that matter, Senator Stott Despoja either—who should be delivering lectures in this place on accountability of contracting out of taxpayer funded services. This is the Labor Party that under the now deposed emperor gave us the Ros Kelly school of accountability—the great big white board that was as big as a tennis court. This is the same party that is responsible for the Graham Richardson revelation in the current issue of the Bulletin where he confessed that without the white board he managed to disburse I think he used the words `tens of millions of dollars of taxpayers' money' to Labor electorates and Labor's mates, but he got away with it.This is the level of accountability that we are talking about in this place. There is no accountability from the Labor Party. This is a shameful motion. The Labor Party's accountability is zip, and the best example of this is the accountability of Labor's Working Nation. Let us have a look at what Working Nation actually promised in terms of accountability, what they promised the unemployed of this country they would be accountable for. Former Senator Gareth Evans got it right on this occasion when he said unemployment is without—Senator Conroy interjecting—5L6Ferris, Sen JeannieSenator FERRIS—Senator Conroy was not a beneficiary of Working Nation. After his training program he fortunately found a job. He is one of few. If he had been on Working Nation I would not like his chances. Senator Gareth Evans said the following:Unemployment is without question the greatest problem we face. Unemployment saps the confidence and self-esteem of our fellow Australians—which in turn saps the nation's. It damages the social fabric.Well, it certainly does. Those people who took part in Working Nation found that, at the end of it—after the countless training courses and programs that they were put on—they were sacked, and sacked, and sacked; but they certainly were not employed.What did Labor do in promising to fix this problem and be accountable for the millions, in fact billions of dollars that it sank into the Working Nation program? Mr Beazley's now deputy, former Senator Gareth Evans, made this promise when he tabled Labor's Working Nation plan in this place:If you have been a long time out of work, we will offer you employment and training.He quoted the Prime Minister's words from election night in 1993, and he said:. . . we will not leave the unemployed behind.Where was the accountability in this? He boasted that the Working Nation program was tailored to meet the needs of the unemployed in a modern Australian economy, and it `will serve Australia for many years'. What an ill-fitting, totally unaccountable, old fashioned, outmoded garment it turned out to be. It was rejected by all those who tried it on—absolutely, without question, totally unaccountable.What Working Nation actually delivered, in terms of accountability, turned out to be a $12 billion disgrace—a disgrace. In fact, during the half decade between 1 July 1990 and May 1996, only 16,000 full-time jobs were created under Labor; and between July 1990 and February 1933, 339,800 full-time jobs were lost.I notice that former Prime Minister Hawke is now sorry about the economic circumstances that brought this about. He is, eight years later, suddenly accountable. That is an interesting timelag in terms of accountability. I hope that we will not have to wait that long for Senator Faulkner to apologise to the Baillieu family.Labor's legacy of unemployment peaked at 11.2 per cent in December 1992. That is an act of disgraceful accountability—absolutely disgraceful accountability. It is a benchmark that should have the opposition in this place hanging its head in shame. Labor's One Nation programs saw three out of five people still unemployed at the end of the programs—and we are in here to answer questions about our accountability! What about the accountability to the thousands of Australians who believed in those empty and meaningless promises, as they optimistically got up off the couch, got up out of their beds and went to yet another training program?Senator Stott Despoja touched on aspects of privacy, particularly in relation to the new arrangements for employment services contracts. Privacy issues are covered by the Commonwealth contract with Job Network members which specifically prohibits them from breaching information privacy principles. The contract was developed in very close consultation with the Privacy Commissioner, and it does ensure that appropriate safeguards to those under the Privacy Act will be applied. It has exactly the same provisions as have contracts with labour market program providers which are in place now and, in fact, were in place when Labor was in government.But let us never forget that the Howard government's record of accountability has begun already; it began soon after it took office in March 1996. In fact, since that date, 223,700 new jobs have been created. How is that for accountability, Senator Conroy? A good deal better than the labour market program under `Not Working Nation' that you put up—3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—Unemployment is going up!5L6Ferris, Sen JeannieSenator FERRIS—and a good deal better on accountability than you will be judged to be at the next election.17:18:00717Murphy, Sen ShayneSenator MURPHYFX5TASALP00—On this matter of public importance on outsourcing, I just want to say that the part of the motion which says:. . . the failure of the government . . . to ensure that the contracting out of taxpayer funded services does not result in a diminution of the level of government accountability . . . probably would have been more appropriately worded as `that has resulted in the loss of government accountability'—because that is exactly what has happened. As the chair of the Finance and Public Administration References Committee which has been conducting an inquiry into some aspects of outsourcing, I have found it very interesting to note some of the evidence that has been submitted. But what is more interesting is the approach that the government has taken—and that is the `honest John Howard Prime Minister government'. He said that he was going to bring to the parliament a new sense of integrity, a new sense of honesty, and a new sense of everything else. It obviously was not a core commitment, because he has brought to the parliament none of those things.What we have seen though, with regard to the outsourcing of government taxpayer funded services, is a number of documents that have been developed over time to provide advice to public servants about what they should do. I think I started to lose count of how many documents there were. But one of particular note is this agreement, which I have read from before: the Commonwealth procurement guidelines. Of course, there is a glowing letter in here about the guidelines. In terms of the processes that we are supposed to go through, firstly, I suppose, the most important part is open and effective competition—something on which this government prided itself that it would deliver; it would deliver open and effective competition.Has it? Certainly not with regard to all of the IT outsourcing—not one little bit. Millions of dollars worth of contracts have been let—and not one has been advertised. But what does it say about open and effective competition? It says `open and effective competition is the central operating principle for all Commonwealth procurement'. The Prime Minister (Mr Howard) could not have read it.The Minister for Finance (Mr Fahey) could not have read it. He obviously did not read it because, when he piggybacked the Department of Finance outsourcing onto the Department of Veterans' Affairs, was there an advertisement, was there a public notice? No. Was there any competition? No.Of course, it goes on and makes a few other points. But I suppose another important part is ethics—ethics and fair dealing. What does it say in these Commonwealth procurement guidelines? It says:In procurement, as in all aspects of business and public administration, if all parties involved adhere to ethical standards they can:. deal with each other on a basis of mutual trust and respect . . . You have really won the mutual trust and respect of the Australian IT industry, haven't you? You have done real well. How much business have they secured as a result of this stupid, unfair and unethical process that you as a government have been going through? Talk about jobs for the boys and mates rates. It all applies here. The book should have been renamed `Jobs for the Boys' and `Mates Rates: how to go about it'. It says further:Commonwealth staff associated with procurement, particularly those dealing directly with suppliers, should ensure that they:. recognise and deal with conflicts of interest . . . That is interesting. I notice that it says `staff'; it does not say `members of parliament'. It also says `deal with suppliers even-handedly'. That is an interesting little statement. What have you done with regard to advertising? You cannot have competitive and effective competition unless you place adverts and call for tenders. That is the process that ought to have been in place.I go to accountability and reporting, which the government made much ado about. In fact, only when it was in opposition did it talk about accountability. Now you do not want to talk about it. You do not want to do it, but you provide a document to public servants which says:Accountability involves making individuals and organisations answerable for their plans and actions and for the outcomes of these.Why is it that when we questioned in the estimates process about the names of those people who tendered for the EPI and PEPIs—just the names of them; we did not seek any significant information—they could not be provided? Why not? It was because of commercial in confidence. What a ridiculous statement. It really demonstrates how far this government has gone backwards from its position in opposition.I can remember government senators when they were in opposition talking on many committees about accountability and so on. But where are they now? It will be interesting to see what Senator Chapman has to say about that, as he was one of those who used to pursue it with some vigour when in opposition.That is not the only matter on which this government has done a major backflip from when it was in opposition. The other issue is privacy. What have you done about privacy, about protecting people's private and personal information? You have done not one thing. I think it was the minister who said recently that there are contracts that say that it would be illegal—I do not know how you can actually bring about some judgment on that—to process personal information offshore. But you have not enacted any legislation to stop that. You never will because you do not care. (Time expired)17:26:00719Chapman, Sen GrantSenator CHAPMANFF4SALP10—This matter of public importance debate this afternoon, raised by the Labor opposition, only shows how bereft of ideas and policies this Labor Party is. This is a pathetic excuse for an opposition. They cannot find any real issues on which to attack the government, so they try to manufacture one in the form of information technology outsourcing.All it has served to show is their utter hypocrisy because it was the Labor Party in government that initiated this very policy. Let me remind the Senate again that it was in 1991 that Prime Minister Hawke issued his industry statement `Building a Competitive Australia', which established the contracting out of government information technology services as Labor government policy. What short memories you have over there.What about the policy statement in 1995 by then finance minister Kim Beazley—your $10 billion black hole Leader of the Opposition? The outsourcing of government infrastructure was made Labor Party policy by that finance minister's circular in 1995, when he said, amongst other things, that agencies must test the market for the outsourcing of both new and existing information technology services as an alternative to the maintenance of in-house capabilities. That document was Framework and strategies for information technology in the Commonwealth of Australia, launched by then finance minister Kim Beazley. The statement of Bob Hawke was followed by the Department of Veterans' Affairs' outsourcing of its information technology requirements in 1991. It was the first department to do so.Conveniently, all of these facts are now forgotten by the Labor opposition in their attempt to discredit the present government's approach to this issue. What really gripes the Labor opposition is the fact that, where they completely and utterly failed with regard to information technology outsourcing, the present government is succeeding. Although Labor introduced the policy in 1991, they lacked the intestinal fortitude to carry it through to proper implementation. Also, they did not have control over their departments, or the departments thumbed their noses at the Labor government and their directions on outsourcing. The then government ignored the policy and continued to develop their own individual information technology system.The Labor government failed dismally in the implementation of its policy. It failed to achieve maximum outsourcing. It failed to achieve any additional value for money, and it failed to achieve agency efficiencies, as was stated in the policy memorandum. As I said, only one department in Labor's last five years in government outsourced its information technology—that is, the contract entered into by the Department of Veterans' Affairs with Ferntree for outsourcing.Contrast the litany of failure of the previous Labor government with the success that this government has been achieving in its two years in office. That element of criticism simply does not stand up to scrutiny. Then Senator Lundy in this debate raised the issue of privacy, as she did by wasting our time and taking note of answers earlier in this chamber today. It was the Labor government during those five years—when, as I have already indicated, quite limited outsourcing was achieved—that completely ignored the issue of privacy, Senator Conroy.Senator Conroy interjecting—FF4Chapman, Sen GrantSenator CHAPMAN—It did nothing to amend the Privacy Act to take account of outsourcing. Again, we see this utter hypocrisy where they get up in this chamber and criticise this government on privacy con cerns—something they were completely uninterested in when they were in government.There was but one breach of privacy during the period that Labor was involved in its outsourcing. Senator Faulkner admitted that the Department of Veterans' Affairs was told by the Labor government to provide lists of names for Jim Soorley, their Brisbane Labor mate, the mayor of Brisbane, so that he could send out Christmas cards—a leak for political purposes instigated by the previous government. There was no other problem with privacy whatsoever during the period of outsourcing, either under the previous government or under this government. At least this government is doing something about the privacy issue. We do have amendments to the Privacy Act currently in the House of Representatives to deal with this issue. So there will be an improved protection of privacy as far as outsourcing is concerned.The government has also indicated that it will extend the Freedom of Information Act to cover documents held by a private sector provider where the contracting agency itself has right of access to documents. If an agency sees the need for the Australian National Audit Office to have right of access to a contractor's premises, a clause to that effect can be included in the contract.Labor senators have also argued that contractors cannot be held accountable. Competitive tendering and contracting is a performance improvement tool that can be used to ensure that in-house provision of services is competitive with the private sector and vice versa. Competitive tendering and contracting, by virtue of providing a clear specification of tasks and standards, can improve accountability and transparency—quite in contrast to what we have heard this afternoon from the opposition.The government services charter initiative requires that any agency offering services to clients develop a charter in consultation with their clients. Clients can clearly stipulate the standards that clients expect and stipulate who should be the target of their complaints if the service is not delivered to that standard. The agency must publicly report on their perform ance against the undertakings made in the charter on an annual basis.There have also been complaints about the alleged lack of competitive process in the appointment of contracts with regard to outsourcing. The fact is that this government is approaching outsourcing case by case and contract by contract. While being opposed to a blanket extension of the administrative law to the private sector through competitive tendering and contracting arrangements, they do advise that agencies should think about their contractual arrangements. So, again, administrative law features quite strongly there. (Time expired)Committees72072072017:33:00720Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY3L6VICALP00—On behalf of the Economics References Committee, I present the following report:Unauthorised disclosure of committee report—Report by the Chair of the Economic References Committee (Senator Jacinta Collins), dated 10 March 1998.72072010000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator McKiernan)—The President has received a letter from the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate seeking a variation to the membership of the Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee.Motion (by Senator Troeth)—by leave—agreed to:That Senator Conroy be appointed a participating member of the Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee.72072017:35:00720O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—I move:That the following matter be referred to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee for inquiry and report by 1 June 1998: The effects of pricing and slot management arrangements at Kingsford Smith Airport on regional airlines and communities.This is a