1998-03-113816SENATE75501998-03-11The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid) took the chair at 9.30 a.m. and read prayers.Miscellaneous755755Debate resumed from 11 March, on motion by Senator Vanstone: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.09:31:00755Abetz, Sen EricSenator ABETZN26TASLP10—Yesterday I pointed out that the five premises on which we base our censure motion against Senator Bolkus are beyond dispute. In summary they were—and allow me to quote from the motion—that Senator Bolkus revealed certain contents of a confidential Federal Court document which formed part of legal proceedings undertaken to recover assets allegedly concealed by Mr Skase; that Federal Court affidavits may only be obtained by leave of the court or a judge; that in relation to the affidavit revealed by Senator Bolkus no such leave had been obtained; and that Mr Donnelly had not authorised the release of the affidavit.That is irrefutable and indeed accepted by the Labor Party. The evidence is absolutely irrefutable. What we heard yesterday was a tirade against Senator Vanstone and against this excellent government. For argument's sake, let us set aside all concepts of truth, logic and commonsense. Let us accept the violence done to truth, logic and commonsense and say that what Labor alleges is correct. That in no way excuses or exculpates Senator Bolkus from his own personal actions which are the subject of this motion.It is like a little child caught with a hand in the cookie jar who, when accused, says, `Oh, Jimmy did it as well.' It does not excuse the behaviour of the child that was caught with the hand in the cookie jar and, in this circumstance, it is Senator Bolkus. The opposition can obfuscate as much as they like, they can filibuster as much as they like, but the reality is that Senator Bolkus has been caught out, and the case has been made very strongly as to the five premises on which we base our case.On the basis of that, we believe that Senator Bolkus ought to be censured for revealing the contents of a confidential Federal Court document. Why is that such a serious matter? Our whole society and its structure and stability are based on the rule of law, that there are certain rules which people abide by. If the would-be first law officer of the country cannot abide by those fundamental principles as the upholder of the rule of law in a community, then the whole basis on which our society is structured is under challenge.This is a very important and very serious matter, one which cannot in any way be underestimated. Senator Bolkus himself admitted to revealing the information and, what is more, revealing more than what was already on the public record, and that was shown in his statement to Kerry O'Brien on the 7.30 Report. He said, `If you look at what I announced on that day and compare it to the article, there is very little different information,' and then the telling point, `Very little extra.' He admits to revealing extra information. The revealing of confidential court documents, as I have said, strikes at the very heart of the administration of justice in this country and in the way our society operates. As a would-be Attorney-General, that is completely unacceptable.Our second basis for asking the Senate to censure Senator Bolkus is his disregard of the larger public interest in putting at risk the success of the legal action to obtain Skase's assets. This case against Mr Skase is being funded by the taxpayers of this country. Senator Bolkus owes an obligation to those taxpayers not to prejudice their hard-earned dollars which are being used in the chase for those Skase assets.Our third point is that Senator Bolkus did this knowingly. In the Senate only some two or three years ago we censured a fellow senator for unwittingly revealing a tax file number in a document that he tabled in this place—might I add with the leave of Labor senator, Senator Crowley. I refer to the circumstance of Senator Michael Baume. Senator Michael Baume and Senator Crowley, in agreeing to it being tabled, did so unwittingly. They did not realise what they were doing. But Senator Bolkus, out of his own mouth, knew exactly what he was doing because in the transcript Senator Bolkus tells the media, `I can't give this document out.' He knows that he cannot do it but he said, `But maybe if I just read it out off the record.'He knew what he was doing. He did so deliberately, he did so knowingly, in stark contrast to what Senator Baume did. Nevertheless, the Labor Party found it appropriate to censure Senator Baume. If somebody does something inadvertently and they are censured for it, is there not all the more reason that, when somebody deliberately and knowingly engages in that sort of behaviour, they ought to be censured and are deserving of the condemnation and censure of this Senate?We then call on Senator Bolkus to apologise for his actions. First of all, he should apologise to the trustee of the bankrupt estate, which makes sense; that he ought to apologise to the Federal Court for breaking their rules; and that he ought to apologise to the Senate. I have to say that there is one more very important point that is missing in this motion, and that is that he ought to be apologising to the people of Australia for prejudicing the whole case against Mr Skase.Above and beyond that, we should call on the Leader of the Opposition to sack Senator Bolkus. For the would-be first law officer of this country to deliberately and knowingly breach the rules of the Federal Court is unacceptable behaviour. That stands to reason, it is very clear, and I would urge the Senate to support the censure motion.09:38:00756Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—Let me say a few things about this censure motion. Firstly, I would put on the record that this is nothing more than an act of desperation by a government that is desperate. The only purpose of this motion is to cover up the government's failings, and the only outcome of this motion is to expose the government more.Secondly, what we have here in this saga is the embodiment of abuse of Australian Federal Police resources and ministerial roles in respect of the Australian Federal Police. There has been selective police investigation and there has been selective use of police information. That is something for which the Attorney-General and the Minister for Justice will continue to be condemned.Thirdly, here we have nothing more than a political frame-up. I tell you, Senator Vanstone and Mr Williams: I am not going to take the rap for your mess-up; I am not going to take the rap for your incompetence. The government leaked a story in the silly season. It got a big run for it—`Skase hoard found' displayed across the Murdoch tabloids. I tell you what: that was the tip-off to Skase. I am not going to take the rap for your tip-off and for your incompetence once again, Senator Vanstone. Fourthly, let me put this on the record: I see this as nothing more than an act of revenge from a spiteful Prime Minister—a Prime Minister who, with the rest of his government, is prepared to smear, use innuendo and use police resources in pursuit of political objectives. This is a `get even' with me because I exposed the Attorney-General's inaction and condoning of an injustice in the High Court in respect of Mr Justice Callinan. I am being got at here for doing the job that Attorney-General Williams should have done, or that he was unable to do or too scared to do.Let us face it, in this particular case ask anyone in the gallery; they all want to know: why is this most trivial of trivial pursuits being pursued? This most trivial of trivial pursuits is being pursued because the Prime Minister has lost his balance; little Johnny has lost his marbles in respect of this issue. That is why this matter continues to run.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Murphy)—Order! Senator Bolkus, I think you should refer to the Prime Minister by his title.XE4Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUS—The Prime Minister has lost his marbles with respect to this particular matter. That is why he and those driven by vengeance on his side of the parliament continue to run this issue. The essence of this matter is that it would not stand up in any court in any country. I must say to Senator Abetz, `Eric, after your performance this morning, don't even try and defend people on parking fines.'Let me put one thing clearly on the record. I did what the Attorney-General and the Minister for Justice should have done last week: I rang the Australian Federal Police last Thursday at 12.55 p.m. They returned the call and I was told that I was not being investigated, that the investigation was not completed, that there were a couple of matters still to be resolved, but that I was not the target of them. Let us put that on the record. Let us put on the record that this is what the government should have done before they went into parliament, before the Attorney-General went into parliament and smeared my name in a most dishonest way.Let us put something else on the record as well. Had the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice done the most basic of checks—and I believe that the Attorney-General had been alerted to this anyway—they would have found out that I had not spoken to the Australian Federal Police since about 30 January, almost six weeks ago. For the Attorney-General to allege and imply and, by innuendo, put on the record that I was being investigated was basically wrong. But this basic fact has not stopped the campaign of smear—a campaign, as I say, which reached its highest level when the Attorney-General said in the House of Representatives last week, on 4 March, that the Minister for Justice had requested the AFP to investigate me.7E4VANSTONESenator Vanstone—That's not true, and you know it.XE4Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUS—I will go through it again, Senator Vanstone. We have here a case of misleading the House of Representatives. Senator Vanstone's performance here can also amount to misleading of the Senate. Let me say to the government at this particular stage: call off the witch-hunt, it is getting you nowhere, it is exposing your deficiencies and it is doing absolutely nothing in terms of the standards of government in this place.There was a leak on 5 January—there was a monumental leak on 5 January. It appeared in all the Murdoch tabloids across the country and it was written by David Luff in the Canberra bureau. It was detailed, it was revealing and it was the tip-off to Christopher Skase—and it was well sourced. The government's fingerprints were all over both pages of it—all over both of them, and you know it.The initial response of Senator Vanstone was to say, `Well, Bolkus spoke to Luff.' But that did not carry at all because she knew that it was not true. She knew exactly who spoke to Luff, and it was not me. Anyone who has wanted to check this out since knows that neither I nor my office nor anyone on my behalf was the source of this particular article.At midnight Australian Eastern Standard Time on 4 March, Christopher Skase would have had this article faxed to him in Majorca. It would have been 3.30 p.m. on a sunny Sunday afternoon in Majorca. Skase would have picked this up, he would have rung his lawyers, he would have got them to shift the assets and he would have opened another bottle of champagne—all because government sources deemed it fit to leak a silly season good news story to try to prop up this incompetent, inept failure of a minister, the windbag that never stops.Let me tell you what was in this article. What did this article reveal? Let us remind people what this article revealed. It revealed the nature of the action, the location of the assets, the objective of the action, investigations so far and future strategies—all that Christopher Skase needed to know was on this front page, good news for the minister, story on 5 January.Let us have a look at it. What does this article say? It is worth putting this on the record because government members have conveniently glossed over it. The first paragraph says:A fortune hidden overseas by fugitive tycoon Christopher Skase has been discovered by federal government investigators.Christopher Skase knows where his assets are. He knew where they were. That first paragraph told Christopher Skase that they were on to him and they were pursuing his assets. The article continues:The Daily Telegraph has learned that the government has started legal action to recover the cash which has helped Skase fund his extravagant lifestyle.It goes on to say:The two main goals of the international legal proceedings—and it is `proceedings' in plural—are to freeze the fortune and then to liquidate the assets so that they can be returned to creditors in Australia.It goes on to say how much; it was $10 million dollars. Then it states:The money was moved out of Australia after Skase left after the failure of Quintex.It goes on to revealingly state again:Investigators have found their way through a maze of legal, business and banking systems to pinpoint the Skase assets.What we have so far is a revelation from the government. `We know where your assets are. We have taken proceedings in a number of countries and we are about to get them.' The article says:The proportion and location of Skase's hidden fortune which has been identified has not been revealed, but Skase has held bank accounts in Switzerland, Austria, England, Spain and the Caymen Islands.Come on! We are not talking about Johnny the mug down the street here; we are talking about Christopher Skase, and a government sourced article that says, `We know where your assets were. We have traced them. We continue to trace them and we have started legal proceedings to seize them and bring them back to Australia.' What do you reckon he is going to think? Do you think he is going to think, `Vanstone is incompetent. She won't know where they are'? He may think that. It would not be a bad presumption, but what he would do is twig to it and shift the assets. That is exactly why investigators that morning were really down on the government, because the government had blown it. The article goes on:Once Skase's assets are frozen, the government will attempt to liquidate the funds and return them to Australia. It is believed that Skase used the interim period to set up intricate international corporate networks to hide the assets from Australian authorities.So you have told him what you know, but who told him? Slap bang in the middle of this article, it says—LD4ALSTONSenator Alston—Mr Acting Deputy President, one is always reluctant to take a point of order in the course of a censure motion, but this is a very serious matter. There are specific allegations on the record. This person has had 10 minutes and he is talked about nothing to do with what is part of that motion. In those circumstances, despite the latitude one normally extends, he does not have a licence to simply distract attention and point to other issues that he might find sufficiently distracting. Mr Acting Deputy President, you ought to require him to address those issues. If he has a defence and he is pleading not guilty, let us hear the evidence. He has been given 20 minutes; he has wasted 10 of them so far.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—On the point of order, Mr Acting Deputy President—10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Murphy)—I was going to rule that there was no point of order.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—I appreciate that you would do so, because it is a deliberate attempt on Senator Alston's part, when they are losing the argument in the debate, to try and make a miserable, pathetic debating point. He knows it is an abuse of the standing orders. I am pleased that you were going to rule him out of order.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—I thank the Leader of the Opposition. There is no point of order.XE4Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUS—I can understand why Senator Alston gets up, because I was going to say that slap bang in the middle of the article it says:Justice Minister Vanstone is understood to be ready to announce the legal action attempting to freeze the assets.It goes on to say:Government sources said yesterday the minister now is awaiting confirmation that legal action can proceed, making it impossible for Skase to gain access to his fortunes.This was to make the minister look good. What did you do? You blew it. You tipped him off and as a consequence people investigating the case felt really cheesed off that morning.I am the one who has been hounding this government on Skase for the last 18 months. I am the one who, when the Attorney General, Mr Williams, fell asleep at the wheel and would not fund Mr Donnelly, pursued this matter both inside and outside this place. What I was doing that morning was telling this government that they should not continue to leak this information and should not proceed with this big-noting of themselves. The main game here was always to pursue this government to pursue Skase. What I was doing was making it clear that the minister had totally messed up and the minister should stop messing up. It was definitely in the public interest for me to do that.As I say, by 3.30 p.m. Majorca time Christopher Skase would have known from that article what the game was and it was about time the government was told—as they were the first time—that they ought to focus properly on the game. Mr Williams fell asleep, flicked off the file and did not provide cash last year to Mr Donnelly, and this time this minister should have clammed up and should not have leaked in the way that she did. The process had been blown and the investigation had been blown.This monumental leak was not deemed worthy of investigation. On 8 January the minister ordered an investigation into the second leak, but not the first one. Why not? Because her messy fingerprints were all over the first one and the minister, her staff and the Prime Minister's political staff were all up to it. I spoke to the Australian Federal Police twice. They were very short and casual discussions. But when I spoke to them the first time, I said to them, `How can you investigate this leak without investigating the tip-off?'The fact that I raised it with the Federal Police—not you, Minister—meant that it was squarely on the agenda that they should investigate the first leak. What we have here is the Minister for Justice abusing her position in respect of the Australian Federal Police. What did I do? We had a huge leak. I did a doorstop interview and quoted from two pages of a 32- or 33-page affidavit—two pages that were freely available to the media that morning.I was given that document on the basis that I could read out one particular point but not others. What point did I read out? What was the point that I added to the public record? The point was from paragraph 109—but it appears elsewhere in the affidavit—where Mr Donnelly said that if this matter comes to the attention of the respondents, and in particular to the attention of Mr Skase, before interlocutory orders can be obtained in all jurisdictions, he had serious concerns that steps would be taken to prejudice the substantive proceedings. 7E4VANSTONESenator Vanstone—What about the press conference? Tell them what you did there.XE4Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUS—In the press conference, I drew the facts out of David Luff's article—and it was not hard to draw conclusions—and I made the point that this minister and this government ought to get back on the main game. We have here a document which most of the gallery knows was in the public domain. Not one person here would not have been given a bit of information from time to time from a journalist on the basis that only part of it be used or that it be used in certain ways. As appeared in the press the next day, Terry McCrann, with whom I have never had any contact, let alone on this issue, a person with whom my staff were in contact, had the whole story. Other journos had the affidavit—LD4ALSTONSenator Alston—He couldn't bring himself to talk to scum like you.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator Alston, I ask that you withdraw that remark.LD4ALSTONSenator Alston—Okay.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—I ask you to stand and withdraw the remark.LD4ALSTONSenator Alston—Very reluctantly, I do.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—I ask you to withdraw the remark.LD4ALSTONSenator Alston—And I have.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—I ask you to withdraw it appropriately.LD4ALSTONSenator Alston—I have.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Would you stand and address the chair. I ask you to withdraw the remark.LD4ALSTONSenator Alston—I have withdrawn.XE4Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUS—What is the government saying about a document which has public currency, is in the public domain, which the media discussed later that day and which appeared in full the next day? The government is saying that everyone else can use it, but not me. Why? Because the point I was making—and the only part of the affida vit that I actually referred to and used to pursue that particular point—was to stress to the government that they had blown it.7E4VANSTONESenator Vanstone—Why did you go off camera?XE4Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUS—I have already answered that, Senator Vanstone. In respect of everything else, blind Freddy could have read the David Luff article and drawn the inferences that I have drawn today and which I drew in that press conference. As I said, it appeared in full the next day. Pardon me for thinking that I had a right—and, in fact, a responsibility—to pull this government up on the abandoned way in which it was pursuing this matter.A matter of urgency? A matter of censure? Senator Vanstone, if it has taken you 60 or 70 days to read what I said at a doorstop interview in Adelaide in January, no wonder Christopher Skase is still on the loose. No wonder you have not seized his assets. You blew this, Senator Vanstone, and I am not taking the rap for it. The real issue here goes to your incompetence, your big mouth, your leak, and it also goes to the administration of justice.When an Attorney-General goes into a parliament and says that a particular person is being investigated when, through his question time briefs, he knows full well that that person is not; when a Minister for Justice comes into this place and says that there is no innocent explanation, when she knows through her question time briefs that there is one and that the federal police are not pursuing me, then you have an abuse of ministerial position.You have an abuse of ministerial position in a most unsavoury and undemocratic way. When you use the resources of the police to pursue political interests, you are embarking on a police state. When you use the resources of the Federal Police to pursue political objectives, when you leak operational details, you have crossed the line. But we know that of you, because you always cross the line.7E4VANSTONESenator Vanstone—On a point of order: I cannot give you a particular standing order, Mr Acting Deputy President—and I am sure the clerk can be of assistance to you on that if you need it—but I have sat here quite patiently, not wanting to interrupt Senator Bolkus's opportunity to defend himself, but I am not prepared to tolerate the imputation that I would misuse my position as Minister for Justice to inappropriately direct any investigation or, for that matter, to misuse police resources and turn Australia in some way into a police state. Not only is that not true—and I understand that that is a matter that I can answer for at another time—but it is a direct imputation against me and I do not ask, I demand, that it be withdrawn.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—On the point of order: neither of those matters is an imputation, those matters are facts, and the record should stand.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—I have been advised, Senator Vanstone, that it is a matter for debate and there is no point of order.XE4Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUS—Let me just stress the point again—7E4VANSTONESenator Vanstone—And you'll keep too.