proposal to establish a reference for the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee to inquire into the impact of proposed increased landing charges at Kingsford Smith airport and particularly how they will impact on rural and regional communities and airlines and the services that are applied to them.Regional Australia has paid an extremely high price for this government's obsession with the fiscal bottom line. This opposition argued exactly this point at the time of the first Howard budget and again last year. We said that the same fiscal objectives could have been achieved without the enormous damage that Mr Howard has inflicted on the Australian community and families, whether it be in cuts to child-care centres, the closure of the CES, Medicare and tax offices and cuts to aged care to name just a few.Unless there can be a change to what appears to be a likely substantial increase in landing charges at Kingsford Smith airport, then regional New South Wales will be facing another assault through this government in the form of those dramatic increases in landing charges. They will be imposed on regional airlines wishing to access Kingsford Smith airport.When the Sydney Airport Demand Management Bill was introduced into the parliament, the opposition supported it. In his second reading speech, the minister said that one of the objectives in developing the slot system was to guarantee residents in regional New South Wales continued access to Kingsford Smith airport. However, at the time the bill was passed there was no indication of the huge increase in charges that might be imposed on regional airlines in New South Wales. In the light of the increases now being flagged by the Federal Airports Corporation, there is a need to revisit the whole issue. That is the reason I am proposing that the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee undertake this inquiry.We understand from the minister's office that there is a fairly short space of time in which this committee could conduct an inquiry and report, given the proposed timetable for the introduction of the charges. I understand that there was some intention to make the decision on increased charges formally at an FAC board level at the beginning of May. Notwithstanding that, the proposed reporting date for this committee is 1 June, given that I am sure the committee will do what it can and report as quickly as possible.There is a need to ensure that the residents of country New South Wales in particular and the airlines that provide them with services, as well as the government, have an opportunity to make an input into the inquiry and to at least have a say in some forum which might be able to make some recommendations which might impact on this latest proposal which I heard about most recently at an estimates committee hearing the week before last.There are two issues that must be considered here: first, the management of the slot system; and, secondly, the price regional airlines in New South Wales will have to pay to access that system. These two issues are fundamental to the future viability of regional airlines in New South Wales but they are also fundamental to the future growth of the regional centres in New South Wales.As we have now found that the FAC is reviewing charges to be applied to regional airlines seeking access to KSA, we also find that the corporation has produced a discussion paper outlining possible fee increases. According to the Regional Airlines Association of Australia, if the increases proposed by the FAC go ahead, some small operators in New South Wales will see their Sydney landing fees jump by 45 per cent. That could amount to the price of some tickets jumping by as much as $25. Many towns in New South Wales could possibly lose their regular airline services as a result. The FAC plans, as I understand them, are to introduce a new schedule of charges from 1 July.My office has been in contact with a number of regional airlines about this matter. According to Hazelton Airlines, the planned increase in charges on that airline over the next three years will be in the order of 50 per cent. By the third year of the new schedule that airline will be paying, as they understand it and as they reported to us, $1 million more than they do now in landing fees. The executive director of Hazelton, Mr Greg Russell, was quoted in the Central Western Daily as saying:Our view is that the rights of people in regional centres to access the capital city airports should be inviolate.Development in these centres often depends on quick access to Sydney.So the people in regional New South Wales have a legitimate claim to be heard on this issue. I propose that the committee, through the seeking of submissions and public hearings in a number of regional centres, give the people of New South Wales just that opportunity.I note from media monitoring sources that the federal Minister for Transport and Regional Development, Mr Vaile, has urged regional airline companies to make submissions to the Federal Airports Corporation over landing fee increases at Sydney airport. Certainly they should do that but there ought to be an opportunity for an independent process to have a look at this exercise given that there is a concern that the FAC, being a body which will shortly cease to exist, will have no accountability on this issue—they will make the decision and then the body will cease to exist. The result will be a decision of a board about to expire and the people of New South Wales will have had very little, if any, opportunity to have any input into that decision.Judging by the monitoring of publications in rural and regional New South Wales such as the Forbes Advocate, the Daily Liberal, which is a publication in Wagga, the Central Western Daily and the Border Mail, there is a significant amount of interest in this issue within rural and regional New South Wales. Indeed, the New South Wales Country Summit, an organisation which is closely connected with Independent member of New South Wales parliament, Mr Tony Windsor, put out a press release calling for a united approach from all country based lobby groups and state and federal politicians of all persua sions against the push to remove regional airline access to Kingsford Smith Airport.There have also been articles where the New South Wales Premier is quoted as criticising moves to increase landing fees at Sydney airport, with federal member for Shortland, Mr Peter Morris, taking similar issue. As I said, Minister Vaile is reported in country media on the same issue and radio stations all over the state have been broadcasting news items which refer to this issue.It is not just an issue of access to Sydney by residents of rural and regional New South Wales—perhaps I am stealing Senator West's thunder on this—but there are quite a number of people who travel interstate from rural and regional New South Wales via Kingsford Smith Airport. Should this new charge system have the effect of driving smaller airlines from Kingsford Smith Airport, it will become a great burden on people to travel, say, from Wagga or anywhere in the central west, including Dubbo and Wellington. If they want to travel to Brisbane or Melbourne, they usually fly to Kingsford Smith to pick up one of the Qantas or Ansett flights.If these charges have the effect of driving the airlines that service those communities away from Kingsford Smith, the task of travelling interstate for those people will be even greater. I suggest that that can only have a negative impact on the ability of the businesses in those communities to operate competitively.There are many other reasons why people want to use regional airlines to travel to cities but at this stage, until there is consensus about how the system might be managed other than how it is managed now—that is, the airlines servicing rural and regional New South Wales have access to Kingsford Smith airport—it is inappropriate to in effect go along a backdoor route of driving them away by increasing landing charges to such an extent that the airlines' operations become uneconomical or the cost of travel becomes prohibitive for residents of country New South Wales. I ask that the Senate support this reference motion.17:46:00722Troeth, Sen JudithSenator TROETHGX5VICLP10—I thought I should indicate now that the government will not be opposing this motion.17:46:00723West, Sen SueSenator WEST1X4NSWALP00—I am glad that the government will not be opposing this motion. It is just a pity that the government will not implement a scheme whereby this motion and others like it would not be necessary, whereby charges for landing at Kingsford Smith would not be an issue for people in rural and regional New South Wales, who are going to be priced out of the airport. That is of major concern to many people—in fact, everybody who lives west of the Great Dividing Range, from Newcastle north and basically from Wollongong south. Certainly people down here in Canberra would be concerned about it as well.Kingsford Smith airport is the major hub for air traffic in the state of New South Wales. It is a major industry for New South Wales. It is the gateway for tourism in that state as well. This is of major concern, as has been pointed out earlier, within the industry. I have press comments from the Brederecks, who are involved with Tamair, an airline operating out of Tamworth and running a regional service in that region. They say regional airlines already have to count every penny and a rise of just $1 or $2 in ticket prices would see sales drop. These airlines are running with smaller aircraft—18-, 19- or 36-seaters. These people cannot afford to have even a one or two per cent drop in the number of passengers without it beginning to affect their viability.It is most unfortunate that this has happened. Mr Bredereck, in an article in the Northern Daily Leader, is quoted as saying that this is `politically driven' and `discriminatory against rural passengers' and:Rural airlines' access to Sydney Airport is supposed to have been enshrined in legislation—that is, in the airport demand bill—and yet the FAC has suddenly said they are going to change the fee structure. What they are proposing is totally contrary to that.Mr Bredereck, General Manager of Tamair, further says:Regional airlines already operate dangerously close to the "thin edge of the wedge" and had to fight vigorously to maintain current services.Another article says:Regional airline operators fear they are being squeezed out of access to Sydney Airport because the Federal Airports Corporation . . . is attempting to increase the airport's profitability to get a better price when it is sold to private interests . . . the basis of the FAC's argument is that every aircraft movement at the airport must bear an equal share of the fixed cost of providing the airport's facilities "as each movement prevents an alternative movement".There are aircraft of different weights. The requirements for commuter aircraft and the damage they would do by way of wear and tear is not the same as that for a 747 or a 737. It is of major concern. The article continues:Regional airlines will be the big losers under the new arrangement and they have warned that many operators could be forced out of business, resulting in up to 20 towns losing air services completely.This is the sort of impact that this proposal by the FAC, which is certainly not being opposed by the government, would have on the regional areas of New South Wales. Vivien Bredereck said:Kingsford Smith Airport is a national asset and it belongs to everyone in Australia but the fact that it is going to be sold makes you wonder if they are trying to increase the extent of their profits to increase the sale price at the expense of regional areas of NSW.Those are the sorts of sentiments the industry is expressing.We have also the concerns of the regional and rural members of parliament. Not only am I, a Labor member of parliament, concerned about the impact this will have but the Leader of the National Party in New South Wales, Ian Armstrong, is also most concerned. He says:It is totally unacceptable for the Federal Airports Corporation to propose price hikes of up to 410 per cent over a three year period.He goes on to say:This would be a travesty for country towns trying to capitalise on tourism, and would impact on local people who travel to Sydney for business, legal and medical reasons. The profit margins of regional airlines are already very tight and any move to increase costs on regional airlines will result in country towns having flights cut or stopped completely, a situation totally unacceptable to the NSW National Party.One wonders what the federal National Party is saying about this. One wonders what the Liberal Party is saying about this. They are obviously not talking to cabinet ministers to ensure that some sensible proposal is put on the table by the FAC. This has just been a proposal that has attacked regional and rural areas for no other reason but, I suspect, to get commuter airlines out of Kingsford Smith airport.Where would users of commuter airlines go? The closest airport after Kingsford Smith is Bankstown. It is a $70 to $80 taxi fare from there to the city. It is not fair for those people who require international or interstate connections to have to land at Bankstown and get a taxi to Kingsford Smith. It makes the cost of their travel exorbitantly high.Most who are wanting to do that are in fact businesses. It is the likes of companies such as Uncle Ben's, Devro and Email operating in regional New South Wales which have diversified and need to send their executives and staff to other plants and other buildings. They need to have access to Kingsford Smith to have short, quick turnarounds to get business people and their staff from Bathurst or wherever to Sydney in the morning, onto the interstate aircraft to wherever the meetings are, usually in Brisbane or in Melbourne, or maybe onto another commuter aircraft to Albury or wherever, and then get back home that evening.This saves them a lot in their travel allowance. It saves them overnight fees. But this does not seem to make any difference to this government. They just do not seem to want to step in and say to the FAC, `Come on, boys; this is not the way to do it. This is not helping regional development in New South Wales.' Of course, the transport department is the same department that has regional development, and we all saw what happened to that in July 1996. It got slashed. It went from 200-odd staff to six. I think at last count there were actually 12, but it is still pretty poor treatment of regional and rural affairs in Australia, not just in New South Wales.Tony Windsor, the independent member for Tamworth, has said that this issue is going to be raised at the country summit to be held in Wagga Wagga this Saturday. I am sure we are going to hear from there another hundred or so people from all across New South Wales—the regional people, the local government bodies and others—saying most clearly that airport access to Kingsford Smith airport for regional and rural people of New South Wales is a vitally important issue and one that we have to maintain for the benefit of not just New South Wales, which does happen to be the most populous state, but for the whole of Australia. Because we are the most populous state, we have industries and revenue that are created west of the Great Dividing Range, north of Newcastle and south of Wollongong that are of value to this whole country. So it is vitally important that this issue remain on the agenda.There are also some quotes critical of the minister from a number of those people in the media in western New South Wales. I think it is very important. There are also very critical editorials. These are from newspapers that are not Labor Party supporters. These people that are complaining are not members of the Labor Party. They are business people. Often they have been associated with conservative politics. That is their business. But they are very concerned about what is happening.There is an editorial that describes the minister's description of the interpretation on this as cynical. It is really sad that we have to come here and keep raising this issue because the department and the government do not seem to care about what is happening. Ian Slack-Smith, the state member for Barwon, again suggests that in the Moree, Narrabri and Gunnedah areas the passengers may have to pay up to $60 to $80 to get into Sydney. These are the sorts of fare increases that people cannot afford. As I have said before, this is going to force people off the airlines. It is going to have an impact upon the viability of airlines. It is going to have an impact upon the access of rural people to services at Kingsford Smith airport. It is an attack upon the people of rural New South Wales. The government is to be condemned for this attack.In closing my remarks, I draw attention to the comments that Senator O'Brien has already raised and which have been expressed publicly by Hazelton Airlines and its general manager, Greg Russell. This is an airline that is attempting to expand its services. It is being competitive. It is competing at airports where there is deregulation. But this is not fair treatment of these airlines. These airlines demand a fair go and they should get a fair go. The people of New South Wales should also get a fair go, and so should industry. The state should be allowed to develop. It is a shame that the government has not stepped in and taken action on this and that we have to refer it to a committee. For that, the government must stand condemned.17:57:00725Murphy, Sen ShayneSenator MURPHYFX5TASALP00—I am certainly pleased to stand up and support Senator O'Brien's motion relating to a reference to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee.Senator Robert Ray interjecting—FX5Murphy, Sen ShayneSenator MURPHY—Absolutely. Another rat in the pack. In looking at this issue we have to again go back to when the government was in opposition and look at its policy document—what it promised the people not only in New South Wales but also in regional Australia and what it would deliver in terms of regional airport policy. It is contained in the document Putting people first . It should have probably read, `Putting people last'.UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—Unless you are Hanson.FX5Murphy, Sen ShayneSenator MURPHY—Absolutely. The coalition's policy on Sydney airport and Sydney West airport dated 29 January 1996 said:The Coalition will implement a slot system at Sydney Airport to reduce congestion and to ensure that movements do not exceed the airport's current maximum capacity of 80 movements per hour. The introduction of a slot system is the only effective way of capping the capacity of the airport.The slot system will be fair to new entrants to the airline industry and regional airlines. You have certainly done a great deal in terms of that! It went on to say:Special slots—C16HEFFERNANSenator Heffernan—We might put poker machines in the terminal.FX5Murphy, Sen ShayneSenator MURPHY—Listen to this. It is important for rats to listen to this. It stated:Special slots will be set aside for regional airlines, to guarantee that the residents of country NSW will continue to have convenient access to Sydney Airport.What has happened about that? We know about the Sydney Airport Demand Management Act and what that promised. I suppose, in so far as that is concerned, it was only ever brought into the parliament as a result of Labor pressure, I think particularly from Mr Anthony Albanese, the member for Grayndler. We supported that. Indeed, we supported it because we knew that we had to maintain some access for the regional residents of New South Wales.But what happened? As Senator West pointed out, the FAC—despite the act—are now proposing to increase landing charges. In the estimates on 26 February this year, Mr Peter Snelling, General Manager of Network Airports, said:There certainly would be a decrease in landing charges for the larger, more cost efficient aircraft and there would be in some of the proposals an increase in the regional carriers . . . I can see that Mr Country New South Wales over there is so interested in this issue—maybe if there were a few keyholes in it, he might be interested in it. But there is nothing that this government has done for rural and regional New South Wales.Senator Heffernan interjecting—10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator McKiernan)—Order!FX5Murphy, Sen ShayneSenator MURPHY—As Senator O'Brien pointed out, that could lead to an increase in airfares of up to $25. What about the battlers? Mr Howard so proudly walked about the country, parading himself and saying, `We will look after the battlers'? What about the battlers? You want to lump them with another $25 increase in airfares—I suppose that is typical of your policy.New South Wales is not the only area where this government has done a major backflip on a promise it made to the people.Senator Heffernan interjecting—10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order!FX5Murphy, Sen ShayneSenator MURPHY—In my state of Tasmania, this government promised that they would give Launceston and Hobart airports to the community. But what did your member for Bass do as soon as he got re-elected? He ratted on the people of Launceston and, so much so, that we now have quarter-page ads being run.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Heffernan, I have called you to order a number of times. I am not going to persist in calling you to order. Senator Murphy has the call. If you wish to participate in this debate, I shall recognise you if you rise to your feet. But I will not tolerate your continued interjections.FX5Murphy, Sen ShayneSenator MURPHY—I just hope that Senator Heffernan will get up and see if he can make a contribution on behalf of the people of regional and rural New South Wales, because his contribution thus far has been worth zip. As I was saying, in Launceston, which is in my state, the now member for Bass promised prior to the election that he would uphold a commitment.C16HEFFERNANSenator Heffernan—Mr Acting Deputy President, I raise a point of order: I think Senator Murphy must have been absent from the chamber or had his ear plugs in when we stated clearly that the government is not opposing this motion.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—That is not a point of order.FX5Murphy, Sen ShayneSenator MURPHY—As I was saying, the member for Bass has now led himself to be confronted by quarter-page ads run by Launceston business people saying, `Don't sell our airport.' They know that the now member for Bass and now minister, as well as Senator Newman along with her other colleagues Senators Watson, Gibson and Abetz—I cannot think who the other bloke is—9L6MACKAYSenator Mackay—Calvert.FX5Murphy, Sen ShayneSenator MURPHY—Calvert—UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—He used to be `Whip'!FX5Murphy, Sen ShayneSenator MURPHY—The `was Whip'. They all gave a commitment to make sure that the two airports in Launceston were handed back to the community. But what happened? They ratted on the deal. We now have a position where very prominent people—probably most of them Liberal voters; I know certainly some of them are—signed up to this quarter-page ad condemning the government for ratting on a commitment that they gave prior to the last election.I might just read a couple of them out: Sir Raymond Ferrall, a major supporter of the Liberal Party, I think; Paul Forsythe, O'Hara's Resort; Andrew Lovitt of AutoRent Hertz; Don Pitt of Neil Pitts; Ros Sandor of Parkside Inns; Richard Trethewie of Hillross Financial Services; David Routley of Routleys; and David Thorpe of the Star Bar—all of these people have signed up to this quarter-page ad.That is what the people of New South Wales are getting from you lot. Senator Heffernan, you are the one who is going to have to front up. You ought to get out and front up to a few country people in your state and tell them that you did rat, that you cannot adhere to the promises you made prior to the election and that you are not going to adhere to them in the future.18:04:00726Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—A number of opposition senators—Senator Ray, Senator Cook and Senator Forshaw—have indicated to me they have an interest in this particular matter and would like to make a contribution. But, in the interests of the government's program, I have asked them not to continue in that way. We would urge the government to get on with its program.Question resolved in the affirmative.Miscellaneous72672618:05:00726Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPMinister for Justice10—I 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.Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President—RF4COOKSenator Cook—Nothing to say.7E4Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE—I have plenty to say, Senator Cook. In relation to government business notice of motion No. 1, we finally get to this matter at about six or seven minutes past six. It is abundantly clear from what is going on that Labor is scared of this debate. They are absolutely petrified of this debate because they wasted an hour and a half on Thursday last week and they have wasted time today with a record number of notices of motion in order to simply postpone the inevitable—having to face up to what this chamber thinks of Senator Bolkus's behaviour. I think there were 45 notice of motions today. The most I heard of previously were 35 notice of motions moved on 18 December 1991—a record number moved today to just postpone the inevitable.Why, you might ask yourselves, is Labor scared of this debate coming on? Why would they want to waste all that time? They are scared of it coming on because they know that Senator Bolkus went out and leaked a confidential Federal Court document; they know that that document must have been illegally or improperly obtained; they therefore know that Senator Bolkus has breached appropriate standards in this place; and they know he should be censured. So they will do anything to avoid bringing this matter on.This debate today is not about the normal rough and tumble of politics. We all go through that. I have been here 12 or 13 years and have seen plenty of it, I am sure Senator Stott Despoja has seen plenty of it and I am sure Senator Ray has seen more of it than anybody in this place. But it is not about the normal rough and tumble of politics. This is not about Senator Bolkus's false claims to the Australian community that the Labor Party would simply reinstitute proceedings to bring Mr Skase back from Spain. It is not about those false claims. He knew those were false. The former Labor Attorney-General indicated as much, that they were false. The former Labor Attorney-General was honest with the Australian people when he said that the opportunities to extradite Skase from Spain had concluded and it did not matter if Mr Skase subsequently looked healthy; the game was over in Spain.Despite knowing that, Senator Bolkus went out and misled the Australian community, making a big Joe of himself, making a false claim that Labor would bring Skase back, that they would introduce extradition proceedings. But this motion is not about that, and it is not about the invented figures that Senator Bolkus raises to give himself a bit of a run in the media.It is not about the $50 million he talks of in Skase assets. Mr Acting Deputy Chairman you might have heard the offer being made to him the other day: if you know where $50 million worth of assets are, Senator Bolkus, why don't you let Mr Donnelly know? Tell him in what countries the companies are; who the directors are; where the trusts are, who are the trustees and what are the assets. If the shadow Attorney-General, the alternative first law officer of the Commonwealth, purports to know where $50 million of Skase's assets are, you would think it would be in Australia's interests that he would own up and tell somebody where they are. Where are these assets? In what countries are they held? What are the company names? Who are the company directors? Where are the trusts and who are the trustees? There has been silence from Senator Bolkus, but that is the rough and tumble of politics. We all know he wanted to get himself a headline, so he just drummed up $50 million out of anywhere and attached it to Skase's name.But this motion is not about that, and it is not about the false claims he makes that the government, and myself in particular, have improperly somehow held up the Skase chase; some sort of waffle about some documents that were not signed. I notice he has not come forward with any suggestion of what those documents were, and the reason he has not come forward is that there were no such documents. Not only was there no delay, there were no such documents. The Attorney-General and the Minister for Justice do not have to sign documents to allow service in proceedings to which the Attorney or the Minister for Justice is not a party.What kind of dreamland is this that the alternative first law officer will come up with? It is not about those false claims, because that is the rough and tumble of politics. You do not expect any more from the likes of Senator Bolkus. This motion is about standards; standards that we are prepared to ensure are kept and upheld in this place. It is about the standards that are suitable for every senator and the standards that the alternative first law officer ought to uphold himself. It is about the standards that he has not upheld.Senator Bolkus surely knew that he was, shall I say, Skasing on thin ice, when he told the world that I had delayed the service of some documents by failing to sign them. He was Skasing on thin ice because not only was there no delay, there were not any such documents. Equally, Senator Bolkus cannot hide behind poor sources and say, `Oh, look, I did not really mean that. I did not mean to be misleading with the Australian community. That is what I heard from the media.' The affidavit that Senator Bolkus quoted from clearly indicated why service had in fact been delayed. Mr Donnelly was trying to keep the proceedings secret so that service could be made on all parties at roughly the same time.Senator Bolkus most surely was skating on thin ice at that time. And he was certainly skating on thin ice when he falsely suggested that the Labor Party would reopen extradition proceedings of Skase from Spain when he knew that that was not a possibility because his own Attorney had said so. And he was skating on thin ice and Skasing on thin ice when he invented figures of $50 million assets of Mr Skase's and failed to identify to Mr Donnelly the countries, the companies, the directors and the trusts.This is not about any of those matters. But when Senator Bolkus went further, when he leaked a confidential Federal Court document both on and off the record, the ice cracked and he fell through. This censure motion is not about the rough and tumble in politics, it is not about those other matters that I raised—this is all about leaking a confidential Federal Court document, doing so both on and off the record. That is when the ice cracked, and Senator Bolkus, who has not got the gumption to be in here at this time and face this accusation and listen to what the Senate has to say, fell right through that ice. Senator Bolkus is drowning in his own failure to maintain appropriate standards in this place.Mr Acting Deputy President, you know and other senators know that in this place we have the greatest opportunity for freedom of speech; a greater opportunity than most other citizens unless those citizens are speaking in parliament. People who are speaking in parliament or to parliamentary committees quite properly get the protection of parliamentary privilege. Why do we get that protection? We get that protection, and people who give evidence to committees get that protection, so that parliament can know the truth. That is why we have an added protection for people speaking in parliament on what they raise so that parliament can know the truth.Even with that much greater freedom that we have that the general members of the public, unless they are giving evidence here, do not have, even with that enormous opportunity we have, we nonetheless in this place accept some rules and some limitations on that. We accept, for example, the sub judice rule. That simply means not that you cannot mention any case that is ever mentioned in a court; people make that claim freely. What the sub judice rule does mean and is well understood to mean is that, if matters are before the courts and what is said in this place could in some way impact on those proceedings, the remarks are best not made.That has been followed here plenty of times, and Senator Bolkus knows about it. On 28 November 1990 he said:The matter being before the courts . . . In respect of that, further discussion may be sub judice.In 1995 he said:The doctrine of sub judice dictates that it would be inappropriate for me to make any comment on the correctness of the decision or the interpretation of it.These are just a couple of examples that show that Senator Bolkus knows what the sub judice rule means. It means that if there is a matter before the courts, if you want to uphold the appropriate standards in this place, you think very carefully about what you say. With all the protection and all the privilege that we are given to speak freely in this place, we accept that limitation because, while parliament might be the highest court in the land, parliamentarians are not meant to interfere in the processes of the courts.Against all that, we had Senator Bolkus both on and off the record revealing the contents of a highly confidential Federal Court affidavit, an affidavit that must have been illegally or improperly obtained. We know—there have been papers tabled in this place to show—that Mr Donnelly, Mr Skase's trustee in bankruptcy, did not authorise the release of that affidavit. It did not come from Mr Donnelly or anyone authorised by him to release it. We know that no-one sought a court order even to have a look at it as a document in the Federal Court. So it must have been illegally or improperly obtained.The very contents of the affidavit revealed the need for secrecy. That was abundantly clear. In fact, it was the very need for secrecy that Senator Bolkus chose, in his stupidity, to quote from. What he quoted from was Mr Donnelly's affidavit. I believe he used this portion—that he was concerned that `unless the ownership structure was preserved by injunctions pending the hearing of proceedings, steps will be taken by Mr Skase to dissipate the assets.' In other words, it was abundantly clear that these were proceedings to which there was an element of secrecy. So not only did he use a document that was not his but one that was not properly obtained. I do not say that he illegally or improperly obtained it from its proper place, but somebody did; and the shadow first law officer should know that he did not have permission from Mr Donnelly to use it, and he damn well did not have permission from the Federal Court.Despite all of that, he went ahead anyway and revealed what had not been revealed before. He revealed that hearings had already been held. He revealed where the hearings had been held which, in itself, gave opportunity for Mr Skase to understand what assets were being sought and which people might in fact be a party to those proceedings. He further revealed that Mr Donnelly was ready for service. To any party involved in this matter, that says, `Get ready, the service deliverer is going to be knocking on your door. Don't be home at 7 in the morning. Shut your door; have a look out your door before you answer your door.' Service in this matter was difficult.Nonetheless, we have a situation where the would be if could be alternative first law officer did not check with Mr Donnelly. He did not even think of saying, `This is a matter in the national interest. Mr Donnelly is Skase's trustee in bankruptcy; I will first check with him privately.' He did not have to come to the government. He did not have to involve politics. He could have gone to the trustee in bankruptcy, who was not appointed by this government and who has been the trustee in bankruptcy for some time now. He could have gone to him privately and said, `Is there any damage that I might do if I release the contents of this affidavit?'Senator Bolkus did