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator Vanstone, I heard that, and I ask you to withdraw what you said.7E4VANSTONESenator Vanstone—In order to allow the debate to continue, I will withdraw.XE4Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUS—Let me go back to the point: I have pursued this government on Skase, and I will continue to do so. When this government tips him off, I will continue to haunt them in respect of it. What you had here, and what cannot be denied no matter how you try to fit me up, is my quoting from a document which was already in the public domain.But I had two pages of a 32-page document. What you have to ask yourself, Minister Vanstone, is why people lost confidence in you that morning, after that leak. Everyone involved in the administration of this matter was convinced, as I and the media were, that that story came from your office. It was in the public interest for me to pursue this, and I will continue to pursue it.Last Thursday afternoon, when this matter was brought on by the government, I was in here and I got an urgent phone call. I took it. It was a call from my son who rang me to say, `I was in Lygon Street this morning at a reasonable hour and someone attacked me from behind and mugged me.' I talked to him about it. He said, `You sound a bit distracted.' I said, `They're trying to mug me in here.' We had a chat about it, and I said, `Nick, you've been mugged by professionals. I've been attacked by Vanstone, Costello and Howard. Let's talk about your problem rather than mine.' Senator Vanstone, lift your game or get out of the job.10:01:00761Coonan, Sen HelenSenator COONAN2M6NSWLP10—With a good deal of regret, I rise to speak in support of this censure motion against Senator Bolkus. The basis for my regret is that, having listened very carefully to Senator Bolkus's non-explanation, which failed to address a single one of the issues in the case made out against him, there still remains such a clear and unequivocal case. The case shows a senator revealing the contents of a confidential court document, in reckless disregard of the consequences for the creditors of the bankrupt estate of Christopher Skase and for the taxpayers of Australia.Last week, in the debate to suspend standing orders and on precedence, questions were asked in this place about the urgency and importance of this issue for the Senate. I was amazed that any senator, whatever their political persuasion—and this particularly goes for the Democrats—could fail to appreciate the overwhelming public interest in the Senate both debating and establishing one way or the other whether Senator Bolkus, an aspiring first law officer, acted in breach of his duty and in breach of trust and, thereby, brought the Senate into disrepute. I am sorry to say that, on examining the facts, this is the clearest possible case of an alternate first law officer undermining the authority of the Federal Court that he is supposed to uphold.What compounds this outrage is that in a press conference he called—and it was not a doorstop but a press conference he called deliberately on 5 January 1998—he revealed matters that were not in the public domain at that time. And it is worth remembering what those were. First, he confirmed that the government had started legal proceedings to freeze certain of the Skase assets. That had never been said. Then he revealed that the proceedings were held in camera. That had never been said. As well, he identified that action was actually proceeding in four of the designated countries: Spain, the Cayman Islands, the United Kingdom and in the Federal Court of Australia. He did that deliberately, with reckless disregard for the consequences.At first I honestly believed that Senator Bolkus must have done what he did in ignorance, that he did not appreciate that he was risking the very point of the court action being taken in the first place.LD4ALSTONSenator Alston—No.N26ABETZSenator Abetz—No, deliberately.2M6Coonan, Sen HelenSenator COONAN—I did, I thought he must have just been ignorant about it.LD4ALSTONSenator Alston—No, he is an absolute sleaze.2M6Coonan, Sen HelenSenator COONAN—Yes, Senator Alston, he is an absolute sleaze.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Murphy)—Order! Senator Coonan, I think it would be appropriate if you withdrew that remark.2M6Coonan, Sen HelenSenator COONAN—It is a debating point.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—No, I think it is appropriate that you withdraw the word `sleaze'.2M6Coonan, Sen HelenSenator COONAN—I have a lot to say and not much time to say it in and so I will withdraw it, so that this debate can continue.Unfortunately in the events that have happened it is impossible not to conclude that Senator Bolkus knew that he was behaving improperly and that what he divulged in public had the potential to sabotage the whole purpose for which these injunctive proceedings were taken in the first place. On closer examination, we find Senator Bolkus sneaking around at a critical stage of proceedings, divulging information that could scuttle the whole case. He might as well have rung up Christopher Skase himself and read the affidavit to him direct.The fact that Senator Bolkus had an acute appreciation of the seriousness of what he was doing is revealed in the transcript of his press conference in Adelaide on 5 January this year. He said:I can't give this document out, but, maybe if I just read it out . . . This is the proceedings in the court—and he knew! He said: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—and remember, he has just talked about proceedings in four of them—I have serious concerns that steps will be taken to prejudice the substantive proceedings.When he was bleating all over the record, he knew and appreciated that proceedings were at a critical stage. The relevant sequence of events shows conclusively that Senator Bolkus's press conference was the first time there was any confirmation of recovery proceedings against Skase's bankrupt estate in those nominated countries.What is really disappointing about Senator Bolkus's conduct is not only that he was the one to reveal the specific critical information about the legal strategy, but that he then sought to deny it. We have had this extraordinary performance this morning where he has sought to continue to blame the minister, Senator Vanstone. It has been a cowardly and unwarranted attack.But no matter how much Senator Bolkus tries to wriggle and squirm out of this, he is condemned out of his own mouth. Let me tell you why. If Senator Bolkus truly believed that the story was already leaked and that the affidavit was already with the media, as he has since confirmed on the ABC 7.30 Report, why was he so reticent about handing it over to the media at his press conference on 5 January? He said:I can't give this document out, but, maybe if I just read it out. . . This is the proceedings in the court. . . I ask honourable senators: why would he bother doing this if he genuinely believed or knew at that time, as he now says, that the affidavit was already with the media? That is just nonsensical. Secondly, Senator Bolkus now says in a doorstop interview on 5 March 1998 that he made an assessment of the material that was in the media.LD4ALSTONSenator Alston—`A careful assessment'.2M6Coonan, Sen HelenSenator COONAN—`A careful assessment,' Senator Alston. He made a judgment that nothing he read out on 5 January added much more to what he had already revealed. Implicit in that statement is an admission that he did add more and that what had appeared in the media that morning was, in fact, not as much as he was now talking about. How much more he revealed is not the point. How was Senator Bolkus to know what effect what he had said would have? He just did not know that. He was reckless in what he did because he did not know what effect what he said that was extra would have. Then, to compound it, two critical pages from the affidavit conveniently marked up with parts Senator Bolkus had read out at his press conference got boxed in the parliamentary press gallery. If Senator Bolkus did this, isn't it curious that he would be actually giving back to the media what he said they already had?The sad conclusion to be drawn from Senator Bolkus's antics is that not only does he lack the precision of judgment to be expected from an average lawyer, but he also lacks the integrity essential to discharging the duty of a legal practitioner to the court and, as we said in the debate last week, any disciplinary body would have to look seriously at whether that would be something that would warrant his being struck off. He has also destroyed any public confidence that could remain in his trustworthiness to be the first law officer of Australia. He has brought the Senate into disrepute.This is not just a case of dropping the dead donkey; this is a serious case of reckless indifference to the public interest, which lies overwhelmingly in effectively pursuing the scurrilous Skase. Senator Bolkus has raised the barrier for the government, the nation and the taxpayers of Australia just that little bit higher, and for that alone he should be censured and sacked.There has been a great deal of debate about the status of this affidavit and how it got into the hands of Senator Bolkus and one or more of the journalists.7E4VANSTONESenator Vanstone—I wonder if he told the police where he got it?2M6Coonan, Sen HelenSenator COONAN—I do not think he has told the police, Senator Vanstone. What is blindingly obvious is that, however it got there, it was improperly obtained. I think it is worth saying that in an ex parte application to a court, confidentiality and speed are of the essence. The point of this application was to freeze assets before they could be moved. The usual procedure in the Federal Court is that an appointment is made through the registrar with a duty judge, and counsel attend the judge in chambers. Orders are then made including orders for service and sometimes substituted service—I am quite certain it would be substituted service in this case because it is so difficult otherwise to effect service—and you also get a return date, when you go back to court and review the matter.In these circumstances there is virtually no opportunity for the documents in support of the application to be inspected before they are served on the respondent, and letters have been tabled from the trustee saying he did not authorise anyone on his behalf to look at the documents. A letter from the deputy registrar in the Federal Court has been tabled advising that no affidavit can be inspected without leave of the court and that no application had been made for that purpose, and the registrar also confirmed that no application had been made in those circumstances.However, the affidavit had been obtained, and it is clear that it had been improperly obtained somehow. Even though Senator Bolkus may not have been in practice in the superior courts for many years, the confidentiality of these proceedings and the consequences of dealing with journalists—who, to their credit, behaved more responsibly than Senator Bolkus—must have been pretty obvious.But the biggest blow to Senator Bolkus's credibility is that he contradicts himself. In the 7.30 Report transcript, he says he got his copy of the document from a journalist, and in Hansard on Monday, 9 March he denies that he quoted from an illegally or improperly obtained Federal Court affidavit. Senator Vanstone says it was clearly shown that Senator Bolkus had quoted from an illegally or improperly obtained Federal Court document. Senator Bolkus says:You know that's not true.Senator Vanstone says:I recognise that interjection. `You know that's not true'—is that what you said?Senator Bolkus says:Of course you know it's not true.So we have two contradictions from Senator Bolkus: one that he did it and one that he did not do it, and for Senator Bolkus to effectively deny that he was aware that the document was improperly obtained just simply strains the bounds of credibility. Either Senator Bolkus is duplicitous or stupid—N26ABETZSenator Abetz—Or both.2M6Coonan, Sen HelenSenator COONAN—There is a third possibility, Senator Abetz, and that is he is an opportunist prepared to risk the taxpayers' hard-earned dollars in this country for his own grubby, political ends. What is laughable is Senator Bolkus's ham-fisted attempt to blame Senator Vanstone for leaking the document. What a preposterous suggestion! Even the Daily Telegraph , in the responsible way in which it dealt with this matter, said in its editorial on 6 January this year:We took the decision to publish the report against the wishes of Justice Minister Amanda Vanstone, who expressed a fear that our article would somehow imperil that legal process.N26ABETZSenator Abetz—Why would you leak and ask them not to publish?2M6Coonan, Sen HelenSenator COONAN—Exactly that. The Daily Telegraph went on to make the pretty obvious point that any suggestion that the government was the source of leaking this document was `nonsensical'. Labor has simply bungled the chase for Skase in a spectacular fashion and Senator Bolkus seems to be doing his level best to compound it. He ought to be censured.10:14:00764Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—The Democrats consider this matter a particularly serious one. As I understand the motion before us, Senator Bolkus has misused information in a way that is directly contrary to the public interest. The background to this particular debate is that the newspapers reported on 5 January this year that the government was moving to freeze the Skase assets. The office of the Minister for Justice as we have heard in this debate and previously, has claimed that it was very particular to limit comment on that particular report on the basis that it was likely to affect the conduct of ongoing proceedings in the Federal Court. On the same day Senator Bolkus held a press conference where he read from a document. I know this has been put on record a number of times, but this is a particularly important point in the Democrats making a decision. Senator Bolkus stated when he read from this document:I can't give this document out but maybe if I just read it off the record. This is the proceedings in the court.I am advised that he then read from a document which was an affidavit from an in camera Federal Court proceedings. As I understand it, this was a leaked document. The Democrats have obtained from the minister in writing an assurance that the Federal Court did not release this document. The minister has also provided my party with a copy of a letter from Max Donnelly which clearly states that he did not authorise the release of the affidavit, nor did he authorise his solicitor to release it.The Democrats have not seen, and I certainly have not seen, the affidavit in question. In fact, I have refused to see or take a copy of this document. I would suggest that if my party, and I, as the spokesperson for the Attorney-General and justice portfolios, can make a judgment that a confidential document with potentially detrimental effects should not be disclosed then perhaps Senator Bolkus and others in this place should make the same judgment. However, I rely on the assurances from the minister that the document which is the subject of this motion is in fact the document from which Senator Bolkus was reading on 5 January 1998. I am happy to be corrected on these points. I have listened to the debate so far and I have not heard a contrary argument on this particular point.N26ABETZSenator Abetz—Senator Bolkus admits that.3I6Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA—I know you are trying to assist me, Senator Abetz, but you have had your turn. Therefore, the essence of what we have is that Senator Bolkus received a document which was confidential and a privileged court document. The contents of this document were then disclosed, and I am advised that this disclosure then damaged the court proceedings. I accept that this may be, and this is a debatable point, but that is our advice.The Democrats are not going to participate in the `he says, she says' arguments that we have had here, and we have certainly witnessed them in question times over the last week or so. We do believe this issue is clear: Senator Bolkus disclosed the contents of a confidential and privileged document. How much of this had already been disclosed, that the interview was effectively over and how available the document was are all irrelevant to this debate. We certainly took on board the arguments of Senator Bolkus and others on the opposition side in relation to the sense that the document may have already been leaked or be available or have been distributed, but that is not relevant to the debate in relation to this motion. It was a confidential and privileged document and yet the contents of that document were disclosed to the public at large.Claims that the document was leaked from the minister's office are also irrelevant to this debate for now. If it turns out that the document did come from the minister's office then we will have another issue which will need to be addressed on another occasion, but that is not the matter of debate before us. These are serious allegations and the veracity of these claims must be tested. Similarly, we take on board concerns of Senator Bolkus and his claims that he feels he has been smeared by statements by members in this place and the other place that he is somehow subject to investigation by the AFP. That is a matter that is not directly relevant to the motion in front of us. I say now that the concerns I express here apply equally to the possible disclosure of this document by the office of the minister or by any other office. But just because another has disclosed a confidential and privileged document does not justify any following disclosures.The only circumstances where it may be justified to disclose a confidential or a privileged document is where the public interests are served by that disclosure. Cases, for example, where whistleblowers have released confidential documents are examples of this, and I would examine each of those matters in the particular circumstances. However, I do not think providing information that allows Christopher Skase to further evade the law is sufficient excuse. I have said in discussions with members of the opposition and, in fact, with Senator Bolkus himself, that my party was happy and willing to be convinced on a matter of public interest. So far we have not been.Many of us here, certainly on the crossbenches and perhaps on the opposition benches, understand the temptations to disclose documents that lead to criticism against this government. As I have said, there are times when this may be appropriate, and we would need to analyse those reasons. But it is wrong to disclose confidential and privileged information just because you have access to it or perhaps it will make a good story.Today's censure motion asks Senator Bolkus to apologise for his actions to Max Donnelly, the Federal Court and the Senate. Unless there is an extremely good excuse—and I have not heard an extremely good excuse this far in the debate, and certainly not from Senator Bolkus—these apologies are acceptable and my party will support them. We have listened to the arguments, we have listened to Senator Bolkus, and I must say that some of his political arguments sounded quite convincing, but his legal defence was not. He may be hounding the government over Christopher Skase but, as I said, a lot of that issue is irrelevant to the issue before us, which is whether or not certain contents of a privileged document, a Federal Court affidavit, were revealed on the public record. It does not matter how little or how much of that affidavit was revealed or where it originally came from—or even the consequences of that particular action. They are not the relevant matters.I am also anxious to place on record the functions and the role of the Attorney-General and those in opposition who hope to fill that particular position. The Attorney-General has a dual function as both the Attorney-General of the Commonwealth and as the first law officer of the Commonwealth. It is this second function which attaches to the office the responsibility to strive to promote the law and the rule of law in a representative democracy. I am concerned, and so is my party, that in this case a would-be Attorney-General has acted contrary to the legal institutions in Australia. Our court system depends on legal practices, such as in camera hearings, in order to achieve justice. The Attorney-General and those aspiring to that position must recognise the important first law officer function by striving to maintain these institutions.As I have said, my party has treated this matter with utmost seriousness. We have been a little dismayed over the last couple of days with the protracted nature of this debate. We place on record our concern at some of the filibustering. We thought it was time to air the arguments and to resolve this issue. I believe the arguments have been aired satisfactorily; we have listened carefully to the debates and we now believe that this matter should be resolved. We are not interested in the politics of this debate. We are interested in the facts, the legalities and the consequences. There is one fact that cannot be denied and that is that Senator Bolkus read onto the records certain contents of a Federal Court affidavit.10:23:00766Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—I might say that I am somewhat disappointed by the position taken by the Democrats. It was clearly and well articulated, but that does not mean the conclusion is right. Before turning to the body of my remarks, I would like to take up the conclusion that the Democrats have reached in their presentation here this morning. They say that the offence is that there was a quotation made by Senator Bolkus from a privileged document. That is the offence and therefore, since that is established in their minds, Senator Bolkus should be censured.I want to put to the Democrats that that is in fact not the offence here. What is clear is that the information that breached the confidentiality of that court document was in the public domain before it reached Senator Bolkus. It was published in the press as such and the alerting of Mr Skase, and therefore his ability to take evasive action to protect his own self-interest against the self-interest of this nation, had occurred. It had occurred before Senator Bolkus did anything at all with any particular document.The offence is the leaking of the document. This is a document of the Federal Court and it is a document that we, on our side, believe was leaked by the Minister for Justice or her office. It is peculiar and, in the context of all the heat and fury generated by the government over this issue, extremely odd that the investigation commissioned into the leaking of this document was not into the leaking of it but into the use of it by Senator Bolkus. That was the investigation that the Minister for Justice undertook. Why didn't she—and this question has never been answered to any satisfactory extent—do the obvious thing that she ought to have done, that her public duty screamed out to her to do, and commission an investigation into who leaked the document? That is where the offence occurred. Why didn't the investigation address the offence?7E4VANSTONESenator Vanstone—It did.RF4Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOK—It did not. The investigation did not address the question of who leaked the document. Until that is investigated and until we actually know who did it, we do not know who breached the confidentiality of the Federal Court. What is notorious in this matter is that the information about Skase was in the public domain. The covenant of secrecy had been breached. The public interest was in jeopardy because Skase could then escape. All that happened before Senator Bolkus touched the document. That is the offence here and that is what ought to be addressed in this debate. I ask the Democrats to reconsider their position on the basis of that argument as well and not, I respectfully put to them, rush to judgment on the basis of a very narrow interpretation of the particular motion before the chair. This is a targeted motion to try to assassinate the career of someone who has been a very effective shadow spokesman and who has illustrated in public debate and by his actions the perfidy of this government when it comes to the meting out of justice in this nation.The Leader of the Opposition here in the Senate, Senator Faulkner, has rebutted in considerable and clinical detail the arguments put forward by the shadow minister and has revealed in fact that there is no case to answer. Senator Bolkus himself has stood in his place and defended himself from the scurrilous attack upon his standing and his reputation, and revealed as well that there is no case to answer. What is worth asking in this debate is: do the accusers of Senator Bolkus come to this matter with clean hands? What are their motives?I submit to this chamber that they do not come with clean hands, that they do not have honest motives in this matter, and that they do have something to hide. I submit that the government does have an obvious political reason for attacking Senator Bolkus in this way and trying to bring him down. Senator Bolkus's key accusers on the government side are the Attorney-General, Daryl Williams, the Minister for Justice, Senator Vanstone, and that very odd being, backbencher Senator Abetz.Let me take up this thread of argument and develop it a little further because basically it goes to the government's motive here in attacking the shadow minister. At the beginning of this year, the Liberal Party held a retreat at Thredbo to contemplate their tactics for the coming year, 1998—a year in which there is obviously going to be an election. What is clear from their tactics is that they decided they would go on the offensive but, when they rose from their meeting in Thredbo, they encountered their first obstacle—Senator Bolkus. The issue in the public domain at around that time was the High Court matter concerning the Hindmarsh Island Bridge case, and the first obstacle they encountered was a forensic Senator Bolkus, who nailed the fact that the High Court Justice Callinan—LD4ALSTONSenator Alston—The only connection he has with the law is as a defendant.RF4Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOK—Will you just shut up and take your turn.