not do that. He certainly did not check with the Federal Court as to whether this document was available for public inspection. He did not care about the need for secrecy. He clearly did not care that this was a document that was not his; he was happy to use it in any event. He put into the public arena something that, even in this place, with all the freedom we have, presumably we could not do because the sub judice rule would stop us.Senator Stott Despoja, what would you do if a senator on the other side stood up now and said, `I've got another affidavit in the Skase proceedings and I think I'd like to read it out'? Surely, would you not ask if you could see it first? Would you not ask if Mr Donnelly had—3I6STOTT DESPOJASenator Stott Despoja—I don't want to see any affidavit.7E4Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE—Senator Stott Despoja does not even want to see the affidavit. She is in my boat; I did not want to see the affidavit either. I have not had possession of the affidavit. My office might now have it, but we certainly did not have it at the time that this was leaked. Senator Stott Despoja takes the right attitude: these are proceedings that are best left to the people involved with running them and parliamentarians have no business sticking their beaks into them.But I am putting the proposition to you, Senator Stott Despoja: if someone stood up in this place and said, `I am now going to read from an affidavit in some newly instituted Skase proceedings,' would you simply sit there and say, `Oh, that's okay. Put it all on the public record; we'd like to hear the details'? Of course you would not. You would want to see the document. You would want to know if Mr Donnelly had given approval. You would want to know if there was any chance of prejudicing the proceedings. You would not simply sit there like a stunned rabbit and let somebody in this place get up and reveal the contents of a confidential affidavit. Senator Bolkus argues that he did not reveal anything that was not in the media or on the public record and I would like to deal with some of those matters. He said that the asset location was revealed by the media. But we know that the Daily Telegraph said, `The location of Skase's hidden fortune, which has been identified, has not been revealed.' That does not look very much like they revealed the location of the assets. He said that the location of legal proceedings had been revealed by the media. The Telegraph said that international legal proceedings were under way. Pick a country or city anywhere around the globe; it could be there. That does not tell anybody anything. On the other hand, Senator Bolkus said the legal action was occurring in Spain, in London, in the Cayman Islands and in our own Federal Court. In other words, he went ahead and detailed exactly where the proceedings were to be.Senator Bolkus revealed that court orders were ready to be served. The Daily Telegraph made no mention of these orders. Senator Bolkus continues to say, and I notice senators on the other side continue to say, that the government leaked this story. I invite them to read the Daily Telegraph editorial of the Tuesday or Wednesday of that week which quite overtly says—and I think it is most unusual; I cannot recall having seen a newspaper editorial saying this—that it is a nonsensical claim that the government, in that sense meaning the minister or her office, gave the paper this story, and it outlined the attempts we had made to stop the initial story going to press. That is a most unusual step for a paper to take, and why did they take it? Presumably because they were revolted and repulsed at Senator Bolkus being such an opportunist and suggesting something that he must have known was not the truth.He says that he has revealed nothing that was not on the public record. It is so public that you have to get a court order to look at the document! That is how public it is. Nobody can just march into the Federal Court and look at this. Senator Bolkus knew that, and you can tell that he knew it because at the end of his press conference, after he said `Thanks very much' and he thought the cameras had been turned off, behind everybody's back he said words to the effect of: `I've got some documents here. I can't give them to you but I can read them to you off the record.' Why couldn't he give out the two pages of the affidavit that he quoted from? He had already quoted from it; why couldn't he give it out? He could not give it out because he knew he was doing the wrong thing. That is why he waited until it would be off the record. He knew he was doing the wrong thing.In any event, Senator Bolkus's defence that everything revealed was on the public record simply will not work. It is not true; it is a failed defence. But even if everything were on the public record, that is no defence to recklessly reading from a confidential Federal Court affidavit. That is no defence; but in any event it does not work for him.The situation is that the release of this document had not been authorised. He had absolutely no right to possess it, and he had no right to reveal the contents. It is unacceptable for anyone in this place to ignore the sub judice rule in this place and to just launch into proceedings that are under way, and it is even more unacceptable for the shadow Attorney-General to do so. It is not acceptable at all.We have tabled documents that prove all of this and they are on the public record: Mr Donnelly's denial that he had been held up in any way, Mr Donnelly's confirmation that he did not release it and the Federal Court's confirmation that they did not release the document. The record shows that the shadow Attorney-General—the alternative first law officer of Australia—is prepared to peddle illegally or improperly obtained Federal Court documents and to make them public, recklessly and without any care for the consequences.That is unacceptable for any senator in this place, and it is unacceptable for the shadow Attorney-General. On that basis, he should be censured, and if he is censured in this place, the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Beazley, should sack him. Mr Beazley can get away with being weak in the other place and saying the government has got the numbers. This is the chamber where the government does not have the numbers, so let us see what the verdict of this chamber is. If it is that he should be censured, Mr Beazley should sack him.18:25:00731Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—On that basis, other Howard government ministers who have been censured in this chamber also ought to offer their resignations, shouldn't they, Senator Herron?Mr Acting Deputy President, let me commence my contribution by saying this is a time-wasting stunt from Senator Vanstone. It is a real confidence builder for Senator Vanstone, who has had such a shocking time for two years as a former cabinet minister who quite properly was removed—sacked—from the federal cabinet by Mr Howard. We on this side of the chamber disagree with a lot of decisions that Mr Howard made, but I have to say that sacking you, Senator Vanstone, was one that he got absolutely right. Let me say, in response to this confidence builder for Senator Vanstone, that we on this side of this chamber have absolute confidence in and respect for Senator Bolkus.Let me go to the substance of the motion before the chamber. First of all, Senator Bolkus never denied that he held a press conference on 5 January this year in relation to the Skase matter. Nor has he denied that he referred to the affidavit at that press conference. Nor is it denied that, prior to its disclosure by a person or persons unknown, Senator Vanstone, the affidavit was subject to a confidentiality order. Now, of course, the government claims that, at the time of Senator Bolkus's press conference, the document retained its status as a confidential document. It is worth looking at that because, whilst it is true that neither the court, or Mr Donnelly of course, authorised the release of the document, there is no explanation as to how the document came to be in the hands of the media and, therefore, how it came to be in the public domain.There can be no doubt that once a document is publicly released it ceases to effectively retain its status as a confidential document. Given that the document had already been released—by people unknown to us but probably well known to Senator Vanstone—to a range of perhaps unknown journalists and was being used by them, Senator Bolkus was obviously entitled at a press conference to refer to the document. It is in that context that Senator Bolkus referred to the document.Government senators interjecting—5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—He did so because he wanted to highlight—and we believe it was his duty as the shadow Attorney-General to highlight—that the disclosure of the proceedings against Mr Skase, as revealed in News Ltd papers on 5 January 1998, through the public release of the affidavit by a source or sources unknown, had already compromised the pursuit of Mr Skase's assets.In saying that Senator Bolkus referred to the affidavit during his press conference the government has been deliberately deceptive as to way in which that occurred. The government has, conveniently, chosen not to tell the parliament and the Australian people that it was referred to for only one purpose. Let me remind the Senate what that purpose was. As written by Mr Donnelly:If this matter comes to the attention of the respondents, and in particular the attention of Mr Skase before the interlocutory orders can be obtained in all jurisdictions, I have serious concerns that steps will be taken to prejudice the substantive proceedings.In other words, Senator Bolkus was quite properly referring to only that portion of the affidavit which demonstrated the damage caused by the leak of the information. Of course, it was an absolutely appropriate matter for Senator Bolkus to refer to during his press conference.LD4ALSTONSenator Alston—It is on the record.7E4VANSTONESenator Vanstone—It is on and off the record.5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—You have tried to denigrate Senator Bolkus's motives. You have referred to those parts of the affidavit `off the record'. You have used those words—and we have all heard them—many, many times. Let me quote the words you have used:I can't give this document out, but maybe if I just read it off the record. This is the proceedings in court. That is the quote that you have used time and time again. But, as Senator Bolkus has readily explained to the many who have asked, the journalist who provided him with a copy of the affidavit specifically asked him not to release the substantive contents of that affidavit because he or she wanted to retain an exclusive. That is a perfectly normal request from a journalist. It was not only appropriate for Senator Bolkus but it was Senator Bolkus's duty to keep such an undertaking to a journalist.The issue of the boxing of two pages of the affidavit in the parliamentary press gallery on 5 January has been raised time and time again. I asked Senator Bolkus about this. You probably have not asked him. He assures me that he was in Adelaide. His staff, by the way, were in Adelaide or Western Australia at that time. It is worth making that point to the Senate. You have consistently smeared Senator Bolkus with the allegation that it was he who made known to the media parts of the affidavit that were not and would not have been put into the public domain but for his actions. That is the smear: that it was his disclosure of those details which obstructed the chase for Mr Skase's assets. Senator Bolkus has consistently denied that he provided any information to News Ltd prior to the story that appeared in the papers on 5 January. Just go and ask Mr David Luff, the author of those stories, as the government has and he will readily confirm that fact.All week you have tried to smear Senator Bolkus by implying that he was subject to some form of criminal investigation in relation to this matter and that he was not assisting the authorities. What did the Attorney-General say in question time in the House of Representatives on Wednesday of last week? This is what he said:In the circumstances there seems to be no doubt that Senator Bolkus would be able to assist the Federal Police with their inquiries.It goes on:What should happen is this: the Leader of the Opposition should instruct Senator Bolkus to stand down and cooperate with the Federal Police.If the Attorney-General, for a change, had been doing his job he would have known that Senator Bolkus had assisted the Federal Police with their inquiries on not one but on two occasions, the last being on 30 January this year. And he would have known that Senator Bolkus had fully cooperated with the Australian Federal Police. He would also have known that the Australian Federal Police were not investigating Senator Bolkus but that the inquiries of the Federal Police were continuing.We have here an attempt to use the existence of an AFP investigation to smear Senator Bolkus's name when both Senator Vanstone and the Attorney-General knew that Senator Bolkus had been cleared. We on this side of the chamber say that that is very grubby, very low life politics from you and the coalition government.7E4VANSTONESenator Vanstone—That is not true.5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—The truth is that the real damage in this case occurred before Senator Bolkus conducted his press conference. The News Ltd piece was written independently and without provision of any assistance by Senator Bolkus or any member of his staff. The affidavit, of course, was already in very wide circulation amongst journalists who had no hesitation in using it.The government has claimed that Mr Donnelly has said that the release of the information contained in the affidavit may have been more damaging than the original News Ltd story. That might be true but Senator Bolkus is not and was not responsible for distributing any damaging parts of that affidavit.7E4VANSTONESenator Vanstone—That is not true.5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—That is the truth of the matter. This all raises the question: where did the original leak in this case come from? In the case of the News Ltd stories, that particular article specifically mentions `government sources'. It specifically says that government sources provided at least some of the information.I make this comment—and I say this categorically—the entire piece is written to the benefit of the Minister for Justice. That is the truth.7E4VANSTONESenator Vanstone—That is rubbish and you know it!5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—You have never denied, Senator Vanstone, on the public record that this information was provided by your office. We await such a denial that any of this information came from any member of Senator Vanstone's staff.What is the only conclusion that you can draw? What we have is a classic case of trying to shoot the messenger. That is what we have in this particular censure motion. It was clearly inappropriate that the initial leak—which provided the story on 5 January 1998—or the leak in the affidavit in the public domain occurred. We know that, and that is what Senator Bolkus has been saying. At the time Senator Bolkus conducted his press conference all of that information, as you know and as everyone knows, was already in the public domain. We on this side of the chamber say that Senator Bolkus has a responsibility to point out how the government has failed, yet again, to properly pursue Skase in a proficient manner.Rather than pursue the original source of these leaks, Senator Vanstone, Mr Williams and the government have engaged in this absurd but grubby political exercise designed to smear Senator Bolkus. We on this side of the chamber ask why you are doing that, Senator Vanstone. Why are you doing it? Because what you are about is revenge for the fact that Senator Bolkus was doing the job that Mr Williams should have been doing in reminding Justice Callinan of information which ultimately led to his withdrawal from the Hindmarsh Island case. It was revenge for Senator Bolkus's pursuit of Mr Williams over Mr Williams's initial failure to continue the chase for Mr Skase's assets. It was revenge from you, Senator Vanstone, for Senator Bolkus's revelations that you and the Australian Federal Police had been so inept in the 60 Minutes arrest of Mr Dolly Dunn in Honduras.Senator Bolkus has been a very effective shadow Attorney-General and we understand the bitterness and disappointment that you must feel, Senator Vanstone, when you compare his success as a shadow minister to your failure and sacking as a former cabinet minister in the Howard government. In the course of seeking to take out their revenge on Senator Bolkus, in our view Senator Vanstone and the Attorney-General, Mr Williams, have acted in an inappropriate and hypocritical manner by divulging information related to an ongoing police investigation in relation to the source of these leaks.Senator Vanstone in the chamber regularly parades her mock indignation by insisting that it is inappropriate for her to comment on operational AFP matters—a principle that never seemed to worry her too much when she was in opposition.UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—And as shadow Attorney-General.5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—That is right, even as shadow Attorney-General and even when the relevant aspects of those operations had concluded. However, it seems that that rule applies only when it suits Senator Vanstone not to comment when she is trying to cover up yet another part of what could only be described as a cavalcade of ministerial incompetence from Senator Vanstone—which I was grateful for the opportunity to be able to outline in a motion on precedence recently.Of course Senator Bolkus is innocent of the allegations that have been made against him. The Australian Federal Police have cleared Senator Bolkus of any wrongdoing. I believe that the guilty parties here are those opposite who have abused their positions of trust by falsely blaming Senator Bolkus on this matter, by seeking to cover up their own incompetence for allowing these leaks to occur in the first place, by deliberately misleading the parliament as to what Senator Bolkus did or did not discuss at his 5 January press conference, and by deliberately and maliciously misleading the Senate through their claims that Senator Bolkus was under AFP investigation and that he was not assisting with the AFP's inquiries.This is a most tawdry exercise in blame shifting from Senator Vanstone, Mr Williams and the government. If she had a conscience no doubt she would be ashamed of what she has done in this regard. I have to say that, if anybody should be apologising to anybody, it is you for the absolutely improper, despicable and contemptible way you have smeared Senator Bolkus's name. It is you, Senator Vanstone, and it is the Attorney-General, Mr Williams, who should apologise to the Australian public for your total incompetence in relation to the handling of the chase for Skase.I have to say that you might, Senator Vanstone, answer questions such as why you did not ask the Australian Federal Police to investigate the leak to Mr Luff—because we asked that question. We wonder why you did not ask that, Senator Vanstone. We think we probably know the answer. We think it is probably very close to home over there in the executive wing of Parliament House. But we also ask, Senator Vanstone, why you and Mr Williams failed to disclose that Senator Bolkus had been cleared of wrongdoing in this matter by the Australian Federal Police.We say that Senator Bolkus is innocent. We say on this matter that the government has no case. This is a time wasting stunt from the government. It is unworthy of the government; it is unworthy of the Senate. I can assure you that the opposition will be treating this motion with the absolute contempt it deserves.18:46:00734Abetz, Sen EricSenator ABETZN26TASLP10—The evidence against Senator Bolkus is irrefutable. Let us not deal with all the hyperbole that we have heard from the opposition.Senator Carr interjecting—10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Chapman)—Order! Senator Carr.N26Abetz, Sen EricSenator ABETZ—Let us deal with the actual words of the motion. The first allegation against Senator Bolkus is that:. . . during and after a press conference on 5 January 1998—he—revealed certain contents of a confidential Federal Court affidavit . . . That first point of the motion has been admitted to by Senator Bolkus. Indeed, from Senator Faulkner's own mouth today, we have heard that Senator Bolkus has admitted to undertaking that. So the first point of the motion has been accepted by Senator Bolkus as being the fact: irrefutable. Let us move to the second point:. . . 