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! I know that this is a robust debate but it would be better run if you addressed your remarks through the chair.RF4Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOK—Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President, I will. Let us recall what happened in this case. Here was a case in which the government of Australia was a litigant. That is fact No. 1. Here was a case in which the question was: had a newly appointed High Court judge, who many people in Australia thought had a particular public bias in many of his expressions of opinion, expressed an opinion on a matter that he was going to be called to sit in judgment on? As far as the judge was concerned, he had not. A court proceeding began to test that argument. The evidence that was adduced in that court proceeding was not all the evidence within the knowledge of the government of this country. They were a litigant in this proceeding; they took the view, it could be clearly argued, that they wanted this judge to sit on that case so that the bench would be stacked in their favour—it was a case that they were arguing.But did they put in the public domain all of the information about whether or not this judge had expressed an opinion on the matter that he had forgotten about? They did not. Senator Abetz, who is the chairman of the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee, derives no credit from the fact that Senator Bolkus wanted to convene a meeting of that committee to adduce a document which made the issue clear. Senator Abetz walked out of the meeting, thus depriving that committee of a quorum. That deliberate act of sabotage to the interests of justice of this nation was carried out by Senator Abetz.As it turned out, Senator Bolkus, in persisting in the pursuit of justice here, obviously drew the matter to the attention of the High Court judge, who then disqualified himself saying that he had forgotten—he could not remember—that he had expressed the opinion in this way. If we had known that up-front, the legal action about whether or not he was entitled to sit would not have taken place. But who knew this evidence all along and did not say a word? The Attorney-General of Australia. I am surprised to hear from Senator Vanstone that this man is described as the first law officer of the Commonwealth. The first law officer of the Commonwealth surely has an obligation to the concept of justice in this nation. Surely, the first law officer of the Commonwealth has an obligation to see that, when a High Court judge is being dealt with in a legal proceeding to see if he is right, fit and proper to sit on a case, all the evidence about his conduct is known. It is surely an obligation on the first law officer to see that the process of justice is observed.Surely it is an obligation on the first law officer of the nation, as well as in the interests of all litigants, to see that the game is conducted fairly and that justice is not only done but is seen to be done. But what did the first law officer of the Commonwealth do? He said nothing. He sat mute. He had the information. He did not disclose it. Who revealed all of this? Senator Bolkus. It was a major embarrassment for a newly sworn-in High Court judge on his first major case, a significant embarrassment for the government, and the very reason why now the trained legal talent of the government side is on Senator Bolkus to try to bring him down. He revealed your improper actions in this matter and he disgraced you in the public mind because of your conduct.Let us get it clear that in this particular circumstance there is real motive and the Attorney-General's actions here cannot be held, in any circumstances, to be actions in the public interest. The Attorney-General has simply acted not as the first law officer of the Commonwealth but as the legal officer for the government. Moreover, as a legal officer for the government he withheld information that ought to have been in the public domain when the government was a litigant in a case so that the government's chance of winning their case was improved.In saying that I am not taking a position on the matter before the court. But at least in terms of the procedure here the first law officer of the Commonwealth ought to have conducted himself not as the government's legal officer but as the first law officer of the Commonwealth. The fact that he was disgraced by Senator Bolkus adds absolutely to motive when we look at the scurrilous attempts now to try to bring the reputation of Senator Bolkus down.Let us now turn to Senator Vanstone, who is Senator Bolkus's accuser in this chamber. Senator Vanstone is not without form on the matter of leaking. Let me go to October, 1990—a month that would ring in the ears of Senator Vanstone because it involved the disclosure of in camera evidence given to the Joint National Crime Authority Committee. This is the allegation that is being made—LD4ALSTONSenator Alston—On a point of order: how can a convoluted discussion about Mr Justice Callinan, followed by some suggestions of involvement between the National Crime Authority and Senator Vanstone, have anything whatsoever to do with a censure motion that is specifically confined to the conduct of Senator Bolkus?UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—Senator Cook is entitled to go to Senator Vanstone's motives if he believes they are simply malicious. This is the reason for moving the motion so he is entitled to go to that. He is also entitled to go over other areas so that people can make a judgment as to the seriousness of Senator Vanstone's charges as compared with how other people are treated and other areas are considered. Of course he is entitled.LD4ALSTONSenator Alston—That is simply carte blanche for saying that you can throw around as much mud as you like on any subject as long as it reflects adversely on the person who moves the motion. That cannot possibly be the rule in this chamber. The fact is that it is a debate about the conduct of Senator Bolkus. You cannot in any shape or form use that tawdry excuse to justify an attack on the motives of the mover of the motion, let alone suggest that somehow it is a contest between the two parties. This is an issue that goes to the heart of Senator Bolkus's conduct.UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—I think Senator Alston has slightly misinterpreted what I said. I made two points, the first of which was about intent, which he did not contest. Senator Cook is entitled to discuss other issues so that people may make a weighty judgment as to whether the charges made by Senator Vanstone deserve merit given the circumstances of other treatment that has not been censured.LD4ALSTONSenator Alston—How can it possibly affect the weight that one attaches to the conduct of Senator Bolkus to know whether Senator Vanstone might have done a range of other things? That is like saying that if an accuser has ever been in trouble with the law that person is not entitled to make allegations. It is like saying that if someone has been raped and they happen to have a conviction for shoplifting, they should not be heard. It is saying that you can somehow defend the case by purely attacking your accuser. That cannot be right. Senator Cook has had nearly 15 minutes. This is a debate about the conduct of Senator Bolkus. It cannot affect the conduct of Senator Bolkus to know what other people might think of the conduct of Senator Vanstone. That by definition is unrelated. Hypothetically, she might have all the motives in the world for seeking political advantage—it would not be the first time in this chamber—but how can that possibly assist people in understanding the merits of the allegations contained in this charge sheet? This is about the conduct of Senator Bolkus.RF4COOKSenator Cook—This is not a court of law.LD4ALSTONSenator Alston—It is an attempt to try to deal with issues. It is a parliament in which a motion is before the chair, and we are trying to determine whether or not there is any defence—Bolkus certainly has not adduced one this morning—to explain away those allegations. It cannot possibly assist in that process to try to smear Senator Vanstone.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—I hear the points from both sides—UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—Mr Acting Deputy President, I will make just one more point on the issue. It is the government's time we are wasting here; it is a government motion.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—I realise that.UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—Senator Cook's right to question Senator Vanstone in terms of what credibility she has generally and then relate that back to the credibility of her claims is absolutely in order, because if we are to test the credibility of Senator Vanstone's claims she has to be a credible person.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—In a censure debate of this nature—a wide ranging and at times robust debate, to use the kinds of words that have been used here this morning—I would expect accusations to be made from both sides. I take the point of Senator Alston, but I rule that there is no point of order. However, I would ask Senator Cook to keep as much as he possibly can to the subject at hand.RF4Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOK—Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. I think that is the right ruling, and I am pleased you have made it. I am developing in this chamber at the moment a point which is obviously uncomfortable to the government, hence their squawking. The point is this: an absolutely scurrilous attack has been made upon Senator Bolkus's reputation, and an attempt to censure him in this parliament has arisen from that. It is entirely proper for the opposition, as we have done through Senator Faulkner and through Senator Bolkus himself, to demolish the argument made against him that is the substance of this attack.It is also entirely proper for the opposition to look at the motives of the attackers. It is convenient for the government to argue that only Senator Bolkus is on trial here. Senator Alston seems to think that this is a court. It is not; it is a political chamber. He is the first to use it as a court for every political purpose he can when it suits him.It is entirely appropriate to look at the motives. The first motive is that Senator Bolkus is a thorn in the government's side. A High Court judge stood down from a case. The government did not introduce the evidence to justify why he should; Senator Bolkus did. This is a High Court case in which the government itself is a litigant. The ordinary person on the street has an entitlement to say, `Let us get it right: the government was taking this case; it knew that the judge should not sit; it thought the judge was going to decide in its favour so it did not say anything.' That is surely relevant to this matter.Before I turn, as I will in a moment, to Senator Vanstone, it is also relevant in this case that the Attorney-General and Senator Vanstone have been repeatedly making allegations about Senator Bolkus while knowing that the AFP, the Australian Federal Police, have investigated Senator Bolkus and that Senator Bolkus is cleared. Questions that ought to be answered in this debate is: when did they find out that the Australian Federal Police had investigated Senator Bolkus and cleared him, and did they find that out before they started making their allegations about Senator Bolkus or after? That is, are they continuing to make allegations about Senator Bolkus knowing that in fact the AFP investigation of Senator Bolkus has concluded and that that investigation has cleared him?This does raise questions about justice. The obligation of the first law officer of this nation is to protect the institution of justice. Engaging in this political debate to score political points, knowing the fact that the investigation has concluded and has cleared the person he is attacking, hardly serves justice in the true sense of the word; it serves political opportunity. That is the nub of this debate. That is why the motives of those people making these allegations should be investigated.I now turn to Senator Vanstone and October 1990, when she made public in camera evidence given to the Joint Committee on the NCA. In a minority report, Senator Vanstone and three other coalition members of the committee released confidential evidence not authorised for release by the committee. Does that sound like the allegation being made here against Senator Bolkus? Is it being made by someone without form, with clean hands? It is not.Senator Vanstone has form in leaking in camera evidence. The fact that she is making that allegation about Senator Bolkus as loudly as she can, at the top of her lungs whilst drawn up on the balls of her feet, is to deflect attention from the issue that the opposition contends remains at the nub of this: who leaked the documents in the first place? It is something that Senator Vanstone has not investigated.Let us go to the next example of where Senator Vanstone's hands are far from clean. I have here an excerpt from the Adelaide Advertiser of 6 September 1996 headed `Vanstone wants uni spies on spending'. We know that Senator Vanstone, the former minister for education, was dumped from the cabinet by this government to the role of Minister for Justice, the junior minister for the Attorney-General, Daryl Williams, because of her unfortunate inability to handle the education portfolio in a way that students and educationists of Australia could feel any confidence in her stewardship at all.This is back in the days in which Senator Vanstone had glory, back in the days in which she was a minister in the cabinet. What did she say? She said—I assume the Adelaide Advertiser quoted her accurately:"What's the problem with an academic—when they realise there is an administrative inefficiency—dobbing the university in?"The article goes on to say:They should contact the media to alert the community to the wastage.Then she says:". . . put a piece of paper in a brown bag to raise the problems— and she goes on. Here is a person about whom there is a real suspicion in the public mind and a direct accusation from us that she leaked this material telling people how to leak material.EU4O'CHEESenator O'Chee—Mr Acting Deputy President, I raise a point of order. I know you have already ruled on the point of order raised by Senator Alston, but this is a separate matter. Senator Cook is discussing something to do with higher education. It has absolutely no relevance to the—RF4Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOK—On the point of order—EU4O'CHEESenator O'Chee—Hold on, I have to finish.RF4Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOK—On the point of order—10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Wait until I hear what Senator O'Chee has to say, Senator Cook, and then you can make any point you like.EU4O'CHEESenator O'Chee—Mr Acting Deputy President, this discussion which Senator Cook is now leading relates to higher education. I know you have already ruled that it is appropriate to look at the circumstances surrounding an allegation against Senator Bolkus, but this can in no way relate to the circumstances of the allegation against Senator Bolkus, nor can it in any possible sense relate to the motives that we on the government side have in raising this censure motion. This is just a time waster.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—I have already ruled that a censure motion does range far and wide. In this particular case Senator Cook has been getting wider but, with one minute to go, I would like to hear what else he has to say.RF4Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOK—The point that I am making here is that we believe that the material was leaked by Senator Vanstone's office. Here in the Adelaide Advertiser of 6 September are leaking instructions issued on the public record by Senator Vanstone. One cannot say that this person is innocent and does not know how to do that job. She is advising others how to do it.7E4VANSTONESenator Vanstone—To whistle blow.RF4Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOK—A whistleblower; that is right—how to go about leaking material. We know Senate Vanstone is a past master at this. The accuser in this case stands accused. But the real offence here is who leaked the material and broke the confidentiality in the first place. Senator Vanstone should plead guilty. (Time expired)10:49:00771Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—A censure motion in this chamber is a very serious matter indeed. I have listened carefully to what has transpired. Most of the time I have found it more beneficial to listen from my office rather than get mixed up in the acrimony that has flowed from either side of this chamber.Censure motions are normally directed against ministers of the Crown for perceived failure to perform their functions as ministers of the Crown. There have been a number of those censure motions over a period. Very few censure motions have been directed against individual private senators who are not members of the government. I will come to that in a moment.The motion that we have before us notes a number of things. It states:that Senator Bolkus, during and after a press conference on 5 January 1998, revealed certain contents of a confidential Federal Court affidavit . . . That has been made out. It is clear. It is correct in that that occurred. The motion continues: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 . . . Again, that is a fact. It continues:that Federal Court affidavits may only be obtained by leave of the court or a judge . . . That is a fact. That is the rules of the court.that in relation to the affidavit revealed by Senator Bolkus no such leave had been obtained,Again, that is correct. It further says:that Mr Donnelly had not authorised the release of the affidavit by either his firm or solicitors acting for him;Again, that is clearly not in dispute. But then the motion goes on to censure 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 . . . I will just deal with that before I go on to paragraph (c). With regard to those particular matters, let me first of all come back to the point that there have been only three, I think, censure motions that I know of that have been directed against private members—the latest one of which was against Senator Baume in March 1995. That was a motion which censured Senator Baume for including in some of his tabled documents a tax file number of a particular taxpayer. He did so inadvertently and it was clear that he was not aware of that. As a matter of fact, I moved an amendment that we note he was not aware of the tax file number. It stated:. . . that Senator Baume, in seeking the leave of the duty Minister and the Senate to table the documents in question, was not aware of and thus did not draw attention to the tax file number identified therein, publication of which otherwise than under cover of parliamentary privilege was a criminal offence.That was included in the motion. I actually voted for that motion. Just for the record, Senator Bolkus also voted for that motion. But here we have a very serious matter indeed. A lot of the discussion here has been absolutely irrelevant. The question is whether Senator Bolkus should be censured for doing what he did. On balance, I would have thought that, whilst he is not a minister of the Crown, he certainly is the shadow Attorney-General. If the opposition wins the next election, in due course Senator Bolkus will no doubt be desirous of being the first law officer of the Crown. I think it is important for the Senate to take this action to uphold not only its credibility as an institution but also the credibility of the courts. I will be voting accordingly.Paragraph (c) calls on Senator Bolkus to apologise for his actions to Mr Max Donnelly, the trustee of the bankrupt estate of Christo pher Skase, to the Federal Court and to the Senate. I am always a little hesitant about asking people to apologise like kids. An apology has to come from within. One hopes that that comes from within Senator Bolkus himself. But I am not keen on that. It reminds me of being asked 30 years ago to apologise to certain members of the federal executive of the Labor Party for expressing a view that they were friends of the communists. I really do not think it is terribly appropriate to push that particular part of the motion. With regard to the rest of the motion, it seems to me to be a clear-cut case and I will be supporting that.10:56:00772Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, the Information Economy and the Arts10—Senator Harradine is absolutely correct. This is a very serious matter which goes to the heart of the administration of justice. It clearly has a great deal to do with the standards that are applied in public office and the extent to which legal forms and ethical proprieties are upheld. The critical issue, and I think Senator Harradine put his finger on it, is that Senator Bolkus has simply pleaded no contest. He has come in here and sought to distract attention by talking about everything but the real issue.The fact is that he should not have used these documents, even to confirm a speculative press report. But to deliberately go further and release critical information is to compound the felony. To see this, we do not need to go very far beyond the 7.30 Report interview which Senator Bolkus gave on 5 March, where he told Kerry O'Brien, `I did a very close check of the articles that morning.' In other words, these were not the actions of a political tyro, someone who did not understand the process; someone who got a bit carried away with his enthusiasm. This is a seasoned political operator. This is basically a person who has never had a job in his life other than as part of the political process. He knows the game backwards; he knew exactly what he was doing and he carefully checked the articles that morning.He then told Kerry O'Brien that in fact he had released information that was additional to that contained in the press reports. That is what says it all. The fact is that he should not have even laid a finger on those documents, even if they were in the public arena. The argument of the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate seems to be that because these documents are, he thought, on the public record—what he meant by that, presumably, is that they are outside the court—it is then open season; anyone can do whatever they like. Bolkus did not think that because Bolkus said, `I can't give this document out. But maybe if I just read it out, presumably off the record, this is the proceedings in the court.' He then proceeds to quote from it and ends up by saying, `As I say, I cannot give them out.'So this is a conscious and deliberate action on his part. That is what concerns us so much. This is not only a deliberate flouting of the rules of the court, but it is also action that has very significant consequences. It puts at risk the successful recovery of assets of someone whose behaviour is notorious, someone about whom the Australian public has the greatest concern and is wanting action to be taken. Of course, millions of dollars have been invested in the pursuit of those assets and indeed the bankrupt himself, and at this stage to very little avail.Quite clearly, there was a significant operation being undertaken. It is unfortunate that the matter got into the public arena. But clearly it was against the wishes of Senator Vanstone, because that is made abundantly clear by the editorial in the Daily Telegraph, where they confirm that she had sought to dissuade them from running the article. Then they effectively said that Bolkus's line was simply unbelievable.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Bolkus.LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTON—Senator Bolkus's line was unbelievable because he was simply trying to smear his accuser, and that is par for the course. The fact of the matter is that Senator Bolkus's record shows that he has never had any respect for the law and he has never had any respect for ethics or propriety. In fact, ethical standards and Bolkus is a contradiction in terms.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Bolkus.LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTON—Senator Bolkus. What we have here is a deliberate and calculated action to put political advantage ahead of the interests of the taxpayer in seeking to recover assets by deliberately going on the record and doing whatever it takes, at whatever cost and at whatever expense to the taxpayer or the trustee of the estate, in order to achieve personal aggrandisement and political advantage. It has backfired spectacularly and that is quite clear. What is entirely regrettable is that Senator Bolkus has not been prepared to come into this chamber and accept responsibility for his actions. It is a classic example.It is one thing to effectively hope that it will all go away and to not contest the issues—which he has not done. But he is brazenly carrying on and trying to throw as much mud as possible and raising all these red herrings about who leaked what documents. There is nothing to suggest, from what he said, that when interviewed by the police he did anything other than refuse to cooperate and suggest that they widen their investigations to take in the actions of Senator Vanstone. In other words, he was not in the slightest bit interested in assisting them in their inquiries; but that is an irrelevancy. That is not the issue before this chamber. The issue is that he revealed the contents of a confidential Federal Court affidavit. He did not do it accidentally or inadvertently. He did it absolutely deliberately and in a calculated political fashion to achieve political advantage.Those are actions which deserve not only utmost censure; they demand action from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Beazley), who I see has done yet another backflip on the charter of budget honesty. He is someone who has no conception of what is expected of the Labor Party by the Australian public. He might have his own standards, but he is simply not interested in ensuring that any standards apply to behaviour and conduct. In those circumstances, he should have no choice at all but to stand Senator Bolkus down. He is quite clearly unfit to hold office in this country again. His behaviour over a long period of time—going back more than a quarter of a century—makes it perfectly plain that he has utter contempt for anything that gets in the road of political advantage. In those circumstances, not only does he deserve censure from this chamber, but he ought to be stood down. He ought to be told by the Leader of the Opposition that that behaviour is totally unacceptable.I am grateful to Senator Ray for pointing out to us that we have already had valuable government time expended on this issue—well beyond what it should have taken. We saw a deliberate and calculated filibuster yesterday. We have had MPIs and we had 29 notices of motion. They are doing absolutely everything to avoid having this matter dealt with, and even as late as last night it did not look as though Senator Bolkus was even going to come in here and say anything on the record, because he was clearly afraid he might mislead the chamber. So eventually he decided on a tactic of coming in here and talking about everything else.UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—Rubbish!LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTON—I take Senator Ray's point that enough valuable time has been spent on this matter. I therefore move:That the question be now put.11:03:00774Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAYUI4VICALP00—I seek leave to make a statement on this.LD4ALSTONSenator Alston—For how long?UI4Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAY—It is either that or a contingent notice of motion.LD4ALSTONSenator Alston—Are you prepared to indicate that you want to speak for a minute or less?UI4Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAY—No. I have got half an hour under a contingent notice of motion.LD4ALSTONSenator Alston—Leave is not granted. A contingent motion cannot be moved. This matter must be dealt with immediately.UI4Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAY—Yes, it can. There is a precedent on this, Mr Acting Deputy President. When a motion to gag a debate in this chamber some years ago was moved, a contingent notice of motion was then moved, and my memory is that about three hours later we got to the actual debate.11:05:00774Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, the Information Economy and the Arts10—Mr Acting Deputy President, it is certainly not my understanding that Senator Ray's seeking of leave ought to have precedence over a motion that the question be put but, in the circumstances, we are prepared to allow Senator Ray to not use other forms of this parliament to filibuster endlessly. Presumably he would like to have yet another diversionary discussion on the issue. In those circumstances, we are prepared to grant him leave.Leave granted.11:05:00774Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAYUI4VICALP00—That is most gracious of you, Senator Alston. Mr Acting Deputy President, we are faced with a censure motion that has been gagged. That is most unusual. When former Senator Baume was facing a censure motion in this chamber—two years ago, almost to the day—the debate was not gagged at any stage, and it was never, ever suggested that it be gagged. But in case those opposite complain about interruption to their program, let me go to the brilliant source on this. Let me go to what Senator Hill, the then Leader of the Opposition, said in March 1995:This is your choice; this is your program; this is your priority.That is what he said then. We say exactly the same. This was your choice to bring it on, this was your priority to use government business time and this is your priority. But, having put your rather weak case, you want to run up the white flag. You want to vote on it now. You do not want the issues fully and properly debated.7E4VANSTONESenator Vanstone—If you think the case is so weak, you would be happy to get rid of it.UI4Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAY—On this particular issue, we have several senators wanting to make a contribution to refute the various accusations made by Senator Vanstone and her colleagues. But, Senator Vanstone, you are not willing to face the music. You are not willing to have what you regard as a serious matter debated in this chamber; you are not willing to have that tested. You are willing to invest everything on what you say is a serious matter—that is, a censure motion; you are willing to say that. But you do not actually want it tested. You do not want senators on this side—and presumably you have also gagged Senator Ian Macdonald, who was on the speaker's list, to prevent him from expressing a point of view. Why is this government running scared on this particular issue?LD4ALSTONSenator Alston—We are not running scared. You wasted an hour yesterday on notices of motion.UI4Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAY—Senator Alston refers to us wasting an hour. Let me go to another source, Senator Alston. Let me quote our now esteemed President, someone whom I admire enormously. In terms of the Baume motion and taking up government time, what did she say? She said of Senator Evans, `He brought in a censure of one of our senators; he will wear the consequences for having done that.' I am not making any threats; I am merely quoting from one of the most esteemed presiding officers this chamber has ever been blessed with who at that time was acting in another role as chief whip.What this apparently is about is that the moment they come in here to gag the debate basically they are saying: this is a political stunt; this is just a political vengeance thing. If anyone would have summed it up—and I am sure that he will read the transcripts in New York—it would have been Senator Michael Baume. What did he say about the 1995 censure, which was not gagged, compared with Senator Vanstone's 1998 one? He said that it should not be a political stunt or some kind of political `get square'; it must rest on principle. If it is going to rest on principle, let us debate the principles.Instead, Senator Alston comes in here and not only makes a few accusations but does not have the courage to have anyone respond to him; he moves a gag so that no-one can reply to the gutless Senator Alston. Why is that so, Mr Acting Deputy President?10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Calvert)—Order! I would ask you to withdraw that remark.UI4Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAY—Yes, Mr Acting Deputy President, I will withdraw `gutless' and I will replace it with a minister who totally lacks courage, who comes into this chamber and attacks Senator Bolkus—but refuses to have anyone else respond. And, in moving that motion, he cannot even go to precedence in terms of an attack on an opposition senator. The whole move by this government on this issue has been botched from start to finish.The tactics finally got right on Monday. Their normal tactic on these things is to come in on a Thursday, pre-plan it but not notify us and ambush us with a censure motion after question time, knowing that if it runs its full course the whole of general business will be expunged. They did that some weeks into the previous session with Senator Sherry: they ambushed after question time. They even ambushed the noting of answers to questions—a historical precedent that I hope will never be repeated in this chamber because it grossly embarrassed the President of this place. But then they come in on general business day by way of ambush, knowing that it is not going to cost them any time.The fact is that, if governments censure opposition senators, they have to pay the price in terms of time. They have to say, `We are willing to give this precedence over all other business and debate it out until its conclusion' if they are serious about a censure motion. But if anything reveals this as a totally grubby, cynical political exercise, it is the fact that they have gagged it. How many gags were moved in this chamber in the life of the Hawke-Keating government? I am not talking about guillotines.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Ray, I think you have had a fair amount of time to put your statement.UI4Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAY—I have unlimited time, once I am given leave on a statement, Mr Acting Deputy President. You know that.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—I thought it was given with the limit being put on it of `a reasonable amount of time'.UI4Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAY—No, there was no limit put on it whatsoever—and, Mr Acting Deputy President, this is going to be full tote odds. So you can sit back and relax and wait to be replaced in an hour's time, or whatever, and you can go back to your room and listen to me speaking there, if you like. But it was leave without a time limit. You concede that? No response.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator Ray, I think leave was given on the understanding that it was going to be a statement, not an epistle; it was not going to go forever. I thought that was the understanding.UI4Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAY—That might have been their understanding; it was not mine. Leave was given.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—It was my understanding as well. If we want to argue that the original question on the notice of motion should be now put, that does take precedence.UI4Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAY—I am sorry, Mr Acting Deputy President. Can I apologise and sit down while you are giving a ruling? I was still standing.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—I thought leave was given on the understanding that a statement would be made, but I did not expect a statement to go forever. I took advice on that matter. There is some doubt, in fact, about the motion that Senator Alston moved: that the question be now put. It does take precedence. I think, in the spirit of trying to get on with the debate, Senator Alston gave leave for you to speak. But I think he gave it on the understanding that it would not be endless.LD4ALSTONSenator Alston—Mr Acting Deputy President, I raise a point of order. What I think we are seeing here is yet further evidence of Senator Ray's absolute determination to avoid debating the merits of the issue. The fact is that we moved a gag because you have had three speakers who have not addressed the subject matter of the issue.The fact is that Senator Ray indicated that he believed that his seeking leave should have precedence over the gag motion. That is certainly not my understanding of standing order 199. But, in the circumstances, when he effectively threatened that he would spend half an hour on a contingent notice of motion, I was prepared to accept that this might be a more expeditious way of dealing with it. What he was saying was, `If you don't give me leave, I will spend half an hour on a contingent notice of motion'; in other words, he was making it clear that he expected that we should give him leave to save time, less than half an hour.If what he is now saying is that, under guise of seeking to speed up the debate, he is now going to spend an endless amount of time on talking about everything that interests him, then that is a clear abuse of process. It exposes him as someone who is not interested in the forms of the parliament. All these weasel words about what a wonderful person the President is and `I would like to sit down and hear you in silence' should not disguise the fact that what he is doing, if he persists in this conduct, is simply trying to frustrate the processes of the parliament and the government's agenda. I can certainly confirm that Senator Ray made it very clear to us that leave was in lieu of his spending half an hour on a contingent notice of motion.UI4Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAY—I might be able to assist the chair. I was pointing out, having been given leave, what my rights were and the potential exercise of those rights. I doubt that, even as verbose and garrulous as I can be, I will even get to the half hour that the contingent notice of motion allows for. But it should be made clear to the genius of tactics over there that if he gives leave with that qualification—and he effectively did—that could be the consequence. But I will leave you to make a ruling and then I will get back to the relevant points.AX5EVANSSenator Chris Evans—On the point of order, Mr Acting Deputy President.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Calvert)—I did not believe there was a point of order.AX5EVANSSenator Chris Evans—You let Senator Alston speak for five minutes on a point of order. I am speaking to the point of order that Senator Alston so eloquently addressed at length. I wanted to make the point that leave was given by the Senate. What happens to be in Senator Alston's mind at the time, while of interest to us all, is not the crucial point in any ruling you make, Mr Acting Deputy President. Leave was given by the Senate for Senator Ray to make a statement. I gave that leave, as did other senators around the chamber. While it is of interest, if there is anything in Senator Alston's mind or not, I do not think it is relevant to any ruling you make about the decision to grant leave.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—When the Senate gives leave, I believe it does give leave with a reasonable amount of time. It is up to whoever is in the chair at the time as to what they believe is a reasonable amount of time. I will rule that Senator Ray still has the leave of the Senate to continue, but I will listen and when I think the senator has had enough time, I may put the motion.UI4Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAY—We would obviously challenge that ruling, and move dissent to the ruling, but that is for a later time. What I was saying in terms of the proper procedures here in relation to this gag is that the government finally at least got its tactics right. Rather than moving suspension of standing orders and then having a long debate over precedence by way of ambush, they gave notice properly on Monday so that it would come up for debate as government business on Tuesday.I wanted to make the point that it is very important that this procedure be followed in future. The reason why it should be followed and the reason why it will always be resisted like it was last Thursday is that it is an ambush. It is quite clear that the government decided some time Thursday morning to do this, but did not have the courtesy to notify us. The problem for us then in terms of preparation time is that probably only one speaker on our side can speak to it, and that is the person accused. The others do not know about it and cannot prepare. Therefore, the procedure to this point of time of moving it one day and giving people time to prepare for the second day is always going to be the appropriate approach.If you are looking for precedents you have to go back 17 years to the last time a government tried to gag a censure motion in this place. This was a censure motion moved by Senator Durack. It was to censure an opposition senator. Again the government tried the gag motion.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—No, the gag was moved by Senator Durack.UI4Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAY—The gag was moved by Senator Durack.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—On an opposition senator.UI4Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAY—On an opposition senator. The gag was moved by Senator Durack then. The Senate was a more benign then; it was defeated. My point to the Senate is that it should be defeated again today because the government has had four speakers on the attack—notably Senator Vanstone, Senator Abetz, Senator Coonan and Senator Alston. Our side has been given only three speakers to respond. That in itself is a manifestly unfair use of the gag.To go back to the President's previous statement, there will be knock-on consequences of that in this chamber, because you are actually using a device to prevent at least equal numbers in this place speaking on the motion. We certainly had Senator Quirke and Senator Cooney who wanted to address different aspects of it. Senator Alston can say what he likes about irrelevancies, but he can be assured that one of our next speakers, Senator Cooney, would have gone right to the heart of matter.The only precedent we have for gagging a censure motion against an opposition member—not the traditional ones—goes back 17 years and that was defeated in this chamber. The question comes up: why won't this government, having given notice of a motion in government business time, actually debate the resolution out? Why won't they give the opposition at least equal time to debate the motion? The only conclusion that we can draw on this matter is that they do not want to face the counter-attack; they do not want to face up.7E4VANSTONESenator Vanstone—Counter-attack! Hit me with a feather.UI4Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAY—Hit Senator Vanstone with a feather? Senator Vanstone has made accusations. You do not have the political courage to allow the response to be given. You have to sleaze out of this chamber using the device of a gag—7E4VANSTONESenator Vanstone—Just closing the debate.UI4Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAY—You are not closing the debate at all. Are you going to have a right of response as well? Is that what you are saying? Mr Acting Deputy President, are we also going to have a right of response so that their side gets five speakers?10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Ray, I would remind you that you are making a statement and I would ask you not to be distracted by interjections.UI4Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAY—It was actually a very pertinent one. Let me explain it to you so you understand. I thought Senator Vanstone indicated that that side of politics is not only going to gag this debate; they are going to have another speaker and right of response. Is that what you said?LD4ALSTONSenator Alston—No.UI4Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAY—You are not going to have a right of response? You are just going to leave it at four government speakers and three opposition speakers? That is fair according to you? The old stacked jury; that is fair according to you. I thought there was some redemption for Senator Vanstone; never argue that with Senator Alston.What we have here is a government that says censure motions are serious. Clearly, I do not agree with that. I think they have been scattered around like confetti. They have absolutely no relevance. They are carried on political grounds, as happened in the House of Representatives the other day. All this government needs to censure an opposition is to round up two of the other 11 votes. No-one will ever tell me that every one of those will vote on the facts of the case.Sometimes they might vote for Senator Bolkus because they like him, and not listen to the arguments. Sometimes—and I cannot understand how—they might vote against him in the censure motion because they do not like him. It is an absolute joke. This is not a judicial finding; this is a highly politicised chamber and this is a highly politicised motion in which the views will merely reflect party lines. Can you imagine someone opposite voting in favour of Senator Bolkus or someone on our side voting against him? It probably never happens. Voting on censure motions goes along party lines. For the rest, some will address it on the merits and vote accordingly for or against; others will just vote according to their particular bias at the time.Today, this government has said that it is willing to censure an opposition senator without other senators being able to express their views. The government is saying, `We're now into this particular issue but we want to bail out.' Why does it want to bail out? It is saying that government business time is more important than censuring Senator Bolkus. To go back to Senator Hill's comments as they apply to this, he said, `This is your choice; this is your program; this is your priority.' To reverse that: the government has made the choice that government legislation is more important than the censure motion on Senator Bolkus. The government is willing to countenance an unfair distribution of speakers and to gag debate when it has had more speakers than the opposition.To wind up, we have a government too gutless to debate this and too scared to have all the issues put on the table. It is an absolute disgrace that Senator Alston has moved a gag motion here today. It took 17 long years for the coalition to return to the tactics it used in 1981, move a censure motion on an opposition member, and then gag the debate because it cannot hack it. We are dealing with a pathetic, miserable government. Senator Vanstone, you have been involved in these sorts of exercises because you were undermined by David Kemp, sacked by the Prime Minister, and bullied by the state governments over gun control. You are prone to invention under attack and you have never found a bad microphone yet. Question put: That the motion (Senator Alston's ) be now put.11:29:00The Senate divided. (The President—Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid)41Abetz, E. Allison, L.Alston, R. K. R. Bartlett, A. J. J.Boswell, R. L. D. Bourne, V.Brownhill, D. G. C. Calvert, P. H. *Campbell, I. G. Chapman, H. G. P.Coonan, H. Crane, W.Eggleston, A. Ferguson, A. B.Ferris, J. Gibson, B. F.Heffernan, W. Herron, J.Hill, R. M. Kemp, R.Knowles, S. C. Lees, M. H.Lightfoot, P. R. Macdonald, I.Macdonald, S. MacGibbon, D. J.McGauran, J. J. J. Minchin, N. H.Murray, A. Newman, J. M.Parer, W. R. Patterson, K. C. L.Payne, M. A.Reid, M. E.Stott Despoja, N. Synon, K. M.Tambling, G. E. J. Tierney, J.Troeth, J. Vanstone, A. E.Woodley, J.28Bishop, M. Bolkus, N.Brown, B. Campbell, G.Carr, K. Conroy, S.Cook, P. F. S. Cooney, B.Crowley, R. A. Denman, K. J.Evans, C. V. *Faulkner, J. P.Forshaw, M. G. Gibbs, B.Harradine, B. Hogg, J.Lundy, K. Mackay, S.Margetts, D. McKiernan, J. P.Murphy, S. M. Neal, B. J.O'Brien, K. W. K. Quirke, J. A.Ray, R. F. Schacht, C. C.Sherry, N. West, S. M.Ellison, C. Collins, R. L.O'Chee, W. G. Reynolds, M.Watson, J. O. W. Collins, J. M. A.