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 . . . Not a single person would dispute that assertion—fact No. 2: proven. With all these points—the five points—we do not have to prove it beyond reasonable doubt; we can prove it beyond any doubt whatsoever. The first point is acknowledged—Senator Bolkus has fessed up. The second one everybody agrees.The third point states:. . . that Federal Court affidavits may only be obtained by leave of the court or a judge . . . That also is a fact. It is in the Federal Court Rules. There is no dispute about that.7G6LUNDYSenator Lundy—So why did you leak it?N26Abetz, Sen EricSenator ABETZ—`Why did Senator Bolkus leak it?' is the question on every Australian's mind. Then there is the fourth point of the motion:. . . that in relation to the affidavit revealed by Senator Bolkus no such leave had been obtained . . . What is the evidence for that? It is that the Federal Court District Registrar, John Matheson, on 5 March 1998, wrote to us telling us exactly that. Are you going to say that the district registrar lied to somehow do something to Senator Bolkus? No. That fact is admitted and on the record in this place.Then there is the fifth fact that we assert against Senator Bolkus:. . . that Mr Donnelly had not authorised the release of the affidavit by either his firm or solicitors acting for him . . .Similarly, we have a letter from Ferrier Hodgson saying exactly that.So it is very, very disingenuous for Senator Faulkner to come into this place and assert that Senator Bolkus is innocent and that all the allegations against him have not been proven. The fact is that each of those five points on which we base our censure of Senator Bolkus has been proven, either out of Senator Bolkus's mind—mouth—UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—You are a mind-reader now.N26Abetz, Sen EricSenator ABETZ—If we want to know what was in Senator Bolkus's mind, when I read the transcript of the 7.30 Report , I have to say to you that I—having dealt in the area of criminal law—had never read such an amazing confession by a person who is fessing up. Senator Faulkner asserts to us that nothing new was placed on the public record by Senator Bolkus. But what does Senator Bolkus tell us in the 7.30 Report ? `If you look at what I announced on that day and compare it with the article, there is very little different information,' and then there is a gap. `Very little extra'—he admits to divulging extra information.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Chapman)—Order! The time for this debate has expired.Documents73573518:50:00735Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—I move:That the Senate take note of the document.I would like to make a brief contribution to the debate on this important report. I draw the attention of senators particularly to pages 16 and 17 of the report and recommendation 10, which deals with the issue of associated entities. This is a matter that I have been canvassing for some time because of the deliberate exploitation by the Liberal party of a loophole in the Commonwealth Electoral Act by using the Greenfields Foundation to provide a massive loan to the Liberal Party. The Australian Electoral Commission at paragraph 4.18 of its report says:Some organisations have questioned whether they fall within the definition of associated entity and have supplied legal advice supporting their view.The issue here is whether the Greenfields Foundation is an associated entity. If it is, it means that it would be required to disclose where it received donations from. The same paragraph goes on to say:These opinions, along with advice obtained by the AEC, demonstrate that there are some areas of dispute in the wording of the Act's definition which should not be allowed to become sources of confusion or loopholes.That is a very valuable contribution in this report. Paragraph 4.19 says:In some cases, though, the AEC is unable to determine whether an organisation should disclose as an associated entity because of the unavailability of the necessary documentation to make such a decision . . .there is nothing to prevent them from simply claiming that they do not meet the definition of an associated entity and refusing to supply any justification for their stance. Such a situation could give the appearance of disclosure only by consent and has the potential to undermine public confidence in the disclosure system.It is hard to argue with that. Paragraph 4.20 says:In the public interest, disclosure should not be able to be avoided through a simple refusal to cooperate.Then, on that page, a recommendation encapsulates those views. I agree with the Australian Electoral Commission on this particular matter. Despite the commitments of the Prime Minister to honesty, transparency and accountability in government, he and his government continue to sanction his party's blatant exploitation of what is an apparent loophole in the Electoral Act.We have exposed already the links between the Liberal Party's former laundering vehicle—the Free Enterprise Foundation—and its new benefactor, the Greenfields Foundation. Those links are inextricable. It is incredible that a political party can receive a loan from an organisation which shares trustees, postal addresses, telephone contacts and who knows what else—as well as a purpose to launder funds from undisclosed donors—with an associated entity of the Liberal Party and somehow get away with it without disclosing where that money originally came from.If the loan is above board, as Senator Minchin is feebly trying to argue, then why don't the Liberal Party come clean? Why don't they provide the details of this loan and prove that it is on a commercial basis? Why are they afraid of revealing more information about the Greenfields Foundation?Why is the Greenfields Foundation so secretive? The AEC wrote to Greenfields and asked them to provide information to ascertain their status as an associated entity. Of course, the response of Greenfields and the Liberals was blunt: they did not think they were required to provide any further information. We think they ought to be required to provide further information. We think the Australian public are entitled to that information. We want to know where the Liberal Party is getting its money from and how much—whether it comes from overseas or from Australian donors. The Australian public are entitled to know. I commend this report to the Senate. (Time expired)18:56:00736Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAYUI4VICALP00—Those who have been coming to this chamber for some time would realise that when the first disclosure laws were put to this parliament the Liberal Party strenuously opposed them. They opposed them when arguing their case on the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform and, when the legislation came in, they opposed the disclosure of political donations. Ever since then, they have objected to tightening in this particular area.We now have the circumstance where the good old boys up at Robert Menzies House have found a new lurk, a new way of avoiding disclosure. That is, a foundation gives them a loan for $4.6 million and they do not have to disclose where that loan came from, other than that it came from the Greenfields Foundation.It is interesting that two of the trustees of the Greenfields Foundation are also trustees of the Free Enterprise Foundation, which is the long-term funder of the Liberal Party. When the Free Enterprise Foundation was set up, the Liberal Party did not have to disclose their donors. It was only when later legislation was introduced in the nineties that you could go beyond the Free Enterprise Foundation and find out who donated to it because the foundation was an associated entity.So the Liberal Party—noting that there is $100,000 going out to Greenfields in the Liberal Party accounts—has set up the Greenfields Foundation with two out of the three same trustees of the Free Enterprise Foundation. Lo and behold! A $4.6 million loan is given to the Liberal Party. We do not know whether it is charged at a commercial interest rate and we do not know whether at some stage the loan is going to be forgiven. But we do know that the Electoral Commission at estimates committees the other night used the excuse that they have too much else to do at this stage to go back and specifically audit the Liberal Party to check these particular details.As Senator Faulkner said, two of the three trustees are the same people; the postal address of the trustees of the Free Enterprise Foundation is the same post office box for the Greenfields Foundation; and they have the same accountants and the same telephone numbers. So it begs the question as to whether the Liberal Party have induced people to donate to the Greenfields Foundation, which in turn has made a loan to the Liberal Party, thereby avoiding disclosure of those particular donations. If they have done so, what do they have to hide?Where did the donations come from? Did they come from overseas? Did they come from people who are not willing to show their links with a government because of any government favours those particular donors are given by way of their patronage of the Liberal Party? These are the questions that need to be answered, and they can be answered fairly quickly. As well as the Electoral Commission doing regular audits of the political parties, which they should do, they have the power to do spot audits if they so desire.I was very surprised to see Minister Minchin on Meet the Press on Channel 10 on Sunday when he said that the Electoral Commission made clear in their evidence that they saw nothing improper about this loan. Actually, they did not quite say that. They just said that they were not in a position to judge and that the actual legislation does not yet give them the right, until they examine the Liberal Party accounts, to declare the Greenfields Foundation an associated entity, in which case all donations to that particular body would have to be revealed. But this is just another sneaky method by one of the leading political parties in this country to avoid the law, to actually flout the law in these particular circumstances.So we do not know where Greenfields got its money. When put under a bit of pressure, the trustees came out and said, `We're actually a charitable foundation.' I did not know the Liberal Party qualified as a charity. But I thought the best comment of all was from Sir John Atwill—a trustee of Greenfields—in the Financial Review. When he was asked about it he said that he had never heard of Greenfields, that he did not know what it was about and did not even know he was a trustee. This is a former federal president of the Liberal Party.It is an absolute device to avoid disclosure. But I have to say this: if in the end Greenfields is not going to be pursued in terms of its donors, and if it is not a commercial rate of loan, we will be arguing that Greenfields made an anonymous donation and under the Electoral Act the Liberal Party will have to forfeit that anonymous donation and the taxpayers will benefit to the value of $4.6 million.Question resolved in the affirmative.73719:03:00737Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—I move:That the Senate take note of the document.I would like to say some words about the States Grants (Primary and Secondary Education Assistance) Act and the report on financial assistance granted to each state in respect of 1996. This is a report that was brought down in terms of the obligations of the Commonwealth to report to the parliament about the amounts of money it is spending on schools in this country. It provides an opportunity for the Senate to actually consider some of the broader questions that are being raised about the way in which school policies are being pursued in this country.I might note that it is a report that is considerably smaller than the previous reports which contain considerably greater amounts of information. I note that to begin with. I also note the invitation at the beginning of the report for details to be provided of the materials that have actually been left out of this new formatted report. I have already taken the opportunity to contact the department about the details that have been left out of those reports.It has often been said by this government that they are actually spending more money on schools than the previous Labor government. Of course, that is one of the interesting ways in which the statistics are used by this government to try to present things as they would like them to be rather than how they actually are. What this report highlights is that, in terms of outlays, funding on total amounts of money on general and targeted assistance for schools in 1995-96 was $3.2 billion; in 1996-97 the actual expenditure was $3.6 billion; and the 1997-98 budget is $3.7 billion. If you look at the forward estimates from the last Labor budget and compare all of those figures, what you see is that the corresponding figures in the forward estimates under a Labor government were in fact higher. What you have under this government is less money being spent on education than would have been spent under the previous government.In terms of general commitments and specific commitments in real terms, as measured in real dollars for all programs with current and capital government targeted and joint programs in the government and non-government sectors, what the department is telling the Senate estimates committee is that this government is actually spending less money in real terms, particularly on government schools. What you are seeing when you compare the forward estimates figures on the amounts of money spent on the private sector under the Labor government and under this government is a direct reversal of the trend I have just highlighted.The minister makes great play of money spent on education and he argues that there has been a funding boost for schools. This is a thoroughly dishonest and disreputable way in which to investigate these figures. If you interrogate these figures properly what you do notice is unequivocally the situation that monies that have been provided for schools are really for supplementation and take into account the normal amounts of monies that any government would be spending due to inflation and the indexes that are required to meet those inflationary adjustments. There is not a real increase in funding, as the department itself has acknowledged.On top of that, you have a government that is committed to directly divert resources away from the public sector to the private sector by the administration of what it calls the enrolment benchmark adjustment. What you see in that area is a government that has made commitments—again, in its forward estimates—where it sees some $92 million being spent by 1999-2000 through the EBA, being taken out of the public sector and directed to the private sector. Despite the fact that the number of children in government schools is going up they are getting less money under this provision as a direct result of government policy.The net result of the forward estimates period is that some $270 million is being taken from the public sector and given to the private sector in that regard. The Labor Party is actually committed to ensuring that there is a viable private sector in this country. We are also committed, however, to making sure that there is a quality public sector. What you cannot have is a Commonwealth government for the first time in history walking away from its commitment to provide a high quality, universal provision for all