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.11:33:00779Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—I seek leave to move a motion to delete clause (c) of the motion.Leave granted.DX5MARGETTSSenator Margetts—For clarification, could the entire new motion be read to the chamber.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—It is the motion on page 2 of the Notice Paper , deleting clause (c).Motion (by Senator Harradine)—as amended, by leave—agreed to:Omit paragraph (c).10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—The question is that the motion moved by Senator Vanstone, as amended, be agreed to. All those in favour say aye; against say no. A division is required. Ring the bells for one minute.Opposition senators interjecting—Four minutes!10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Ring the bells for four minutes. Question put: That the motion (Senator Vanstone's ), as amended, be agreed to.11:38:00The Senate divided. (The President—Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid)44Abetz, E. Allison, L.Alston, R. K. R. Bartlett, A. J. J.Boswell, R. L. D. Bourne, V.Brown, B. Brownhill, D. G. C.Calvert, P. H. *Campbell, I. G.Chapman, H. G. P. Coonan, H.Crane, W. Eggleston, A.Ferguson, A. B. Ferris, J.Gibson, B. F. Harradine, B.Heffernan, W. Herron, J.Hill, R. M. Kemp, R.Knowles, S. C. Lees, M. H.Lightfoot, P. R. Macdonald, I.Macdonald, S. MacGibbon, D. J.Margetts, D. McGauran, J. J. J.Minchin, N. H. Murray, A.Newman, J. M. Parer, W. R.Patterson, K. C. L. Payne, M. A.Reid, M. E. Stott Despoja, N.Synon, K. M. Tambling, G. E. J.Tierney, J. Troeth, J.Vanstone, A. E. Woodley, J.25Bishop, M. Bolkus, N.Campbell, G. Carr, K.Conroy, S. *Cook, P. F. S.Cooney, B. Crowley, R. A.Denman, K. J. Evans, C. V.Faulkner, J. P. Forshaw, M. G.Gibbs, B. Hogg, J.Lundy, K. Mackay, S.McKiernan, J. P. Murphy, S. M.Neal, B. J. O'Brien, K. W. K.Quirke, J. A. Ray, R. F.Schacht, C. C. Sherry, N.West, S. M.Ellison, C. Collins, R. L.O'Chee, W. G. Reynolds, M.Watson, J. O. W. Collins, J. M. A.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.Miscellaneous780Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell) proposed: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.11:43:00780Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—Madam President, we have indicated, as you would be aware, that the opposition has taken the principal position that we do not want to be party to any procedural motion that would, if it were successfully carried in this chamber, have the effect of further delaying the Wik debate. This is a useful opportunity for the opposition to be able to state very clearly that we have heard the rhetoric from the government in relation to suggestions that the opposition is about delaying debate in the Senate on the Native Title Amendment Bill 1997 [No. 2] . Exempting that bill from the provisions of standing order 111 puts the lie to that particular rhetoric. I do want to say on behalf of the opposition that we are willing to have this debate at any time of the government's choosing—that is, whenever the government believes it is appropriate to list the debate.It is very difficult, having seen the government's behaviour over the last couple of days, to really believe that the native title legislation is the highest priority on the government's legislative agenda. It is almost unheard of for a government that talks consistently about the pressure of its legislative program to bring on as an item of government business a censure motion on an opposition senator, but that has been the government's priority in this chamber for the last couple of days. We believe that of itself will make it very difficult for the government to argue a substantive case in relation to priority to be given to the native title legislation. When a government regards a censure motion against an opposition senator as higher than any of its legislative priorities, surely this is an issue that would warrant concern not only from all senators in this chamber, but also there must be a significant amount of public concern about that approach to the planning of the government's legislation program.The key point that needs to be made here is that the exemption from the provisions of standing order 111 is something that appears to be a proposal that is only attractive to the coalition when it is in government. A history of this particular standing order is worth relating to the Senate in case any senators in this chamber have forgotten how it came about. It was originally a proposal that was sponsored by Senator Chamarette, who was a representative of the Western Australian Greens, but it was enthusiastically picked up by the coalition, then in opposition. When the Labor Party was in government, we pointed out the weaknesses of the cut-off motion. We pointed out the weaknesses of any standing order that constrained a government's capacity to effectively work through its legislation program. But that was never the view of the Liberals, that was never the view of the coalition, when they were in opposition.Of course, we have seen the Manager of Government Business in the Senate (Senator Ian Campbell) forced on very many occasion to come in here and move exemptions to this standing order. One wonders whether the government has started to think that the pious speeches it made about the cut-off resolution at the time when it so enthusiastically supported the cut-off standing order were perhaps ill thought through. We had at the time an opposition that did not approach its business in this chamber from the perspective of an alternative government. Labor, since it was defeated in the election in 1996, has never had that approach to dealing with the new government's legislation program. We have never had that approach. We approach these issues from the perspective of an alternative government. We approach this from the perspective of a political party that we think is likely to find itself on the other side of the chamber, probably in a few short months.The rationale of the cut-off motion is that it ensures that all senators, and not only senators but others who have an interest in government legislation, have sufficient time to analyse legislation and formulate a view upon it. That has always been the rationale of the cut-off motion. The cut-off device ensures that there is sufficient time for this to occur between the introduction of a bill into the parliament and debate on that bill on the floor of the chamber. I think the government, from its perspective, first realised some of the weaknesses in this standing order when, as a newly elected government, it found a problem with the standing order's application to legislation brought in in the first period of sittings after the election.But the point needs to be made to the Senate in relation to the Native Title Amendment Bill that we do have legislation before the chair that is essentially the same as that which was debated in the Senate last November and December. I think that all senators would have to acknowledge the fact that that was a most extensive debate and one of the most complex committee stage considerations we had seen in this chamber. It is also worth noting that the minister responsible for han dling that legislation on behalf of the government, Senator Minchin, and the opposition shadow minister responsible for the legislation in the Senate, Senator Bolkus, both acknowledged that in summing up and concluding this debate. It also needs to be said that a range of other minor party and independent senators, many of whom played a very active role in that committee stage consideration, also acknowledged the fact that it had been a most intensive and complex committee stage consideration.The issue before the Senate is one of whether, with the level of scrutiny of the legislation that took place in that exhaustive committee stage debate towards the end of last year, it is appropriate for the Senate to apply standing order 111—which I think we all colloquially refer to as the `cut-off motion'—in this circumstance. Is it appropriate for the Senate to apply this particular standing order to the native title legislation in the circumstances that I have outlined?I will be interested to hear the case that is presented by those who do not support an exemption because, as far as the opposition is concerned, it is difficult to justify a denial of the exemption from the cut-off for this bill on the basis that we might need more time to understand the issues. At the time—and I would refer people back to—6H4HARRADINESenator Harradine—It is not us who need any more time.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Sorry, I did not hear what you said, Senator.DX5MARGETTSSenator Margetts—He said, `It is not us who need the time.'5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—Who is it, Senator? That is something that you might care to make a contribution on.BE4NEWMANSenator Newman—He is pretty quick with his contributions. I have noticed that.5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—I will take that dopey interjection from Senator Newman who said that he is pretty quick in his contributions. I would never accuse Senator Harradine of being quick in all his contributions. I think he acknowledges that by the nod of his head. Senator Newman, the contribution that I am making at this time is one I am surprised that you are not supportive of. This is a major issue for the government. You might be so out of touch with what your own government is proposing in relation to debate on the Wik legislation that you cannot understand that the government is proposing an exemption. This is an issue that has received a great deal—BE4NEWMANSenator Newman—You take a lot longer to say it than needs to be taken.5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—The difference between you and me, Senator Newman, is that I am capable of making a speech in the parliament and I am capable of participating in a committee stage debate; you are not. Who will ever forget you on the social security legislation? There you are propped up, with Senator Hill trying to hold you together on one side and Senator Alston on the other. It was very embarrassing. Senator Harradine and I were both very embarrassed by your performance. Frankly, Senator Newman, I think the less you say about this the better. Your best contribution to this debate probably would be to keep quiet because you do not even seem to understand that I am indicating on behalf of the opposition that the opposition is proposing to support the exemption in this particular case, which is something that the government is arguing—not that we have heard the case mounted by Senator Campbell.When I was manager of government business—and the place ran a lot better than it does now—I would always try to make a case for the exemption of a bill from the cut-off motion. I think Senator Harradine, Senator Woodley and Senator Margetts were here at that time. I acknowledge that Senator Brown did not have the pleasure of being here when I was managing government business. I would come in here and argue the case if an exemption to that standing order was proposed, particularly on a matter as important as this legislation is, not only to the parliament but also to the Australian community. I think even my worst enemy in politics would have to acknowledge that that is the case.The point I am trying to make, Senator Newman, which, obviously, you are not capable of understanding because of your limitations, is that we believe that there has been—10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—You should make those points through the chair, Senator.5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—What I was saying, Mr Acting Deputy President, was that apparently Senator Newman, because of her limitations, is not able to understand this argument. The opposition is not going to be in the business of opposing procedural motions before the chair in the Senate that might have the effect of delaying debate on the native title legislation. That is the point that I am making, and I am indicating that we believe there has been sufficient time to deal with this in terms of familiarisation with the issues. We are saying that the opposition is ready, willing and able to engage in that debate at any time that the government believes it ought to bring the debate on. We are not going to accept being accused of not being willing to debate this legislation in this current session of parliament. The government has indicated that it believes it is important that this matter be dealt with as soon as possible. We believe the behaviour of the government in the Senate over the past couple of days indicates that its priorities are elsewhere and, when you have got—as I have indicated before—a government willing to give so much time to a banal and pointless censure motion of an opposition senator, I think it does strain credulity to accept that the government is serious about this particular proposal.As far as the opposition is concerned, we point out that the government is proposing an exemption to a standing order of the Senate that historically the Labor Party has always viewed as having weaknesses. But we have accepted that this standing order is here to stay and that governments do need to ensure that their legislation program is planned in a way that allows adequate time for senators and the community to examine legislation. I also believe, and I want to make this point very clearly, that when legislation comes before the Senate the principle of introduction in one session for debate in the next is important. It is important that the Senate and governments are able to comply with those principles.So some of the spirit of this standing order was certainly accepted by Labor when in government. We have always pointed out that you do have urgent legislation—budget related legislation and other legislation—that requires consideration by parliament in the same session as it is introduced. That has always been a weakness in this standing order. But you have to acknowledge that sometimes you have powerful arguments in these sorts of matters. Our powerful arguments have, in the past, not been accepted. So this standing order is here to stay. We accept that it is here to stay. It has to be applied in a sensible manner. What we say in relation to the Native Title Amendment Bill 1997 [No. 2] is simple: we have had a lot of debate over the issue. We have had sufficient time. We all know the issues that are before us. The opposition are ready, willing and able to debate the issues. So we say, `Let's get on with it.' We will support the exemption.12:02:00783Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—Senator Faulkner has indicated that we do not need more time to consider or debate the Native Title Amendment Bill 1997 [No. 2] . I think he has missed the point that the people who are most affected by this legislation are the ones who have never had it taken to them at any grassroots level. The haste with which the legislation was put through at the end of last year meant that there was no proper process of consultation with indigenous Australians. It was an extremely complex bill; it changed considerably over time; and there was never a time when those people most affected by the legislation had the ability to have a say and get around what was being proposed. This was brought very painfully to us when we saw an announcement by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Beazley) about his option of putting indigenous leaders in a room with industry, shutting the door and saying, `You don't get out until you come to an agreement.'If that is what the Labor Party consider is a correct and proper consultative process then it is probably no wonder that they are today putting their hands up to exempt this bill from a cut-off. It is a bill which is not yet before the Senate. It is not a particularly good principle for us to be debating these cut-off exemptions when a bill is not as yet before the Senate. Senator Harradine has circulated an amendment to government business notice of motion No. 1 in which he is asking for the debate to be adjourned until after the bill is introduced into the Senate. I am inclined to support that, although there is no standing order that I know of which prevents the government from doing what they are doing, that is, pre-empting the end of the debate in the House of Representatives and the introduction of the bill into the Senate. More and more, Senate committees are being asked to deal with bills or the provisions of bills which are not before the Senate. In this particular case, I do not think it is proper process and I would not be prepared to accept this.The process by which countries such as Canada have moved towards some sort of lasting solution on issues of sovereignty and land justice has not been attempted overnight. It has taken a number of years. Quite frankly, any real process would require, if there was any political will, a proper consultative process over time, not this kind of shove legislation through and threaten or even put people in a room, close the door and insist that they come up with a solution no matter how lacking that could possibly be in grassroots participation.I believe that the Labor Party had a consistent view in relation to the cut-off motion. But from the Greens (WA) perspective, that consistent view was that it was the government's legislative program—as if they owned the outcome of the legislation; as if it was not affecting other people. It seemed to be a `thumbing their nose' at any real democracy and also seemed to go along with the idea of mandate and three-year elected dictatorships. So it is nice to hear Senator Faulkner acknowledging that there are benefits to the community and, obviously, the Senate in the principle that the Senate and the community have the chance to look at legislation and the way it has been drafted and to comment on it before we are required to vote on it. But it is disappointing to see that he has forgotten that there never was a full community consultation in relation to this bill. It did not happen last year and will not, potentially, happen this year if the opposition is prepared to let this through.It is a great disappointment. It certainly is very telling that Senator Faulkner does not understand that we—that is, the Senate and the parliament of Australia—are not the only people who need to understand this bill. I will support Senator Harradine's amendment and indicate that if it is not passed I will vote against the exemption from the cut-off motion.12:08:00784Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEYHX5QLDAD00—I indicate that the Australian Democrats will not support the cut-off motion. We will support Senator Harradine's amendment to it, which is a very sensible amendment and really would put everything in its proper order. One of the problems with what we are doing today is that due process has again been thrown out the window. I support everything that Senator Margetts has just said to us and would like to add some other very good reasons why this legislation is not in any sense urgent.The motion before us today is about exempting the 10-point plan of the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) from the due process of the Senate. Standing order 111 was introduced and supported by the coalition parties to prevent the previous practice sometimes used in this place of legislation by ambush. That is a situation which means non-government senators would have quite complex legislation presented for their consideration with little or no time for proper deliberation. This motion was introduced to prevent that from happening. It has become known in this place as the cut-off motion.In its wisdom the Senate also recognised that there are some instances where legislation could be justifiably—I emphasise `justifiably'—presented as urgent and that that legislation could be exempted from standing order No. 111. However, the 10-point plan is not urgent. It is at its very core a political stunt aimed at completing the final act of dispossession against indigenous Australians. It is immoral for any Australian government to attempt to prop up the failing popularity of a premier in my state by using indigenous people as a political football. This is one of the reasons why the Democrats will not support the cut-off motion.We know that Mr Borbidge was here in Canberra this week for the specific purpose of lobbying the Prime Minister on this very issue. We know that he has no other issue in Queensland on which to fight an election. On almost every other issue he has shown himself to be absolutely bereft of policy or of any worthwhile action. Yet this government is prepared to go along and try to prop up the Queensland premier in his attempt to have an election based on the whole of the Wik issue, which, I might say, could not fail to be a race election.The premier has already said that he is going to have an election in Queensland based on this issue. I point out to the Senate that just a couple of weeks ago he was in the press saying that people living in housing commission homes are losing their homes as a result of native title claims. It is a ridiculous assertion for which he had no legal advice whatsoever. In fact, he got advice from his media officer to run with this assertion because it looked like it might have been a good idea at the time. There was no legal support for the claim; nevertheless, he went ahead with it. At least one member of the Labor Party in Queensland phoned me when I pointed this out in the media and said, `Go for it. You're absolutely right.'It is interesting also that in the week I had this debate with Premier Borbidge about the Wik issue I was phoned by a very embarrassed mill owner from the Gold Coast who had invited me and the premier to be present at the opening of a sugar mill. He was phoning me to say that I was no longer invited. You can imagine where the pressure came from for me to be uninvited to that opening.1I4McKIERNANSenator McKiernan—No sweetener for you.HX5Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEY—No sweetener for me on that occasion. We have a premier who is desperate to win a state election and has no other issue to base it on other than this. I do not believe that the Senate ought to support that kind of politics in my home state—although we are quite used to it there.With this cut-off motion the government is pursuing, at its core, the abrogation of due process. It is an abrogation of due process to exempt legislation under the standing orders of the Senate when that legislation is not urgent. It is an abrogation of due process when the separation of powers under the constitution is not respected and conservative governments seek to legislate away the common law property rights of some Australians because of the colour of their skin. It is an abrogation of due process to use racism as the basis of an election in this country and to spend $60 million of taxpayers' money to pursue what is a gamble, which in the end will see constitutional backup for what the government is doing if it goes to a double dissolution and has a joint sitting of parliament following that.It is an abrogation of due process to use this debate in this chamber to continue the oppression of the most disadvantaged groups of people in the Australian community. I remind the Senate that in eight weeks time there will be a decision handed down by the High Court which will have a bearing on the legitimacy or otherwise of the legislation which we are debating—that is, the Hindmarsh Island Bridge case. We ought to know the result of that case whichever way it goes so that we will be able to take that decision of the High Court into account in the debate.I do not agree with the Prime Minister's premise—I hope the Labor Party do not agree with it; perhaps they can tell us—that people are sick of the Wik debate. I think the Prime Minister is sick of the Wik debate and I think some people in his party are sick of the Wik debate because it is turning against them. Out there in the public arena people are waking up to what this government is seeking to do. Certainly out there in the public arena the debate is turning against the government. The people are not sick of the Wik debate, but they certainly are taking sides in the debate and, increasingly, they are not on the side of the government.Are we to return to the 210 years of terra nullius, to the legal invisibility of our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people? During the first round of debates on the 10-point plan, I noted the absence of indigenous people in this chamber. I again draw the attention of the Senate to that fact. Because of that absence, it is morally incumbent on each and every senator in this place to listen to what indigenous Australians are telling us.I know the Aboriginal people have told the Labor Party that they should delay this bill. Why doesn't the Labor Party take that advice? The people have told us they need time to try to convince the Prime Minister that there is another way to go. In today's press Gatjil Djerrkura again repeated this offer and underlined that that was the agreement which he reached with the Prime Minister when the Prime Minister was in Arnhem Land just a couple of weeks ago. Surely we can hear this appeal.As Senator Harradine indicated before, it is not whether you or I or any senator in this place has had time to debate the issue. What really is important in this place—I underline what Senator Margetts said—is that the Aboriginal people have time to negotiate with us, the Prime Minister and all of those involved a proper outcome for this debate and this legislation.12:17:00785Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEYSF4VICALP00—The Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator Faulkner) has put our position, and Senator Woodley, in his usual courteous fashion, has put arguments to the contrary. He says, for example, that time ought to be made available for people to convince the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) that he ought to change his position. I would have been more impressed with that argument had the Australian Democrats not supported the gag motion earlier this morning, cutting off the opportunity we on this side had to convince the chamber that a particular argument ought prevail. For the Democrats to now talk about time being made available to convince people is rather hollow.Senate Woodley also pointed out in his argument that due process should be preserved. This is from a man whom I have a great respect for but who, this very morning, voted to gag debate before people had an opportunity to put a case and then voted against the person about whom the motion was put. I say with due respect to Senator Woodley that his arguments about due process and time being made available are not in keeping with the way that he and his party acted this morning.The Greens, Senator Brown and Senator Margetts, and Senator Harradine, as an Independent, at least voted for due process and, having been defeated with the assistance of the Democrats, then voted a particular way. I can understand that. But I cannot understand the argument Senator Woodley, who comes from a party which supported gagging debate to censure a man who is now visited with that opprobrium for the rest of his life, put when he voted to deny the person concerned the opportunity of having a proper defence put. That the Democrats are debating the matter that has come on after that in a way contrary to how they conducted themselves earlier this morning is a little hard to take.Senator Woodley says this matter is one that does not need to come on early. He spoke about the business of the indigenous people of Australia. To my way of thinking, the business of the indigenous people of Australia should be foremost in our minds and we should be ready to bring that on for debate now.Senator Woodley, in opposing this motion, introduced material and debated it on a basis that would indicate that he is well abreast of the arguments that are to be put for and against this bill. It has been said, and I think said with some truth, that the government is about this bill being a trigger for a double dissolution, and no doubt it will be said that the Labor Party is in the same game, as it were. That is not true. The Labor Party wants a regime in Australia that serves the people of Australia well, whether they be pastoralists, indigenous people, miners or what have you.The Australian Labor Party is about putting forward a scheme which gets Australians working together and which gets Australia properly developed, developed in a way that gives the proper respect to those indigenous people that have worked towards this over the years—people like Geoff Clark from Framlingham, Monica Morgan from the north of Victoria and her mother, Elizabeth Hoffman; those sorts of people who are desperate to see a proper solution reached in this area; people who have laboured over the years towards a situation where a proper result is obtained.It is clear, in the way we put things, that the government's legislation is flawed. We on this side of the chamber showed just how badly it was flawed the last time it was before this chamber. The government wants to bring that legislation on again and go through those matters. Let us hope they can be convinced. Let us hope they do bring that legislation back here on the basis that they are willing to listen to debate.But that proposition—the proposition that they should reconsider—looks as if it is not going to be accepted. It seems that their minds are made up, just like the minds of the coalition and the minds of the Democrats were made up about Senator Bolkus this morning when that matter was brought up. That is a pity. It is a pity that the government, in bringing back this legislation, is not susceptible to good argument. There was good argument put last time by this side of the chamber, and indeed by the Democrats and Senator Harradine. I thought that was quite outstanding—I think that has been accepted—in the debate last time on this bill. There were quite outstanding arguments, too, by Senator Margetts and Senator Brown.YE4BOSWELLSenator Boswell—What about me?SF4Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEY—Senator Boswell, you did it with style and a flourish. The only thing wrong with your arguments was that they were in error. Senator Boswell, I think that your heart is a great heart; but it is misdirected in this particular debate. I ask whether Senator Boswell has a broad enough mind in the political sense—I do not mean in the intellectual sense—to accept the arguments that are put against the position that he takes up.You are loyal. I continue with the very relevant matter that Senator Boswell has raised. Senator Boswell, you want to support the pastoralists. You want to support those people in Queensland who feel threatened by native title claims. That is understandable. But, Senator Boswell, you have to remember that we are here to represent all Australians. The argument should not be, `I have a particular problem up there. I have a particular constituency to service.' We have all got that. This is such a great issue that we should debate this matter that you have talked about with open minds.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—We are going to bring on social security if you are going to filibuster.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Murphy)—Order! Senator Campbell, if you want to have a discussion, I suggest you have it outside the chamber or some other place where you are not interrupting—Senator Ian Campbell interjecting—10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Campbell, there is a senator on his feet who is speaking. It is a breach of the standing orders to interrupt that. If you wish to have a discussion, then leave the chamber. SF4Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEY—I understand Senator Campbell's position. He has no doubt other business to bring on—the business not only of the indigenous people of Australia but also of the pastoralists of Queensland and of the miners of Western Australia. Senator McKiernan, who sits next to me, is a great Western Australian.HX5WOODLEYSenator Woodley—That is true; yes, he is.SF4Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEY—Yes. He is always urging the interests of Western Australians upon me, including the miners. It is important that we bring on the debate in accordance with what the government wants. But what I want to make clear is that, in bringing on the debate, we do not take positions where we simply come here with fixed minds. I think I can get from the Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate, Senator Carr, a clear undertaking that we will listen to the arguments. But we are dedicated to making sure that all the people of Australia get what is right.6H4HARRADINESenator Harradine—But you are not doing that. Voting for the cut-off is not doing that.HX5WOODLEYSenator Woodley—And that is the problem, Senator Cooney.SF4Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEY—I take up the remarks of Senator Harradine and Senator Woodley. They say that voting for the cut-off is not doing that. But, as I understand the way the government puts it and the way we have accepted it on this side, this matter is of importance, given the fact that the indigenous people have been held out of their land for such a length of time and given the fact that the pastoralists and the miners want a quick resolution of this matter. We can see what the government is about.In answer to Senator Harradine and Senator Woodley, I will quote from a statement by Senator Carr, the Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate, who made this statement on 29 May 1996:I would perhaps start by reminding senators of the terms of the order of continuing effect, which is commonly referred to as the Hill cut-off motion. In effect that motion says:The reasons referred to in paragraph (1) are as follows:— He goes on—- in terms of why there should be a cut-off motion in place—Then the motion goes on:(a) there should be an orderly debate of bills in accordance with some of the general chronological priority based on the principle that bills introduced in one sitting, should preferably be debated in the next sittings;(b) that such a priority reflects and ensures effective use of the time available:(i) to Senators, to research the implications of the bills, consult the community, prepare speech notes and draft any necessary amendments, and(ii) to the media and to the public to become aware of the possible effects of proposed laws; and(c) where the government wishes the Senate to depart from that general chronological priority, the government should justify each such departure in debate which concludes with a resolution of agreement by the Senate.Going through that—the issue of the orderly debate of bills in accordance with some general chronological priority based on the principle that bills introduced in one sitting should preferably be debated in the next sitting—this is a bill that has been debated once already, for just over 56 hours.Let me make it clear that the arguments are important and it is essential, when this bill comes on again, that the bill is debated fully with the issues aired. The point made in reference to the general principles given to me by Senator Carr—and I thank him for that—is that the ability to have an orderly debate is there because of the arguments that have already been raised.As I said, part (b) says:that such a priority reflects and ensures effective use of the time available:(i) to Senators, to research the implications of the bills—There has certainly been time to research the implications of the bill, and there has been time for the media and the public to become aware of the possible effects of the proposed law.Senator Woodley said, `Yes, but perhaps we can get to the point where the Prime Minister can be lobbied and all these other things should be done.' I do not think that is the right approach to take in terms of whether or not you give priority to this bill. The issue is not whether or not a deal can be done but, firstly, whether or not senators can research the implications of the bill; secondly, whether or not the public has become aware of the possible effects of the proposed bill; and, thirdly, whether the government should justify each such departure. In deciding those questions, I think we have to decide them in terms of debates in this chamber and not so much in terms of whether or not we hope that history will somehow change outside.The points raised by Senator Woodley certainly have merit, but they have to be regarded in the context of what the parameters ought to be in deciding this particular debate, which is a debate about whether or not stand ing order 111 should be looked at so as to exempt this particular bill. The approach of the opposition on this matter is to allow that to happen, and what I am doing now is explaining why. The philosophical reason behind this side of the chamber doing it is that we do think that the affairs of the indigenous people are important. They have been shut out from their rights for 210 years. It is proper that their rights be vindicated as soon as possible. The fact that they have had to wait all this time is no reason for them to wait longer.In that context, the fact that the miners and the pastoralists want a clarification of the situation are also reasons. I think Senator Woodley is right. I do not think the people of Australia are sick of this. They want the matter resolved, but they want it resolved fairly and justly for all parties. The sooner that is clarified the better. The matter will come in here, and I hope a full debate takes place because this matter deserves a full debate—1I4McKIERNANSenator McKiernan—Without being gagged.SF4Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEY—That is true. Perhaps I should ask Senator Woodley that.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—You still have two minutes to take up your full 20 minutes.SF4Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEY—I think Senator Campbell makes a good point—that I have two minutes to take up my 20 minutes. I think the point he is making is that this is a matter that should be debated fully.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—At great length, obviously!SF4Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEY—At great length. I would like some assurance from the Democrats—and I do not want the answer now, Senator Woodley, but perhaps you could talk about this in the party room—that they will not gag this debate in the way that they gagged the debate on the very rare occasion of a censure motion being brought against a non-minister in this chamber. In those circumstances they cut off debate without this side having a chance to put a defence in favour of that man. I would like an assurance that the Democrats will undertake not to put a gag on this very important debate of the Native Title Amendment Bill 1997 [No. 2] . I have not taken up my full 20 minutes, Senator Campbell.12:37:00789Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I oppose this motion because I agree with Senator Margetts and other speakers who have made the point that this is a matter of critical public importance and the public needs to be taken into account. Senator Christabel Chamarette was not in this place for a great length of time, but she had a remarkable impact as far as making it more democratic.LI4PATTERSONSenator Patterson—Who?QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—Senator Patterson, you need to read history; I am not surprised that you do not know. One remarkable innovation that Senator Chamarette was able to have accorded to the Senate was the business of not allowing bills to be brought in here and debated immediately.The problem with that process as it used to be was that the public was left out. Opposition senators did not have time to go to their constituencies, nor did the constituencies have time to feed back their feelings, about legislation, which was often amended, coming from the House of Representatives.So it was an important principle, the coalition supported it at the time, and we ought not put it aside lightly. In particular, we ought not put it aside lightly in dealing with legislation which is as important as this is to the first Australians—the indigenous people of this nation.Let me reiterate that this piece of legislation on native title is going to impact on Australian life for the next century, and possibly well beyond it. It is very important that the nation have time to feed into it. What I am concerned about is that there will not be the same result this time around as there was last time; that there are shifting sands, and that the government is aware of that and feels it is moving to some sort of conclusion which will be to its benefit and to the detriment of the indigenous people of this country.There are critical matters here. The threshold test for native title claimants: will it be altered by the stand that the Senate takes next time around? There is the provision for the legislation to be under the sway of the Racial Discrimination Act; also, the right to negotiate on mining on pastoral leases. We know already, with the major components in here, the Labor Party and the coalition, not having stood firm on the right to negotiate on the upgrade of pastoral leases on other things than mining—on a whole range of things—that there has been an enormous diminution in the expectation that the indigenous people would have a right to negotiate on a whole range of changes to their land as development engulfs the north of this country in the coming century.If there are shifting sands in connection with any component of this Senate—be it the Greens, the Democrats, Senator Harradine, Senator Colston, the Labor Party, and in particular the government—then the public has a right to know about that before the debate gets under way. In particular, the indigenous people of this country have a right to know about that before the debate gets under way, so that they can feed their response to those changes back to us, the elected representatives, who at the end of the day have to cast a vote on this critical matter. If the government has its way, we will be forced to do that on the run.I do not support doing that on the run. This is far too important, and it is a matter of high democratic principle. The people most involved in this matter—a matter which will affect not just their lives but the lives of their children and their children's children—must know what the amendments mean to this legislation and have time to feed back to their elected representatives their support, their opposition or their wish for change.I have a feeling that serially, every time we deal with this legislation, the rights of the indigenous people are being eroded; their import into what happens to their lives and their land is being eroded. I am mightily alarmed about that, and I am not the only one. The feedback that I get—as Senator Margetts has already indicated that she is getting—is that Australians are very concerned about this, and they want to have their say.I oppose this move by the government to relegate this legislation to being just another piece of legislation that can be rushed through. That is not the proper way to be handling it. There should be due time. We and the government and the opposition should be observing due process. Above all, we should be insisting that the wider Australian public have time to feed into whatever changes any component of this Senate makes.Let me put this to the Labor Party in particular: if you are to change position, if you believe that the government is changing position, if you think there will be a different outcome this time around, you have an obligation to the indigenous people and to the wider populace of this country to ensure that they are taken into confidence so that they have time to let you know what they think of any changed position.The same applies, of course, as I said, to all other components of this House, including Senator Harradine—and the government. I know there are negotiations about this going on all over the place. But the public out there does not.