Australians. You cannot have a situation that will allow to go unchallenged to any extent resources being stripped from one group of Australians who need it most and given to another group of Australians who are actually better off in many ways—a move away from a needs based educational policy. What you have under this government of course is completely the reverse.Question resolved in the affirmative.Adjournment73810000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator McKiernan)—Order! The consider ation of government documents has now concluded. I propose the question:That the Senate do now adjourn.73919:08:00739Coonan, Sen HelenSenator COONAN2M6NSWLP10—I wish to comment tonight on the government's work for the dole program. As honourable senators would know, the program has recently got off the ground. Perhaps, predictably, if sadly, the initiative has been subjected to both unwarranted and ill-informed attack by Labor and others that has gone on since Christmas. The regrettable feature of this sort of attack is that it really fails to grasp the enormity of the problem of youth unemployment. It fails to recognise the value of an initiative that will have a number of good outcomes, including providing a pathway to job readiness.The criticisms suggest that Labor has simply forgotten that during 13 years in the job they failed to provide employment for almost one million Australians. In December 1992, at the height of the recession we had to have, the seasonally adjusted unemployment rate rose to an historical high of 11.2 per cent. In trend terms, long-term unemployment reached an historical and unacceptable peak of 349,000 in July 1993.Labor's record on youth unemployment was such that the number of young people with full-time jobs halved during its time in office. Full-time youth unemployment fell by approximately 240,000 from 465,000 in June 1989 to 227,600 in March 1994. Despite all this, the Labor Party took the opportunity during the summer recess to launch a scathing criticism of the government's work for the dole project. Such selective memories, I say.Whilst it can be a dubious tactic to counter statistics with yet other statistics, it is imperative that some sense be made of the participation rates in the work for the dole scheme so that the doomsayers do not gain any credence in these sorts of attacks. Earlier this year it is true that the government was called upon to defend the scheme which at the time involved 869 volunteers and 574 conscripted participants in 62 pilot projects across the nation. Before enthusiasts go rushing for their calcu lators, the ratio of voluntary versus conscripted participants was 60 to 40. Surely even Labor would contend that only six weeks after the scheme was officially launched, participation in terms of size and composition could be considered an adequate or reliable indication or measure of the scheme's relative success or failure.Still in its embryonic and formative stages, only one-third of the pilot projects had commenced—62 out of 178—involving 1,443 participants out of a total of 10,400 participants. Yet despite attacks on the scheme, the evidence is now coming through that it is actually working. One project—the historic Walka Waterworks near Newcastle—has already seen four young people find full-time employment, which is very good news indeed. This project only began in mid-January, so we have the situation of four young people already finding jobs only weeks into the project simply because they put their hands up and said they wanted to be in it.The enthusiasm on this project shows how wrong Labor is. The project coordinator has reported that the young people are so keen that they are turning up to work on days they are not rostered to be there. Such motivation and keenness shows employers that these young people, despite often having been unemployed for long periods, are willing to work, want to work and certainly will work hard. One young man on the project—Paul Chamberlain—said that working on the project had boosted his confidence. He said, `You feel better about yourself. You're motivated to get up and go to work. You have something to do.' And all this from a scheme that the doomsayers say cannot work.It is important when looking at the scheme to examine participation rates in their true light. The participation rate of each project does not actually reflect the fact that many are staggering their intake over 12 months. For example, a much quoted project in Bankstown has 47 participants out of a total of 96 places. I am using these examples from New South Wales, which of course is my home state. This figure can be interpreted in two ways. First, it could indicate that only half of the projects' positions have been filled, which in turn could lead to the assumption that there is little interest in the project, and used to sustain the myth that the work for the dole scheme is flawed. Or, second, and accurately as it turns out in this case, the project will offer a total of 96 positions throughout the year consisting of two, six-monthly intakes of 48 participants. Contrary to the gloom and doom interpretation, the project is operating at full capacity.Past projects have shown that many participants are keen to contribute more than the hours required. Lisa Clausen, a journalist for the South Pacific, recalls how when funding from a project to build a skatebowl and basketball court in Sanctuary Point south of Sydney ran out, the 10 unemployed volunteers returned to the work site to finish the job in their own time. Eight of the 10 had found jobs within two months of completing the project.The pilot programs are under way now and at present there are, as I said, 10,400 participants involved. When the scheme gets under way in full force, 25,000 places will be available, which the government has calculated as being sufficient to provide unemployed youth with work experience. It must be said that, on balance, not all projects will be successful—I think we have to say that—and projects will vary in their capacity to deliver outcomes.Participation rates will depend upon a range of factors, including the nature of the project, the type of work involved, key personalities and project administration. Teething problems in a preliminary stage, however, cannot and do not reflect the scheme's outcomes. Some of the more intangible outcomes of the scheme, such as increased confidence and self-esteem, self-worth, networking opportunities and skills development, are not going to happen overnight. Indeed, a Labor funded community research project in 1995-96 concluded that 12 months was simply insufficient time for many projects to clearly define their roles, identify and engage target groups, and develop to full capacity.In those circumstances, the opposition's call for an independent review of the scheme is wildly premature, and ACOSS's description of it as fundamentally flawed is defeatist. They complain that the scheme does not offer structured training. The answer to this critique is blindingly obvious. If a person has been unemployed since leaving school, he or she will not have any work experience and have few employment skills other than those they got at school. The scheme is designed to address that. It gives participants skills and experience that can be translated into their search for full-time employment. It does not offer structured training; nor does it pretend to. On the contrary, the scheme aims to have young unemployed people made ready for full-time employment as soon as possible. It is not providing a safety cocoon that discourages full-time employment. It is simply a starting block in the race for jobs.If the labour market training programs of the former Labor government were so successful, one might ask rhetorically: how is it they produced record levels of youth unemployment? When the government took office in 1996 it was confronted with a situation that simply could not be allowed to continue and was created by years of neglect that saw the teenage full-time unemployment trend rate at 29 per cent. In some regional areas youth unemployment was as high as 30 per cent.The government decided, rightly in my view, that this was an unacceptable situation for both the unemployed and the nation. But, unlike those who have for so long not provided any solutions, we did not push the issue into the too-hard basket and, having acted decisively, we are now reaping some benefits. The government's intention is to pilot new methods of solving youth unemployment. There is a glaring need to find new and innovative ways to break benefit dependency and to get our young people into employment.The government has now committed $340 million over four years for its work for the dole, or mutual obligation, strategy. The background to the scheme is simply based on the premise that unemployed job seekers financially supported by the community should actively seek work. Some of the early results show that not only are they seeking to participate but they are getting jobs from that work experience.74119:18:00741Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAYUI4VICALP00—In the Australian in the last two days reference has been made to very unacceptable practices by the army, especially at Holsworthy. In response to those the Minister for Defence Industry, Science and Personnel (Mrs Bishop) held a press conference yesterday. During that press conference, as she tried to distance herself from the issue, on three separate occasions she stated, `And I would like to know whether or not either ministers of the day, Senators Ray and Faulkner, and particularly Mr Bevis, who was parliamentary secretary from 1994 through to the election, ever knew.'Let me put it on the record: we certainly did not know. No-one had reported that to us. If Mrs Bishop had bothered to even read the Australian article she would have found that article said no-one prior to June 1997 above the rank of Lieutenant Colonel knew of these practices. She would have known from that. She could have equally known from the current CDF, who was VCDF at the time, or the current head of the army, General Sanderson, who was also head of the army when I was minister, or General Baker as CDF because she surely would have asked them whether this had ever come up before and they surely would have said no.So what leads this minister to ask this question rhetorically three times in a row? The only answer for that is absolute crass political opportunism. The only answer to that is she is trying to shift the blame—and I will accept some responsibility for any practices that occurred in Defence when I was minister, but it is hard to do anything about them if no-one ever told you about them. I challenge Mrs Bishop to find in the defence department one piece of advice on this issue to me, Mr Punch, Mr Bevis or Senator Faulkner. I also challenge her to find one piece of correspondence that was ever written to any of the four of us complaining about these particular practices.Everyone knows that, if I had found out about it, it would have ceased that day. I would have come down on them like a ton of bricks, as I did with the sexual harassers, whom we came down on like a ton of bricks the moment we found out about them. Instead, we have a minister obviously with no dignity, no courage and no principle coming out and asking these questions, to which she already knows the answer. She already knows that the previous government was not informed.If she wants a clue to that, why doesn't she ask the army why, when the upper echelon discovered this in June 1997, she did not find out about this until 11 February 1998? It is because they did not tell her. Because they wanted to clean up their own mess, they refused to pass it down the line like they should have, exactly like when the lieutenant colonels and others when I and Senator Faulkner were the responsible minister would not have passed it up the line. So the answer is all there.What we get from Mrs Bishop is a political statement—cheap, crass and lacking the dignity of the office she holds. An office in the defence area does carry a little more dignity than some of the more robust political portfolios. So what is her excuse for operating like a third-rate ward heeler? Simple lack of political courage, simple lack of saying yes, this is a problem and it was a problem under the previous government undiscovered and a problem under this government undiscovered and, once it was discovered, appropriate action was taken.But what action does she take? She sets up a departmental inquiry. What action did we take in response to the sexual harassment claims. We sent that to a Senate committee—it was me who referred it—for a full inquiry in the public gaze, taking all the risks incumbent on that course of action in what may come out of that Senate inquiry.I have been silent on defence issues for two years. I hope I can be silent on them again for the next 10 years. I do not believe, having held a portfolio, that you go back and dog the previous minister all the time; that you chase them down every burrow and criticise them. They have a job to do. Let them get on and do it. I wish them well and I hope they do it well. But, with this sort of attitude from Mrs Bishop, if she wants to get me back on the lists, if she wants to get me at an estimates committee for five days in a row, then I will accommodate her. But I do not think her colleagues would be too happy with that.This is good group therapy for me tonight, obviously. Let me move to a second issue, and that is Senator Minchin's press release of 5 March. He is commenting on the issue of travel allowance for members of parliament. I must say that I thought the Remuneration Tribunal produced a good report and a sensible report. It does not matter, Madam President. It does not matter what rules they devise, I can tell you now that no-one is going to cheat. It does not matter if you have the loosest rules in the world. After what happened last year, no-one—I cannot even accuse my worst enemy in the parliament—is going to be dumb enough to cheat on travel allowance again; they are just not. Nevertheless, the tribunal has come up with a set of very sensible rules, and I endorse them all. There was logic and good thought behind them.But Senator Minchin, in his hyperbole in the press release, goes on to take credit for all of this. It is actually the Remuneration Tribunal. In part of it he says, `Something the Labor Party were incapable of achieving during their 13 years of government.' He is talking about the new travel allowance arrangements. As I recall it, the first government to publish expenses was the Labor government of 1983. They were never published before that. The Hawke government in its first year published all figures as to ministerial and office holders' travel allowance, to their Commonwealth car cost, to their overseas trips. It also published the cost of staff travel allowance and staff Commonwealth car and transport costs. That was the first one ever. Action was taken there because these things are best dealt with in the end not by rules, not by prosecution but by transparency. There is no acknowledgment of it here.Who was the first person to authorise the full exposure of senators' travel allowance? Let us face it: once that was done, it cleaned up the whole system. The answer is that the former President of the Senate, Michael Beahan, made the decision. Who was gracious and intelligent enough to implement this scheme? The incumbent in the chair tonight was sensible enough to enforce Beahan's in-principle decision and put it into practice. So, if you are looking for why the whole area of travel allowance was cleaned up, it was basically by two presiding officers in this parliament. Once you put all the details down and made it transparent, anyone that was rorting the system became pretty obvious. Therefore they could clean up the system.For Senator Minchin to say that they have done everything belies two points. When Mr Andren, an Independent member in the House of Representatives, moved for a similar publication in the House of Representatives, all he did was get stalled for six weeks. It was only in the panic after 8 April, when certain events occurred, that suddenly it became clear water. The coalition agreed to the publication of those figures under intense pressure.Let me say one other thing on this. I am sick of hearing how this government claim they were the ones responsible for cleaning up parliamentary entitlements. Yes, they did in the end; they did it under pressure. But the old department of DAS consistently pressured former Minister Jull—and I must say responded well—in September 1996 for a full reform of this system. They authorised Mr Sam Skrzypek, who was not in the ministerial and parliamentary services area, to do a paper on this particular thing. They then developed a policy submission on the reform of parliamentary entitlements. They had several meetings in January 1997, properly minuted, progressing this issue. They incorporated it in a submission to the Expenditure Review Committee. They put it in a second submission to the Expenditure Review Committee.But they also made a decision then, as the minutes record, to go out and test the waters on this—that is, slip around to Mr Reith's office and Mr Howard's office and say, `Is this okay? Are we able to do this?' Guess what? On 5 February 1997 all references to a review of parliamentary entitlements went out the window. They got deleted completely out of the submission. The word back to Mr Jull's office was, `Don't rock the boat. Everything is fine.' So this great reforming government deliberately junked it on 5 February!Sure, they reinstituted it all on 5 March. Why? Because certain matters associated that may be in the courts in the future, so I will not go to the specifics, were raised. Mr Jull, as the then minister, panicked. Half an hour before question time he made a decision to have a review. He rang his department and said, `I want KPMG and Baxter to do the review.' He then rang Mr Baxter. Twenty-five minutes before question time, he said, `I want you to do the review. We will settle the details later,' which was months later. So any pretence that this government was serious about this issue until the liquid matter hit the fan is