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—What negotiations?QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—The papers have stated that you have been negotiating with the government, Senator Faulkner, in recent times; you have been talking with the government about this legislation. I do not think the public are fully acquainted with that, and they ought to be. That is my point. So, as a representative of the Australian Greens, I for one will be standing firmly against change to the forms of this place which insist that we take time. This legislation must not be brought in here one day and debated the next.12:44:00790Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—I might need to continue what I am about to say when we come back to this issue, because I have only 20 seconds now. I was not going to speak on this question, but I feel it is necessary to answer some of the inaccurate arguments put forward by particularly Senator Cooney from the Labor Party. For that reason, I need to speak as to why it is not appropriate that we exempt this bill from the normal process.Debate interrupted.Matters of Public Interest79010000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! It being 12.45 p.m., under standing orders, we will now proceed to the matters of public interest debate.79012:45:00790Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSONLI4VICLP10—I rise today as a senator from Victoria to discuss the very important issue of waterfront reform. The Victorian business environment is robust and the state government is very supportive of business enterprise. I was not surprised that the NFF chose to situate their new business at Melbourne ports.Victorian businesses, farmers, horticulturalists and others in the business area are among the most competitive in the world. They are efficient, well organised and have taken up the challenge to expand their businesses through overseas exports with enthusiasm. Their enthusiasm for export and keen eye for new business opportunities prompted me in my capacity as the parliamentary representative to the Australian mission to the United Nations to take a particular interest in multilateral procurement.The interest which greeted all of my discussions on this issue with Victorian business representatives left no doubt in my mind that Victorian enterprises could and should gain a greater slice of the multi-million dollar international multilateral procurement business. I had many discussions with the heads of international procurement agencies. I was told by both the World Bank, which I visited on two occasions in Washington, and the United Nations procurement officers that they would like to do more business with Australians.I was told innumerable times how good we were at supplying consultants, what a tremen dous reputation Australia has in supplying consultants to the United Nations and the World Bank and yet how we fell down on supplying goods.In order to win procurement contracts, Australian businesses must be involved in the process and be active participants. Also, they have to have the preliminary qualification of guaranteeing a reliable supply of the relevant goods.The Committee for Melbourne—a committee which has been established to promote Melbourne, Victoria and businesses—has in fact worked assiduously in the multilateral procurement area and has secured the United Nations procurement conference, which is a conference of officers from the United Nations who purchase goods and services who have a meeting once a year. The Committee for Melbourne has secured that conference for Melbourne next year. That was one of reasons they asked me to get involved and meet as many of the procurement officers as possible.The Committee for Melbourne is also working towards establishing a World Bank partnership centre in Melbourne—and hopefully a centre which also includes United Nations activities—to provide a focus for not only Victorian businesses, but also Australian businesses to get in at the ground level and learn about the sorts of things that the United Nations is purchasing and the sorts of things that the World Bank is doing. One of messages that I received when I was at the World Bank and the United Nations was that you need to be involved in the preliminary stage so that, when the actual tenders are let, you have more knowledge of the process. Sometimes we are coming into it too late in the process. I commend the Committee for Melbourne for the work that it is doing to assist Victorian and Australian businesses to get involved.Australian businesses are very responsive. When I was visiting the Antarctic I got to know the helicopter company down there that was responsible for all the flights and the servicing of the helicopters in the Antarctic. They are a Western Australian company. I rang them and said, `The United Nations wants to send helicopters. Would you be interested in getting involved with them?' They said, `Look, if we can deliver a helicopter service in the Antarctic, we can deliver it anywhere in the world. That is the toughest environment.'There are Australian companies that are keen to get in there and do it. They are keen to be involved in this multilateral procurement, but it is no good if cannot get the goods from the production point to overseas points, especially in multilateral procurement, and get it there on a timely basis. It is just counter-productive.I am naturally concerned that, even as all levels of government strive to assist businesses with their exports, even as the Committee for Melbourne is working towards establishing a World Bank partnership centre and a UN procurement centre in Melbourne, and even as the Minister for Trade is busily promoting Australian exports overseas, Australian businesses cannot make this basic guarantee of reliable delivery.I have given the example of my father's business before. He manufactures artists' paints and poster paints. He had two orders from America some years ago two years in a row. One lot was left sitting on the wharf in the heat. The tubes exploded because the containers became too hot. They were sitting there during a strike and he did not get the delivery to the American market in time for the school year. He was trying to even out his production over a year. He had a peak period here for the beginning of the school year in Australia and a peak period in July/August for the American market. He tried to maintain jobs here in Australia and he had to put people on and off to meet the peaks and troughs in his business.In the second year there was another strike and he did not get the paints to America on time. What happened was that he set up a subsidiary company in Canada and 12 jobs went to Canada. This was mainly because our wharves were so inefficient and he was delayed. It was only a very small business with 35 employees, but 12 jobs went down the drain and became Canadian jobs. So, that is the sort of thing that happens when our wharves are not reliable. Businesses make other decisions. They cannot afford to invest money, make losses or get a reputation for being an unreliable supplier.An international survey of reliability was reported by the Herald Sun on 31 January this year. Melbourne came a miserable seventeenth on the scale of how well we performed as a supplier. On value for money we did one point better; we went to sixteenth position. Our waterfront strike action is 10 times the national average. It is the only area in which the Australian waterfront leads the world. We lead on the worst score.The National Institute of Labour Studies at Flinders prepared a report late last year which shows that the level of industrial disputation on the waterfront is second only to the coal mining industry. Every day around Australia there is a stoppage. You think about that. That is some paints that are not going to be delivered on time or some food that might spoil. That is another group of businesses who are seen as unreliable suppliers in overseas markets. Every day there is a stoppage, a go-slow or some other form of interruption to service, resulting in ships missing sailings.Ships regularly calling into Australia build several extra days into their schedules to allow for delays, damaging Australia's reputation as a trading partner. It is damaging the reputations as reliable suppliers of each of those businesses, small and large.It is clear that Victorian businesses are not hampered by the tyranny of distance. They are hampered by the tyranny of disruption and delay on the waterfront, particularly on the Victorian waterfront. As proof of this point, another nation, even further from the major European and North American centres of commerce, New Zealand, has managed to overcome its tyranny of distance with its extremely efficient waterfront operations. I will quote Mr Ron Longley, who runs a shipping line exclusively between Australia and New Zealand and who would be more qualified, I suppose, than anyone else to make a comparison on waterfront costs in both nations. When he was asked how much more expensive Australia was, he replied:Over three hundred per cent more than New Zealand, and that is on a like per like basis for a ship calling into a New Zealand port or into an Australian port and getting exactly the same services at both ports.With a like to like comparison, we are 300 per cent more expensive than New Zealand. Australian waterfront productivity levels are woefully below those of our competitors. Auckland manages 25 crane movements per hour compared with Australia's average of 18.3. Auckland wharves are 37 per cent more productive than Australian wharves. Thai ports average 30 movements per hour, which is 64 per cent more productive than Australian ports. All of this is after a $400 million investment in the last three years by the major Australian stevedores to bring their terminal equipment up to date. With figures showing virtually no movement in productivity over the last year, this is a demoralising example of the problems that exist on our waterfront.As I travel throughout Victoria, I am often asked how it was possible that the Labor government managed to rack up so much debt. I do not blame people for finding it hard to believe the size of the Beazley black hole, but it is due to grossly incompetent economic management. It is hard to credit this, even from the Labor Party, but it is true. There was enormous mismanagement.One example I often use is the Labor government's $420 million waterfront industry reform authority process used, as former minister Graham Richardson put it, `to bribe the wharfies into retirement'. That is what the former minister said, `to bribe the wharfies into retirement'—$420 million. Labor's attempts at waterfront reform, the much maligned WIRA process, cost the nation $420 million. After the money had been paid in redundancies and other outlays, the monetary improvement in productivity and reliability fell away, and the restrictive work practices again brought the Australian waterfront back to a level far behind our international competitors.When I explain that the previous government paid $420 million to `bribe wharfies into retirement' and that, as a result of this investment today, our five port average crane rate of 18 per cent per hour is currently 45 per cent below the modest Bureau of Transport and Communications Economics benchmark of 25 containers per hour, peoples' jaws drop. Then they understand very quickly how we got so disastrously into debt.We have paid $420 million, and we are no better off. That $420 million to retire about 5,000 wharfies is a very generous rates for mates deal, even by the standards of the Australian Labor Party. The unproductive and unreliable nature of Australian waterfronts is compounded by featherbedding, restrictive work practices, overmanning and rorts.When I was down in the Antarctic on the Aurora Australis with members of the Australian Seamens Union and other unions, I saw what those union fellows could do when they really needed to, when they really wanted to. When they realised that people's lives were at stake and that it cost $70,000 every day that ship was late, they worked in minus 10 degree temperatures. They worked in blizzards, they worked in the freezing cold, and they worked on Christmas Day. They were fine examples of what people can do when they put their minds to it. They were tremendous examples of union guys who, when they decided that they were going to be productive, could do it. They showed the sort of example that could be set. Around the wharves in Australia, if the temperature drops to nought degrees, the wharfies will stop work. These guys were working in minus 10 degrees—freezing; your hands froze on to the steel—and they were working in slippery conditions. I said to people, `Isn't this an example of what can be done when people feel a commitment to the Antarctic project?' What we want to see from the waterfront workers—and there are many of them, I am sure, who have a commitment to Australia—is a demonstration of that commitment. We want to see them putting themselves where their mouths are, showing that commitment. We know it is possible.The Maritime Union of Australia's claim to be interested in productivity is belied by its actions in rejecting an Arbitration Commission recommendation on 20 October 1997 that it improve productivity to a modest 22 containers per hour before laying claim to further benefits. The MUA will not agree to further reform unless Patrick Stevedores agrees to a guaranteed minimum wage of $75,000, plus improved superannuation benefits.Practices such as two up, two down manning, eliminated in New Zealand half a dozen years ago, are still practised on the Australian waterfront. One outstanding example of inefficiency is the procedure for unloading cars on the waterfront. At Webb Dock, a car gang comprises 29 wharfies, including the supervisor. Of the 29 men, only 15 drive the cars off the ships, three men are supervisors, three men are on clerical duties—there must be so much paperwork involved in unloading cars that you need three men—one man to direct traffic with a flag, three men to provide taxi services to save walking back on board and four men to unlash cars. When the men are on ordinary time, productivity is three cars per man hour. When the men are on double time, and are allowed to knock off after all cars are unloaded, productivity soars to 7.5 cars per hour per man—an increase of 150 per cent.I can go on and on. High costs, low productivity and unreliability on the waterfront are hampering the ability Australian businesses in general, and Victorian businesses in particular, from fulfilling their export potential.79313:00:00793Hogg, Sen JohnSenator HOGG7L6QLDALP00—The Australian Labor Party has a long and proud tradition of serving the interests of the ordinary working people of Australia. That tradition has been built up over more than 100 years by the efforts of so many committed and dedicated men and women. On 11 December 1997 the labour movement lost one of its finest servants with the passing away of Edgar Williams. Edgar Williams was a giant of a man in every sense of the phrase. His service to the union movement, the Australian Labor Party and, more importantly, the Australian Workers Union and ordinary Queenslanders, for more than 50 years was unrivalled.Edgar was born in Alexandria, New South Wales, on 11 April 1911 and left school at 13 to become a messenger boy at a music company in Sydney. But that did not last long. In 1925 Edgar went west, working on properties until he started shearing in western New South Wales in 1927. In 1929 Edgar went to Queensland and from then until 1943 he followed the shearing trails, mostly in the western districts of Longreach, Blackall, Winton and Isisford.In July 1943 Edgar took up his first official role in the Australian Workers Union as an organiser in the western district, a position he held until becoming western district secretary in 1947, stationed at Longreach. In 1950 he transferred to Townsville as northern district secretary. This position gave Edgar a wider responsibility and more experience as it took in the sugar industry and the mining industry in Mt Isa. He was there for 10 years. In January 1960 he became Queensland branch secretary, a position he held until retirement in May 1982. Those 22 years and five months made Edgar the longest serving secretary of the Queensland branch, a record that will probably never be broken. For 17 of those 22 years Edgar was also the federal president of the Australian Workers Union. In those nearly 40 years as a full-time official Edgar had one thing in mind—better working conditions for his members.So it is appropriate for me to look briefly at some of the record of Edgar Williams and his devotion to his beloved union—the Australian Workers Union—and also to the people whom he represented through that union. Edgar rose from very humble begin nings. By 1957, before affiliation of the AWU with the ACTU, Edgar was nominated and elected by the ACTU to the Mines—other than coal—Conference in Geneva. He went on in his career to do three months with the Leader Grant program in the United States. He served on delegations with the trade union movement in West Germany, Israel, Russia and China.Edgar will be remembered also for the book which he published in 1967. The Australian Worker, a publication put out by the Australian Workers Union, of 31 August 1983, said:In 1967 Edgar's book, "Yellow, Green and Red" was published. It views the industrial scene, particularly the Mt Isa strikes of the 1960's in which he was one of the leading figures. In his book Edgar airs his dislike of communists.It was this open expression of his low opinion of communists that brought throughout his career unabashed attempts by some of his opponents to discredit him . . . all failed.The article goes on to give a further insight into Edgar Williams. It says:His reputation for integrity as well as for his skill as a top Union negotiator earned him the further respect of friend and adversary alike.The article goes on:He had, he says, no ambition, he only wanted to assist fellow workers.This is the quality of the worker. The article goes on to say that on two occasions Edgar was offered safe seats in the state parliament but declined. It was also made apparent in the article that Edgar was offered an opportunity to become an industrial commissioner. But, again, he rejected that because on all occasions Edgar put as his priority the needs of representing the working people who were members of his union.Edgar was a great man who treated all of those he met equally regardless of who they were or their position. One of the best examples of this was when he first met a young Bob Hawke. Prior to Bob Hawke's arrival at the ACTU, the major industrial cases had been conducted for the ACTU by Dick Eggleston, QC. When it was announced that Bob Hawke would be replacing him for the 1959 basic wage case, Edgar wrote the headline for the Australian Worker, the official paper of the AWU, `From Eggleston to Egghead.' But as Bob Hawke said after Edgar's death, `I came to develop a warm and effective relationship with Edgar Williams, truly a giant figure in the history of the Australian trade union movement.'Even after his retirement as a full-time official in 1982, Edgar was never very far from his beloved union. Hardly a week went by without Edgar visiting the union office either to just drop in to say hello or to offer advice that may have been sought by his successors.Edgar also made a massive contribution to the Australian Labor Party over 50 years. In 1983 he was given due recognition when he was awarded life membership of the ALP. As further recognition of his contribution to Australian industrial relations, Edgar was awarded an Order of Australia in 1989. In 1995 the ACTU congress awarded him a certificate of honour in recognition of a lifetime of service to trade unionism and the Australian labour movement.My memories of Edgar go back to 1976 when I became an official of the SDA, the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association. At that stage our union rented premises at Dunstan House, which was owned by the AWU. We used to get to meet Edgar on a number of occasions. From my first meeting with Edgar, he always greeted me with, `Good morning, young fella' or `Good afternoon, young fella.' He was very polite in his approach to life. The only problem that I had with that greeting was that for the next 21 years, until Edgar's death, I got the same greeting, which probably said something about my youthful outlook on life and my youthful appearance.Edgar was a very private man. He did not seek publicity. He was very much a person who kept to himself. I always remember Edgar at ALP state conferences in Queensland. You could always bet that whenever a ballot was on, Edgar would be one of the first in line for his ballot papers. That was until the last state conference that was held in June 1997. To show the tenacity of the man, on that occasion, Edgar had gone out to do some shopping during a luncheon break. There was a ballot due to close not long after lunch and Edgar had failed to show to vote. I met him in the corridor. He had blood over his shirt and he had broken his glasses. But so fixed was he with his obligation to cast his vote and his commitment so strong that Edgar signed for his ballot paper, filled out the ballot paper and deposited the ballot paper with the returning officer before seeking medical attention. Edgar's iron will and commitment came from his days as a shed hand and shearer in the tough areas of Western Queensland and New South Wales. Edgar will always be remembered as one of the great leaders of the Australian Workers Union, touching the lives of generations of Australian workers. As long as there is an Australian Workers Union, the spirit of Edgar Williams will live on. We lament his passing.79513:11:00795Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—The review of Commonwealth legislation is something I want to discuss today, and to argue that it has been made extremely difficult—that is, the debate about this question by the government's discussion paper which is at best vague and at worst deliberately misleading. I would argue that the reason the detail is missing from this document is to confuse the public and to give the government an out every time those hard questions are asked of it. I have gone through the document and I would like to take this opportunity to point out some of those glaring problems.I hope that the government will listen to these arguments and that they will take these views seriously because I know that my concerns reflect those of very many Australians. The paper vaguely refers to an appropriate role for the Commonwealth without defining that role. The nearest we get to seeing the government's opinion on this matter is when it refers over and over again to unacceptable delays for developments and the states and local government needing more of a role. It seems to me that the collapse of 20 pieces of environment legislation into four watered down acts is simply to hasten both the time lines and the numbers of developments which have an impact on the environment.So what is the Commonwealth's appropriate role on the environment? The Democrats argue that it should be much more substantial, hence, our private member's bill, which would put the environment into the constitution. The government's paper could have presented varying opinions on this matter in order to promote an informed public policy debate, but obviously it did not want to do that. It clearly has an agenda to wind back the levels of protection and leave them up to the states. It is on this matter that I have very major concerns. We have all seen state premiers in undignified brawls over who gets what sporting event. We have seen them offer subsidies and all sorts of attractions to bring certain industries into their states. Often this is at the expense of residents' tax bills.My concern with the states assuming so much power with environmental decisions is that we will end up with a kind of Dutch auction. I can hear the calls right now. We will have Queensland saying, `Come to Queensland. We'll offer you good subsidies which are quite reasonable'—for that we should read low—`and conditions on your environmental safeguards'. Then Victoria will be saying, `No, come to Victoria. We can do a Queensland and have even lower standards than you.' The voice from the west would have its own trump card and they would say, `Come here and we will give you your very own act.' I believe it encourages the states to get into lower and lower bidding wars on the environment. That is not in the best interests of the environment that sustains us.Another concern I have is that the minister will have to make a decision within four weeks of the matter being referred. Four weeks is a very short time frame when you consider the number of years that some of Australia's biggest conservation campaigns have taken. During this time there have been massive public awareness campaigns and places protected.The government may think this is not relevant when compared to a few fossil fuel industry jobs or the odd mine, but I would contend that there has been so much spin-off from tourism that the economics are clearly on our side, as it were. The government bases the changes on the fact that some of the environment legislation is 20 years old. There are many acts of parliament which are still in use that are much more than 20 years old. The logical consequence of that kind of argument is that we should change all acts. The argument does not work, as the government has singled out a particular area for massive reform. It is clear that the government's concerns are not solely about the environment.I turn to more specifics. The government is taking 20 acts, turning them into three and only asking us for a comment on the first two. They will all be connected, so the government is asking for our comments blindfolded in some senses. Just one illustration of this is the fact that the act hinges on a trigger mechanism about places of national significance, yet the government says that this definition is not to be presented to us at this stage.How are we expected to make up our minds whether or not this is a good idea? The government has not given the definition or the way that it will work. The government goes on to refer to a test of national significance. This is even more sloppy and misleading. The government says that it will be tightly defined, so it is another trigger and will not be defined until enactment of the third bit of legislation—not when the discussion paper is out, not when the first two bills are brought in and sent to committee and not even when they are in the Senate. It will not be defined when the third bill comes in but when it is all over and when it is enacted. Even taking this into account, we are supposed to trust the government. The government has not given us any reasons so far for this kind of staging.This matter reminds me of the Larsen cartoon about a scientist who has heaps of calculations on a board and then more calculations at the bottom. In the middle there is a blank spot saying, `And then a miracle occurs.' Then another scientist says, `I think the government will have to be more specific here, Henderson.' What miracles is the government waiting for? Why is the government not giving us the information we need and why such a short time frame for comment?This process has been