absolutely denied. It is there in the records of DoF and the former DAS for anyone that wants to see it, if the government will ever release the papers.74319:28:00743Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—As the Senate will be aware, the government set aside $4½ million to be spent on research and public information about electromagnetic radiation. There are two matters that I wish to raise tonight: one is the question of accountability and how this money is to be spent; and the other is an article which was published in the Australian today by Stewart Fist on the study into exposure to power lines.Both these matters go to the question of public confidence in the outcome of research. The Minister for Communications, the Information Economy and the Arts handed responsibility for deciding which research projects would be given grants from the $4½ million to the NHMRC last year. The NHMRC set up an expert committee to do this, which, as I understand it, will shortly announce which studies will accept the offers that were made. That will be a matter for the public to see.Now of course it makes sense for the NHMRC to do this work. It is at arm's length from government. But the problem is that the committee was also supposed to be at arm's length from the telecommunications industry. It is hardly surprising that people such as me are sceptical about the fact that Dr Ken Joyner, a scientist who is and has been employed by Motorola for some years, is on that committee.I make no judgments about the work of Dr Joyner. I am sure that his qualifications and his experience are as good as anyone's in this country—in fact, I have heard that said by a number of people. The problem simply is that he has a vested interest in discovering that electromagnetic radiation has no effects on health. Whether his judgment about which research project should go ahead is affected by this association with the industry or not, the NHMRC cannot demonstrate that his influence and his decisions are totally impartial. Given the controversy which surrounds this issue, in my view, the committee must be and must be seen to be at arm's length from industry. The Senate will recall that a year ago the results of a study conducted for Telstra by the Royal Adelaide Hospital were released. It showed that exposure to digital cellular phone radiation doubled the immune cell cancers in transgenic mice. You may also recall that the industry shrugged this off saying that the results had no implications for humans. The minister, whom you would expect to be interested in the health of the nation, made a joke of the whole thing, advising that mice should desist from using mobile phones.The second part of that study was released last week—this time into health dangers associated with electrical power lines, commissioned by the Electricity Supply Association. I cannot improve on Mr Fist's article, so I will quote from him extensively. He explains:The 50Hz study was conducted by the same team, used the same transgenic mice housed under the same environmental and handling conditions, as the GSM study. The only real difference was that they had five groups of 100 mice . . . which were exposed to pseudo-mains power at different levels of magnetic flux.This is called pseudo-mains power because the research design specifically filtered out all radio-frequency type electromagnetic pollu tants, which we experience daily when we use electrical devices. The article continues:This was done to expose the mice to a clean, 50-cycle magnetic field. . . .There is nothing sinister about this filtering—it just allows scientists to test for each factor independently—However, the problem this protocol generates is that the results cannot then be extrapolated to normal human experience with mains power.Mr Fist says that this is one reason why the media is overstating the research findings of this study as being safe—as they did last week. He goes on:There's another minor problem here. In the near-field (within a distance of one wavelength) there are both magnetic and electrical fields, and this experiment was really only designed to look at the magnetic field.There are no figures given for electrical measurements.The power lines-are-safe conclusion isn't strongly supported by the published report itself either—which is not at all uncommon in power-line research.Reports published in the newspapers constantly confuse "no evidence" with "evidence of no effect".Others include nonsense such as: "Hundreds of studies have failed to prove . . . " when most of the studies set out to prove something different or to disprove a hypothesis that may have little direct bearing on the area of concern.Last July, for instance, a story circulated around the world that a US National Cancer Institute study had proved high-tension power lines didn't produce childhood leukaemia.Closer examination of the published data showed the exact opposite.The NCI study collected evidence of the incidence of leukaemia among children living near high-tension power lines, and it used as an arbitrary cut-off point 2mG (micro-Gauss) of field strength.Usually, 3mG is the figure used in this work, and when the statistics for these more highly exposed kids were included the increase in leukaemia was statistically significant—with almost twice the expected number of cases.There are dozens of similar epidemiological studies from various countries, most of which reveal a small but significant link with leukaemia for children living close to high-tension power lines. A few don't, and a few laboratory studies are also ambiguous or dismissive. So while nothing is proven, there's enough hard evidence here to worry government authorities and power companies despite the barrage of public relations distortions from the electricity industry.This is the background against which the ESAA's research was conducted.The researchers had five groups of mice, each with about 100 lymphoma- prone rodents . . .One group received identical treatment to the others but had no magnetic field exposure . . . The four exposed groups received 50Hz magnetic fields doses of different levels for 20 hours daily, using specially-built . . . coils around their cages. One group received a tiny dose . . . at a level experienced only by most people for a short part of the day. Another received 100 times that dose, and two other groups were exposed at 1000 times. One of the high exposure groups received its dose in on-off cycles of 15 minute intervals, but with transients suppressed.In this type of research the scientists are not remotely interested in the sheer number of cancers developed by the mice because they've chosen special cancer-prone mice.They anticipate 15 per cent of the mice will spontaneously develop lymphomas within 18 months anyway.The point is that they are using these mice as sensitive detectors to see if the 50Hz fields make a difference to the cancer rate.Ultimately, they are only interested in the possibility of humans developing cancers over a lifetime, so the cancer-prone mice over 18 months are a sort of proxy for humans over 80 years.It's the ratio between the sham (unexposed group) and those receiving the high doses of magnetic fields that is the key, not the absolute numbers.The in-between groups should also show some grading if the problems are dose-related.These figures aren't always easy to interpret.For instance, many of the heavily exposed mice died of renal problems.Should the researchers count these or not? This kidney disease could be the result of pure chance, or it could be a new and unknown 50Hz effect.If it did arise by chance, it will almost certainly have masked real cancer conditions in some of the mice. But how many? If a mouse dies of kidney disease or unknown causes early in the experiment, who is to know whether it would have developed lymphoma? This introduces uncertainty. These are the complications that scientists try to express to the public in the form of a simple expression of significance.A 5 per cent level of significance means the results could have arisen one time in 20 by chance; a 1 per cent level is more convincing, since it could only arise once in 100 similar experiments.In this study, the researchers found the significance levels too low to be conclusive. The mice receiving the higher magnetic doses developed more lymphomas, but also more renal problems by a considerable margin. So conclusions couldn't be drawn.Madam President, I have a couple more minutes to read and I am obviously going to run out of time. I seek leave to incorporate the remaining parts of this article in Hansard .Leave granted.The article read as follows—The most disturbing finding they made, I think, is that there is extreme variation in the number of spontaneous tumours in the unexposed control groups.You wouldn't expect variability of this order. The power line sham group had nearly a third more lymphomas than the GSM shams, and nearly double the rate previously experienced with this strain of mice.This suggests that the higher-than-expected incidence of lymphoma in the unexposed group could easily have masked a real change resulting from mains power, since the significance of the exposure is always calculated from the sham mice's spontaneous rate.In other words, it partly destroys the validity of the whole exercise. To make this clear by analogy: what the research is measuring is the apparent height of a mountain (a variation from normal).Research always measures from the base (the control group's spontaneous levels).However, if that base is revealed to be a cloud layer already well above the surrounding plain (through chance elevation or some unknown environmental factor) the measurements make the mountain look less impressive than it really is.Beneath the cloud the mountain may be substantial, but we have no real way of knowing.So, despite the published news stories, I don't read the report as giving either the pure 50Hz magnetic fields or the power lines a clean bill of health.Paradoxically, the study draws a new perspective on the earlier R/F study. It reinforced our cell- phone fears, because none of these mice showed basal cell (b-cell) lymphomas.In the cell-phone study the b-cell lymphoma incidence was a new and unexpected finding.So the b-cell finding is now associated only with cell-phone exposure, and not with the mouse strain, which destroys any remnants of credibility that might remain about setting Australia's exposure standards on the basis only of increases in tissue temperature.1M6Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON—I will just finish with the final paragraph which is important. Mr Fist says:Scientists and politicians cannot have it both ways. They cannot treat this study as proving powerline safety for humans but dismiss the other as just applying to mice.74519:38:00745Heffernan, Sen BillSenator HEFFERNANC16NSWLP10—The defining nature of our democracy is freedom of speech. No matter what your beliefs, whether you support or oppose the government of the day, you will be heard. But not so anymore. A small group in the left of the Labor Party are despicably changing the face of our democracy. They have used their mate Peter Yu in the National Indigenous Working Group to gag Father Frank Brennan.AW5CARRSenator Carr—It's sickening.C16Heffernan, Sen BillSenator HEFFERNAN—It is the truth. Alan Ramsey brought it to light two weeks ago. So important was this issue that he wrote about it the following week, and I bring it to the attention of the Senate tonight. Brennan has been gagged because he is a threat to Labor's divisive politics. Gareth Evans on radio on 2 March said that Frank had not been muzzled, but Brennan tells a different story. It is all on the record. In a letter to Ron Castan, the prominent Melbourne QC and key adviser and strategist for the ALP and the National Indigenous Working Group on 5 March, and reported by Ramsey on 7 March, Brennan wrote:Outsiders like myself could have brought some pressure to bear on government to deal with indigenous leaders. But you and the whole delegation who visited me on 14 January were anxious I remain silent, given my `unorthodox' views on the Racial Discrimination Act. Father Brennan's letter shows clearly that Gareth Evans has read Richo's book Whatever It Takes .The strange thing, however, is that Brennan is only arguing what the Labor Party argued in 1993. Labor then argued that to make the Wik legislation subservient to the Racial Discrimination Act would create legal chaos. In an article published in Eureka Street in January this year Father Brennan wrote:If the Labor Party faced up to the real world now, they would realise that it [making the legislation subject to the RDA] would be, and is, not an appropriate thing to do if you want to have the legislation work for the benefit of indigenous people—native title holders—and in fairness to the right of other persons. Despite the populist appeal of this amendment, the Opposition parties should back down in the interests of certainty, justice and workability for all stakeholders.No wonder Labor has told Father Brennan to shut up.On page 25 of the majority report by the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs into the Native Title Bill 1993, Labor's Senator Cooney, Senator Chris Evans and Senate McKiernan specifically recommended that the Native Title Act `should not be subject to the Racial Discrimination Act because of the uncertainty that this would create'. I repeat, should not be subject to the RDA. Gareth Evans argued in this place at the time, and I quote from the Hansard of 17 December 1993:The concern is that if we overemphasised the specific need for continued consistency with the Racial Discrimination Act perhaps that might somehow be put at risk, or other unforeseen consequences may arise.There has never been any doubt about our good faith in wanting the Racial Discrimination Act to apply. We have just been concerned about possible unforeseen technical consequences flowing from its application.The Keating government accepted the committee's recommendation. Four years later Labor is supporting an amendment which they were not prepared to pursue when they were in government. This is an irresponsible opposition. So what we have now is an opposition feeling threatened by a Jesuit priest and being backed into a corner by their own looney left and the National Indigenous Working Group.Father Brennan is not the only one who the likes of Peter Yu and Noel Pearson have attempted to silence. There is a greater enemy to the Aboriginal industry. That enemy, feared by Yu, Pearson, Dodson and others, is Aboriginals themselves. I have visited many outback Aboriginal committees, often with the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs, Senator Herron, and on occasion after occasion Aboriginals tell me that the Pearsons and Yus do not speak for them.AW5CARRSenator Carr—Is that when Herron gave you this speech?C16Heffernan, Sen BillSenator HEFFERNAN—I am good enough to write my own speeches, Kim. Ask Mick Mundine at Redfern what he thinks. I once asked Peter Yu in Broome what he was doing for the people at Noonkanbah to ensure they could educate their children and they could save some money for their children just like he was. His answer astonished me. He said, `I have never thought about it.'What the majority of Aboriginals and pastoralists alike want is certainty and equity. The existing act does not provide this. This is detailed by ATSIC's own admission in its report State of the nation: Report on native title outcomes. To date, there are over 700 applications for native title determination over about half of Australia. Only two claims have been determined. The coalition amendments offer all Australians certainty. We do not discriminate over colour. Labor, on the other hand, insists that the right to negotiate apply on pastoral leases. This is discriminatory to farmers like me by guaranteeing to native title claimants a set of rights not available to Australian farmers. Labor would support this type of discrimination, yet insists that the whole act be subject to the Racial Discrimination Act. Labor's logic is mind-boggling.Recently, my attention was brought to a letter which appeared in the West Australian written by a Mr Rivers. I urge all senators on the other side of this chamber to listen carefully to what Mr Rivers had to say and to think long and hard as to what their obstruction of the government's amendments is doing to the reconciliation process and the progress of the majority of Aboriginals. More people in the media should be telling Mr Rivers' story and the stories of others like him. Others like him are sick and tired of being ignored. The silence in the media over the majority of Aboriginal thinking is as bad as the ALP's gagging of Father Frank Brennan. Rivers wrote:I am an Aboriginal from the East Kimberley in Western Australia. I with many other Aboriginal people in the East Kimberley, am becoming very upset that the media, churches and political and community leaders seem to think that the likes of Pat Dodson, Noel Pearson, Peter Yu and Louis O'Donoghue are the leaders of the Aboriginal people and speak for the Aboriginal people in Australia.They may speak for the Aboriginal industry and its various hangers-on, such as the do-gooders and greenies, but they don't speak for Aboriginal people.These so called leaders have driven a wedge between the Aboriginal people and the wider Australian community because it suits their purposes.It seems that none of these co-called leaders has done anything conciliatory. Reconciliation is a two-way thing.An Aboriginal wrote that from the Kimberley.Labor has learnt well from their mate, `Whatever it takes' Richardson—to lie and defy their own position as a government in 1993, a position which reflected the present position of the now silenced adviser to the native title indigenous working group, Father Brennan, and the advice of his father, Chief Justice Brennan, in his Wik determination. That position, of course, is the government's. This government is opposed to making the Wik legislation subject to the RDA. Father Brennan said it all when he said:I am sufficiently respectful of Aboriginal self-determination that, when key Aboriginal leaders such as the NIWG seek my silence, then of course it must be given, even though I have the gravest fears their decision is one that will do irreparable harm to Aboriginal interests . . . Ramsey pointed out that `Father Brennan's measured words are bullets.' As Ramsey's Labor leaker concluded:What you've got is Labor locked into something in opposition which it could never bring itself to do in government. Yet basically, the NIWG think Labor is still in Government, and given that Labor is not in Government, they think they can go down some looney path and get a double dissolution that will get Labor elected.That is the Labor Party itself speaking. By adopting this totally irresponsible strategy, which includes silencing any criticism from the honest brokers—McKiernan and Cooney et cetera, in your own report—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator, address the senators properly.C16Heffernan, Sen BillSenator HEFFERNAN—Thank you, Madam President. By silencing criticism from within their own ranks, by ignoring the pleas of the `non-industry' indigenous and turning a deaf ear to the concerns of spurious native title claims raised by ATSIC, Labor is plunging Australia's land title system into chaos. Alan Ramsey has totally destroyed the credibility of the National Indigenous Working Group and Labor. I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall as the rats rang in to abuse Mr Ramsey.19:46:00747Senate adjourned at 7.46 p.m.Documents747747The following government documents were tabled:Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission Act—Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission—Report for 1996-97—Erratum.Advance to the Minister for Finance—Statements and supporting applications of issues for— December 1997. January 1998.Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation Act—Nuclear Safety Bureau—Report for the period 1 July to 30 September 1997 (NSB.QRM 40).Australian Sports Drug Agency Act—Australian Sports Drug Agency—Strategic plan 1998-2001.Commonwealth Electoral Act— 1997 Redistribution into electoral divisions— Australian Capital Territory—Report, together with composite maps of the proposed and final electoral divisions for the Australian Capital Territory and microfiche of suggestions, comments and objections relating to the redistribution. Queensland— Volume 1—Report. Volume 2—Composite maps of the proposed and final electoral divisions for Queensland and microfiche of suggestions, comments, objections, submissions and transcripts relating to the redistribution. Australian Electoral Commission—Election 1996—Funding and disclosure report following the federal election held on 2 March 1996.Commonwealth Grants Commission Act—Commonwealth Grants Commission—Report—General revenue grants relativities—1998 update.Copyright Act—Copyright Agency Limited—Report for 1996-97.Foreign Investment Review Board—Report for 1996-97.States Grants (Primary and Secondary Education Assistance) Act—Financial assistance granted to each State in respect of 1996.United Nations—Human Rights Committee under the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights—Communication No. 751/1997—Outline748The following documents were tabled by the Clerk:Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 2.Air Services Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 8.Australian Capital Territory (Planning and Land Management) Act—Amendment No. 22.Christmas Island Act— Ordinance—No. 1 of 1998 (Acts Amendment (Franchise Fees) Act 1997 (W.A.) (C.I.) (Amendment) Ordinance 1998). Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 20.Cocos (Keeling) Islands Act— Ordinance—No. 1 of 1998 (Acts Amendment (Franchise Fees) Act 1997 (W.A.) (C.K.I.) (Amendment) Ordinance 1998). Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 21.Corporations Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 Nos 9 and 22.Customs Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 Nos 4 and 15.Defence Act— Determinations under section 58B—Defence Determinations 1998/3-1998/8. Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 5.Evidence Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 17.Fisheries Levy Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 7.Foreign Judgments Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 16.Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 —Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 14.Jervis Bay Territory Acceptance Act—Ordinance—No. 1 of 1998 (Leases (Amendment) Ordinance 1998).Long Service Leave (Commonwealth Employees) Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 19.Marine Navigation Levy Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 11.Migration Act—Statements for period 1 July to 31 December 1997 under section— 48B [4]. 417 [20].Military Superannuation and Benefits Act—Declaration—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 13.National Environment Protection Council Act—National Environment Protection (National Pollutant Inventory) Measure, dated 27 February 1998, accompanied by the impact statement, summary of submissions and the Council's response to submissions.National Health Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 18.Native Title Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 3.Navigation Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 12.Primary Industries and Energy Research and Development Act—Regulation—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 6.Remuneration Tribunal Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 10.Answers to Questions on Notice749The following answers to questions were circulated:749(Question No. 1046)1046749O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business, upon notice, on 18 December 1997:(1) How many officers in the Australian Maritime Safety Authority and the Maritime Transport Division of the Department travelled overseas in 1997.(2) (a) Who undertook the travel; (b) what was or were the destination(s); (c) when was the travel undertaken; (d) what was the duration and cost of each journey; and (e) what was the purpose of the travel.749Alston, Sen RichardSenator AlstonLD4VICLPCommunications, the Information Economy and the Arts10—The Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) Fifty one officers in the Australian Maritime Safety Authority and seven officers in the Maritime Transport Division of the Department of Workplace Relations and Small Business travelled overseas in 1997.(2) See attached tables.TABLE 1: AMSA OFFICERS' OVERSEAS TRAVEL IN 1997(a) Officer Undertaken Travel(b) Destination/s(c) Date FromDate To(d) Duration in DaysTotal Cost ($)(e) Purpose of Travel International Maritime Organisation (IMO) TravelGraham MapplebeckLondon10/01/199703/02/1997228,453.67Attend IMO Flag State Implementation (FSI) meetingBrian RichesLondon24/01/199703/02/1997108,027.48Attend IMO Radiocommunications and Search & Rescue (COMSAR) meetingBhu DevIndia/London31/01/199715/02/19971612,238.64Attend IMO Ship Design & Equipment (DE) meetingTrevor RoseLondon31/01/199704/03/19973216,427.10Attend IMO Ship Design & Equipment/Dangerous Goods, Solid Cargoes & Containers SubCommittee meetingsRay LipscombeLondon05/03/199718/03/1997133,967.10Attend IMO Oil Pollution Response & Cooperation Convention meetingMichael JulianLondon06/03/199712/03/1997712,040.27Attend IMO Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) meetingDavid HarrodLondon04/04/199719/04/1997159,230.74Attend IMO Sub-Committee on Bulk Liquids and Gases meetingRick BurleighSeoul05/04/199713/04/199785,554.72Attend IMO Meeting re: Pacific Ocean SAR & Global Marine Distress and Safety System Wayne StuartLondon11/04/199728/04/1997179,852.30Attend International Oil Pollution Convention Fund Executive Committee & IMO Legal CommitteePatrick QuirkLondon24/05/199708/06/19971510,255.55Attend IMO Maritime Safety Committee meetinglan WilliamsLondon25/05/199709/06/1997159,758.44Attend IMO Maritime Safety Committee meetingJim MallowsJapan & Singapore09/06/199719/06/1997105,394.11IMO Seminar on Implementation of the International Ship Management CodeGreg BeckBangkok/ Brunei14/06/199728/06/1997147,460.38Attend Technical Cooperation IMO East Asian Seas TrainingBill BanksLondon20/06/199726/06/199763,532.50Attend IMO Council meetingJohn HallLondon10/07/199727/07/1997179,379.41Attend IMO Safety of Navigation MeetingGraham MapplebeckLondon11/07/199723/07/1997127,995.70Attend IMO Safety of Navigation MeetingRay LipscombeLondon10/09/199721/09/1997118,707.72IMO Training Review meeting—oil pollution responseMike JulianLondon10/09/199729/09/19971910,348.80Attend IMO MEPC meetingAngela RhodesVirginia04/10/199728/10/1997268,899.26Attend IMO & ICAO Working GroupWayne StuartLondon10/10/199727/10/1997175,164.99Attend IMO Legal Committee meetingBill BanksSingapore/ London05/11/199728/11/19972314,941.08Attend 20th IMO Assemblylan WilliamsLondon13/11/199702/12/19971611,309.90Attend 20th IMO Assembly & Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) ConferenceRoger TimmsLondon/Genoa05/12/199714/12/199794,186.52Attend IMO Fire Protection meeting Industry funded—ship surveysAllan SchwartzSingapore22/01/199730/01/199782,600.50Michael McGintySingapore27/01/199729/01/19972381.12John McAuleyFort Lauderdale11/02/199719/02/19978665.14Lloyd SchoolingGermany30/03/199706/04/199771,280.31Les SullivanHolland/ lreland10/06/199721/06/1997111,567.00Sean O'NeillPoland/Dublin10/06/199725/06/1997151,834.90Mike KinleyIndonesia01/07/199707/07/19977800.90Alan LloydIndonesia04/07/199708/07/19974330.00Bhu DevNoumea25/08/199731/08/199762,599.31Lloyd SchoolingSingapore09/09/199712/09/19973394.08Peter DaviSingapore19/10/199727/10/19978889.02Reza VindDenmark17/11/199721/11/19974273.44 Environment/Oil PollutionWayne StuartLondon15/02/199722/02/199776,203.61Attend International Oil Pollution Convention Fund Executive Committee meetingRay LipscombePhoenix/ Honolulu03/04/199717/04/19971411,109.80Attend Incident Command System course & International Oil Spill ConferenceRay LipscombeAuckland08/06/199714/06/199762,118.60Assist NZ MSA with oil spill trainingTrevor GilbertNew Zealand18/06/199720/06/199722,404.40Attend Oil Pollution Advisory Committee & NZ MSA Mike JulianPhilippines19/10/199726/10/199773,376.70Present Conference paper—International Conventions and National Legislation affecting the Maritime EnvironmentGreg BeckSingapore18/10/199727/10/199794,767.44Industry funded assistance to East Asia Response Ltd Singapore following oil spillDavid BairdNew Zealand27/11/199728/11/199712,152.00Attend NZ Oil Pollution Advisory CommitteePatrick QuirkDubai/ Singapore28/11/199704/12/199777,751.20Classification Society & oil company safety seminars International Association of Lighthouse Authorities (IALA)John MacdonaldParis01/03/199715/03/1997147,301.25Attend IALA Vessel Traffic Systems (VTS)/Radio Navigation Committee MeetingsAllan CrossingParis06/04/199723/04/19971710,172.85Attend IALA Battery Group meetingJohn SugarmanParis06/04/199727/04/1997216,334.35Attend IALA Engineering/Operations Committee MeetingJohn SugarmanBeijing/ Shanghai13/06/199722/06/199796,802.10Attend IALA Council meetingNorm LoughtonParis31/08/199713/09/1997138,197.14Attend IALA Operations/Engineering Committee meetingsIan OxleyFrance11/10/199726/10/1997159,158.13IALA Operations & Engineering Committee meetingsAlan SmartParis/London23/11/199706/12/1997125,202.98Attend World Conference of International Assoc. Institutes of Navigation & Attend IALA Council Australia New Zealand Safe Boating Education Group (ANZSBEG)Brian MunroWellington29/04/199703/05/19974864.09Visit to NZ Maritime Safety Authority (MSA) and attend ANZSBEG meetingBill BanksWellington29/04/199703/05/19974906.82Visit to NZ MSA and attend ANZSBEG meetingMick DarraghWellington30/04/199703/05/199732,520.48Visit to NZ MSA and attend ANZSBEG meetingDavid GrayWellington30/04/199704/05/199742,889.05Visit to NZ MSA and attend ANZSBEG meeting Port State ControlAbdul HannanKenya07/07/199714/07/199776,048.03Attend a Port State Control Meeting of Port Management Association of Eastern & Southern Africa (PMAESA)Ian WilliamsSingapore04/08/199708/08/199744,329.34Lecture to Tokyo Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) Port State Control courseIan WilliamsYokohama01/10/199707/10/199761,135.74Lecture to Tokyo MOU Port State Control courseAbdul HannanFiji07/12/199711/12/199752,428.00Port State Control discussions—Fiji Search and Rescue Chris PayneCanary Islands28/02/199711/03/1997119,044.00Cospas-Sarsat Geostationary SAR Satellite (GEOSAR) task group meetingRowena LomasneySingapore25/03/199729/03/199754,026.24Attend ASEAN Regional Forum inter seasonal meeting on SARBrian BlemingsIndonesia17/04/199705/05/199718-Ausaid funded training on SAR software for IndonesiansChris PayneBrazil07/06/199724/06/19971714,094.28Attend Cospas-Sarsat meetingColin BarrFiji, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, Vamiati & New Caledonia28/09/199714/10/1997177,816.14South West Pacific SAR Liaison visitRowena LomasneyLondon25/10/199703/11/199797,574.40Cospas-Sarsat Council meetingRowena LomasneySingapore14/12/199718/12/199744,095.00ASEAN SAR Conference APECDavid BairdTaipei27/09/199702/10/199773,842.54Attend 12th APEC Transport Working Group (TPT WG) meeting Archipelagic Sea LanesGraham MapplebeckIndonesia/ Singapore21/10/199728/10/199786,089.02Attend bilateral discussions of Archipelagic Sea Lanes with Indonesia and Singapore Differential Global Positioning System (DGPS)Eddy D'AmicoLos Angeles08/02/199715/02/199777,952.53Perform factory acceptance tests on Leica Differential Global Positioning System (DGPS) equipmentAdrian MarshLos Angeles08/02/199715/02/199777,765.00Perform factory acceptance tests on Leica DGPS equipment Miscellaneous travelIan WilliamsLondon03/02/199715/03/1997153,844.27Attend the High Speed Craft Conference & Chair DE Sub Committee (Chairman)Jim MallowsSuva06/04/199712/04/199763,561.79Meeting in Suva with Association of Pacific Islands Maritime Training Institutes and Maritime AuthoritiesJohn BriggsManilla08/04/199713/04/19975869.85Funded trip to attend Lloyds Ship Manager Conference & present paperGraham MapplebeckHawaii15/04/199720/04/199756,541.36Attend US Defence Law Seminar for Law of the Sea issuesBrian DayBangkok08/06/199714/06/199764,602.03Attend International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) ConferenceMike JulianRotorua11/06/199715/06/199741,614.91Attend Baltic & International Maritime Council Conference—Managing Shipping RisksTrevor RoseVladivastok04/08/199717/08/1997137,590.29Attend Preparatory Meetings for Joint Ministerial Conference Tom IrelandSingapore25/08/199714/09/1997205,293.36Organising & supervision of the dry dock of `Rig Seismic'Bill BanksSingapore/ Japan03/09/199713/09/1997107,637.36Heads of Agency meetingPaul McGrathSingapore/ Japan03/09/199713/09/1997107,788.34Heads of Agency meetingShayne WildeNew Zealand07/09/199712/09/199751,795.35NZ MSA course presentations and reviewsTrevor RoseCanada07/09/199714/09/199777,643.33Preparatory meeting for Ministerial Conference Paris MOU and Asia Pacific MOUJohn BriggsPapua New Guinea20/09/199723/09/19973Funded visit to the Papua New Guinea Maritime CollegeRichard HarrisSingapore22/09/199726/09/199743,965.06Mobile Satellite Conference in SingaporeBhu DevIndia11/10/199719/10/199787,092.49Attend the 1st Preparatory meeting on the MOU in the Indian Ocean RegionBrian RichesSwitzerland23/10/199718/11/19972613,442.26World Radiocommunications ConferenceNorm LoughtonCape Town11/11/199716/11/199755,018.51Preparation of consortium tenders with Marine Data Systems—South AfricaRichard HarrisCape Town11/11/199716/11/199755,117.73Preparation of consortium tenders with Marine Data Systems—South AfricaTABLE 2: MARITIME TRANSPORT DIVISION OFFICERS' OVERSEAS TRAVEL IN 1997(a) Officer Undertaken Travel(b) Destination/s(c) Date FromDate To(d) Duration in DaysTotal Cost ($)(e) Purpose of Travel International Maritime Organisation (IMO) TravelC FilorLondon10/01/199720/01/1997108,303.35Attend IMO FSI 5 Sub Committee MeetingC FilorLondon23/05/199710/06/1997184,556.85 (f/flyer for fares)IMO Safety Committee MeetingT FrancombeLondon27/06/199705/07/199788,360.3925th Session IMO Facilitation of International Maritime TrafficK BillsLondon11/07/199718/07/1997712,147.9143rd IMO Safety of Navigation Sub Committee Meeting OECD Maritime Transport Committee (MTC)A Beresford-WylieParis/ London15/04/199725/04/1997109,195.90OECD MTC and IMO Legal Committee MeetingsK BillsParis01/11/199709/11/199788,794.80OECD MTC Meeting APECJ BlackburnSeattle12/04/199717/04/199757,580.00Attend 11th APEC TPT WG MeetingK BillsCanada20/06/199727/06/199778,067.06Attend Senior Officers and APEC Ministerial Transportation MeetingsJ BlackburnChinese Taipei27/09/199705/10/199784,993.10Attend 12th APEC TPT WG Meeting Archipelagic Sea Lanes J BlackburnJakarta21/10/199728/10/199776,601.80Australian/Indonesian Archipelagic Sea Lane Consultation Miscellaneous travelK BillsNew Zealand02/07/199707/07/199753,891.08Minister's Visit to New ZealandW BrocklebankNew Zealand12/11/199715/11/199733,381.858th Australian Transport Council (ATC) MeetingJ BarnesBangkok29/11/199705/12/199763,770.55Economic and Social Commission tor Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP) Committee on Transport and Communications (CTC) Meeting754(Question No. 1062)1062754Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WoodleyHX5QLDAD00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 30 January 1998:Were any Australian troops involved in the construction of an airstrip near the town of Leong Nok Tha in north east Thailand during the years 1965 to 1968; if so, who was the airstrip ultimately used by and for what purpose.754Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NewmanBE4TASLPSocial Security10—The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:Departmental records indicate that the 2nd Troop of the 1st Field Squadron, Royal Australian Engineers undertook the construction of a concrete runway in North East Thailand in conjunction with the 11th Independent Squadron, Royal Engineers (Malaysia), as part of Operation Crown. This operation, which lasted 6 months, commenced in December 1965 and was carried out under the auspices of the South East Asian Treaty Organisation (SEATO).There is nothing available in departmental records to indicate by whom the airstrip was ultimately used and for what purpose.