going on since the coalition got into government. The government is rushing to get this legislation into parliament before the end of the April sittings. I predict that the government will make mistakes as a result of that. The government has already realised just how complicated it will be to change the heritage act and to roll into this, which is why the government had to drop it from the discussion paper at the last minute.The government made mistakes over the Natural Heritage Trust. Hopefully, they will be learning their lessons from that. The government has made the reform of environment legislation debate as confusing and as misleading as they can. I think they showed me yesterday in question time that the Minister for the Environment (Senator Hill) will not answer reasonable questions on this matter.I need to say, however, that I will be tracking and thoroughly examining this and calling the government to account all the way through. I would like to call on the minister to stop drafting the bill until the public submission phase is over. Indeed, during the minister's answer in the Senate yesterday, he made it sound like it was a consequential process. He said, `Then there will be drafting.' So stop the drafting. I know you are doing it because you have an agenda and it does not matter what the public say.The Democrats are asking the minister to carefully consider and evaluate those comments from the discussion paper first. Then when we have the detail, put out a draft bill for public comment and tell us how the heritage component will work. We need to see the specifics so that we can consider whether this package is better or worse for the environment in the overall scheme of things. Give the community more than four weeks. I say again that there is absolutely no need to rush this bill.79713:20:00797Coonan, Sen HelenSenator COONAN2M6NSWLP10—The announcement by the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) this week that reforms will be introduced to provide equity of access to superannuation in the event of a marriage breakdown is further evidence of this government's commitment to the principles of equity and sharing. The current inequities in the treatment of superannuation when a marriage breaks down were identified over 10 years ago, yet absolutely nothing was done about it by the previous Labor government.The government recognises that superannuation has not always provided women in particular with the security they need and deserve in retirement. The issue is an important one when it is taken into account that in 1996, 52,000 Australian couples applied for a divorce. This government has acted and introduced measures already to address the needs of women, including the low income spouse superannuation rebate, to help women outside the paid work force. Another measure introduced by the government has been the added versatility provided by the retirement savings accounts. Now the government is actively working to introduce reforms to bring about greater fairness and certainty into the treatment of superannuation in the event of a marriage breakdown.The situation at present is that often a women forgoes the economic benefits which are derived from working to enable her partner to go to work and save via a superannuation fund. The woman forgoes work and makes sacrifices for her husband and family and the husband is able to translate some of those sacrifices into a compulsory savings program or superannuation.On any view, the woman has made an indirect, but nonetheless tangible, contribution to that form of family savings. The problem arises in that if the couple divorce, superannuation is not available in a liquid form to be adjusted between the parties. Even the person who has directly contributed to the fund usually cannot have access to it and may have to wait a number of years before he or she can draw down the superannuation. Added to this is that it can be difficult for superannuation that is the legal property of only one party to a marriage to be adjusted as if it is an asset of both parties to the marriage.The Family Court may have regard to superannuation as an asset to be taken into account in its calculations and can offset the value of other assets by way of adjustment to compensate the non-superannuated spouse. Such a system is fine if there are sufficient other assets to provide sufficiently for a dependent spouse and children and enough to allow the party with the superannuation to survive until he or she can access that superannuation. Where it falls down, however, is where there are insufficient other assets to allow a fair adjustment to reflect the amount of superannuation involved. It also fails to allow the proper quantification of the superannuation or provide a formula for arriving at a quantification. The reforms will allow far greater clarity in divorce settlements as well as providing certainty for the future of the non-superannuated spouse after a divorce.There are a number of key areas being examined to guide these reforms through. The first is that superannuation should be clearly recognised in legislation dealing with the division of marital property. The key here is that the principles be clearly defined, not just assumed. The second aspect is that there be clear rules for valuing superannuation that will take into account the vagaries of the different types of schemes. Back of matchbook calculations cause more problems than they solve. By having a defined formula and set of rules, both parties will know exactly where they stand. This is important in order to bring to finality settlement of property and to allow both parties to have a fresh start, especially if new partners and new families are on the scene. The third policy objective with these reforms is to encourage the parties to try to settle their own affairs. To facilitate this, the reforms will ensure that both parties have full information available to them.On top of this, the reforms will be consistent with the government's retirement incomes policy and arrangements will be made to minimise the complexity and costs for all parties. They will also take into account the particular features of the various types of superannuation funds involved. The government is addressing the tough questions involved with these reforms. One such question is just when will the superannuation be shared between the two parties and in what proportions?Then there is the question of calculating just how much superannuation will be accrued up to the contributor's retirement. Obviously, if a member of a superannuation fund has been contributing before marriage, an equal division would not be fair. If both parties have superannuation, it may be necessary to offset one against the other to see if any adjustment is warranted. Already the government has written to superannuation industry representatives seeking their input in relation to the reforms. One of the principles in the reforms is to provide maximum flexibility as well as a legislative lever.There is overseas precedent not only for community of property schemes but also for legislating to ensure superannuation is fairly adjusted on separation. One model is that of British Columbia, with its 1995 Family Relations Amendment Act, which deals with the divisions of superannuation—called `pension' in British Columbia—in the event of a marriage breakdown. This act clearly defines such terms as entitlement, net investment returns, pensionable services and vested pension. The act also details how the calculation of commuted value should be arrived at. This is a vital area which has clouded the division of superannuation in Australia.Germany and the United States have schemes in place which recognise superannuation as a marital asset. This allows for the equitable division of superannuation as part of the property settlement in divorce proceedings. Great Britain is heading in the same direction. A white paper is being prepared which defines the benefits and tax implications of splitting superannuation, or pensions as they are also called in the UK.This government is now heading towards the fair division of superannuation. In a marriage breakdown, the prospective loss of benefits on retirement from a former spouse's superannuation scheme can impact with particular severity on the party who was not a member of the scheme and whose potential for loss of security is very great indeed.The 1994 Australian Law Reform Commission report has pointed out the particular effect on women. It states:The issue of retirement income is particularly important for women. On average, women live longer than men and are therefore more likely to spend more of their last years alone. Current government policies are aimed at retirement income being provided by superannuation funded by the employer or the employee, or a combination of both, rather than by government through age pensions.The problem for women is that the superannuation system is geared to the typical working pattern of a man, not a woman. The greatest benefit is derived by those who work full time and continuously over an extended number of years.This is not a typical working pattern for women.Therefore, we have the situation where the non-member spouse loses the prospect of security for the future, the legitimate expectation of which has been a foundation of the financial management of the couple's affairs.One of the problems faced by the Family Court in trying to determine superannuation entitlements stems from the very nature of superannuation schemes. A common model is the discretionary trust. If the marriage breaks down and the member spouse is not of retirement age, he or she has no proprietary interest in future superannuation entitlements, merely an expectation. How then is the real value of the future benefit to be taken into account in property division given that an order cannot operate directly on the benefit? One technique is what is known as offsetting, under which the Family Court takes future superannuation entitlements into account at the time of property distribution. But the court has experienced considerable difficulty in identifying precisely how the superannuation entitlements should be taken into account and in particular how the entitlement should be calculated at the time of the trial.Different Family Court rulings such as Prestwitch and Prestwitch, Jenner and Jenner, Webber and Webber and Hauff and Hauff have seen a number of complex formulas being devised. However, there has been no consistency in these formulas. The court has another approach available to it in that it can adjourn part of the family property proceedings if a party's financial circumstances are likely to change significantly in the future—for instance, by benefiting from a superannuation pay-out down the track.However, this also has its problems. It goes against the grain of the clean break principle in that it may see a case go on for years. Understandably, the courts have tended to prefer the techniques of offsetting rather than adjournment when the spouse with the benefit is a long way off retirement age. Under the current law, these are the only options available as the Family Court stressed in Harrison and Harrison in 1996.A point of significance in looking at superannuation benefits is that they often involve substantial amounts of money. In a great number of cases, the sum involved is greater than the value of the family home, which so often is the single most valuable asset a couple has. Future superannuation benefits are significant primarily because they affect the financial circumstances of a party after retirement. However, their significance is not confined to future financial circumstances. They also concern past financial circumstances as they constitute enforced savings and, in many circumstances, income which has been voluntarily forgone. Therefore, when a marriage breaks down, a wife may want to make a notional claim on part of her husband's superannuation benefits not only to share in his future economic security but also as compensation for income which her husband earned but did not receive and which she did not enjoy during the marriage.Some superannuation schemes give members a vested interest in the fund itself, which enables the member to withdraw their contributions plus accrued interest at any time they wish. In these circumstances, the Family Court does not have a problem because clearly there is a present entitlement to property. In other circumstances, members cannot withdraw their funds until retirement and, while there is some authority for the proposition that an entitlement of this kind constitutes property, the prevailing view is that although technically vested it is not property divisible in divorce proceedings.The third area is funds that do not give members any vested interest in the superannuation fund itself until retirement. In this case members have no rights in respect of the fund, and the court's view is that their superannuation is not regarded as divisible property. In light of the complexity of the issue, private property agreements between parties have assumed some popularity. The Family Law Act makes provision for parties to a marriage to enter into private agreements which, although technically called maintenance agreements, can concern the division of property. Such agreements can be prenuptial, although they are generally entered into upon separation. This is only equitable if the parties are aware they can claim a share of their partner's superannuation.Commenting on the ignorance of rights and also the problem of identifying superannuation entitlements, the Australian Law Reform Commission noted:This lack of certainty causes particular hardship for non-contributory spouses, usually female partners, on separation. They do not have a clear basis on which to conduct their negotiations . . . Many are unaware of their entitlement to have superannuation taken into account in property settlement.As can be seen from the remarks I have made so far, the whole issue of the division of superannuation in divorce cases is murky, confusing and indecisive. This leads to uncertainty of financial future and because the parties often do not understand the complexity of the issues, the debate between the parties so frequently becomes acrimonious.The government's initiatives will lead to a clear, precise and understandable way to proceed in relation to the division of superannuation. At last there will be equitable and fair division of funds which to many have been a pot of gold largely unavailable to a non-member spouse on divorce. While much of the focus is on protecting women and ensuring that they receive their equitable share of their partner's superannuation, I hasten to say the reforms will cut both ways. If both parties have worked, then both superannuation funds will be accounted for in the divorce settlement, and where, as is increasingly the case, there has been a man who has forgone the economic benefits and stayed at home being a Mr Mum, he will also be protected by the reforms. What could be fairer than that?80013:34:00800O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—The Howard government made many commitments on matters rural when it came to office in March 1996. A priority in this long list of promises was the reform of the AQIS meat inspection program—a process that was already well advanced. In August of that year, the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (Mr Anderson) said:The AQIS meat inspection is now the most urgent priority for reform.I repeat: `the most urgent priority for reform'. The executive director of AQIS told an estimates committee at that time that the project 2 plan was the centrepiece of that reform strategy. The minister announced the start of the government's reforms for the meat inspection program on 1 August 1996. He said that the government was committed to restoring the reputation of AQIS as a professional, efficient and competent organisation. The minister predicted that the reforms would be in place in all export and domestic abattoirs by early 1998—now, in other words.On 27 February last year, Mr Hickey, the Executive Director of AQIS, told an estimates committee:We, over a period of 15 to 18 months now, have been developing and submitting proposals for the project to trial Australia's major meat export markets. We have been involved in an extensive round of briefings and discussions with those markets on the principles of project 2, its technical design and the like. The situation we have got to at the moment is that the United States is currently considering the proposal.In August, I asked Mr Hickey in the estimates process whether projects 1 and 2 were either almost concluded or significantly progressed to conclusion. He answered yes. However, by November significant problems began to emerge. Mr Hickey told the estimates committee on 13 November that the US had advised that project 2 in its current form was not acceptable. He said that the preliminary design work that had been going on in the five plants would continue. He told the committee:In the interim, we will be having further discussion with the United States authorities to try and pinpoint more precisely the nature of the concerns that they have about the current design of the project . . . He then identified government verification of the operation as the key issue. He said:They are matters that I expect will be the subject of discussions between us and our counterparts in the United States in the course of the next couple of weeks.The minister has been personally involved in this process from the beginning. In July last year, the minister went to the US to discuss his meat reform agenda. He correctly identified the USDA requirement that there be a high level of government scrutiny of the meat industry. For that reason, Mr Anderson put the project 2 plan on the top of his list for talks with the US Secretary of Agriculture, Dan Glickman. Mr Anderson was talking to Dan Glickman again last month. After those discussions, Mr Anderson put out a press release headed `Americans respond positively to government's project 2 meat inspection system'. The first paragraph of that press release stated:The Australian Government's `Project 2' proposal for company based inspection in export meat establishments has been accepted in principle by the United States authorities.Mr Anderson said in the statement the breakthrough came in personal discussions with the Secretary of the US Department of Agriculture, Dan Glickman, and members of the US House Agriculture Committee. He said:I am pleased to say the Americans have charted a path forward for `project 2' . . . The American authorities reacted with some vigour to this claim, and Mr Anderson was forced to step back from it. Some six days later Mr Anderson—the same person who put out the media release—acknowledged on ABC radio that project 2 in its original form was unacceptable to the Americans.Mr Anderson was talking to Dan Glickman again last week—this time in Paris. The topic, again, was Mr Anderson's plan for meat inspection. He was interviewed by the ABC last Saturday morning following those discussions. He said he wanted to make two comments. The first was:We are continuing to negotiate about the best way to do these things in future.And the second was:The Americans themselves are looking at hazard based principles for improving quality assurance and food safety.He went on to say:There is no difference between us in terms of us agreeing to a sensible and harmonious negotiating process to work it forward.He said:That is at this stage the end of the matter.In other words, he was getting nowhere. He was talking about the process for negotiations rather than the substance of the government's reforms.Evidence to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee hearings on 26 February confirms this lack of progress absolutely. The committee was told by the Executive Director of AQIS, Mr Paul Hickey, that AQIS was attempting to determine what performance standards would be acceptable to the Americans. The service was also seeking advice on what baseline monitoring and evaluation systems the Americans might accept. Finally, Mr Hickey said that AQIS was attempting to find out exactly what level of federal oversight export meat processing facilities the Americans would find acceptable. This issue was urgent in May 1996, some two years ago. The minister gave it high priority but, according to Mr Anderson, we are now back to square one.There are two related issues to which the government does need to give priority. The first is the level of support for the industry through subsidies for meat inspection charges until the reform process is complete, and the second is the management of the restructuring of AQIS. The subsidy for export meat inspection charges to allow AQIS to maintain existing services at a reasonable price while it restructured survived the first Howard budget, but it did not survive the second Howard budget. Out went the subsidy, thanks to Mr Costello and Mr Fahey, and up went charges to the industry—some by as much as 200 per cent—or perhaps it was Mr Anderson who proposed to cabinet that support for the meat industry be abandoned. Either way, there was little or no consultation, and the minister was forced to back down.I have to say that, on the face of it, Mr Anderson's record in cabinet on these matters is not good. Firstly, Mr Anderson must ensure that the level of charges for export meat inspection services is maintained at a reasonable level in 1998-99. The industry does not need another surprise in this year's budget. Secondly, the minister must ensure that AQIS operates within its own rules. For example, the decision to use a company employee as an AQIS inspector at Tongala in Victoria last December has done enormous damage to our reputation in the key markets of the US and the European Union. It does not really matter if the employee only acted for a short time or whether the tasks he performed were basic. AQIS breached its own rules, and the Americans and the European Union took note. We are asking both those countries to accept the lessening of government oversight of the meat processing sector but we then turn around and break the existing rules.When AQIS was questioned on this matter, Mr Hickey told the estimates committee that it was an administrative oversight. I would like to draw the attention of the Senate to section 75 of the Crimes Act:Any person who:. . . . . . . . .(b) falsely represents himself to be a Commonwealth officer, and assumes to do any act or attend in any place for the purpose of doing any act by virtue of pretending to be a Commonwealth officer;shall be guilty of an offence.Penalty: Imprisonment for 2 years.Not only is this sort of action by AQIS politically silly but apparently it is in breach of the Crimes Act. Hence my surprise when the minister supported the use of a company employee in this way. He is now paying the price for AQIS's lack of judgment.This saga illustrates very clearly two weaknesses in Mr Anderson's management of reforms in the meat industry. He has by no means administered effectively this area of his portfolio, and he has failed to implement change in an area rightly identified by him as a key sector in both the rural and the national economy. By the way, it is an industry that generates $4 billion a year in export earnings and provides thousands of jobs in regional areas. In failing in his duty, Mr Anderson has put at risk the key markets of the USA and the European Union. The minister needs to reconsider his approach, both in terms of the way in which AQIS is now managing meat inspection in this country and what our major markets might reasonably expect from us by way of government oversight. Otherwise, this saga still has a long way to go and, more importantly, the risk to our meat exports will only increase.I want to refer briefly to the matters addressed by Senator Patterson earlier this afternoon, when she talked about the waterfront and the need for reform on the Australian waterfront. I must say that Senator Patterson's speech was based substantially on hearsay and stories of what might occur rather than on matters of substance. We all hear stories about the lack of performance by the Australian waterfront. Being a senator from Tasmania, I can say we regularly hear in Tasmania that when there is a problem in the delivery of a product it is caused by a strike on the Melbourne waterfront. In fact, that is the excuse that is almost invariably given.The fact is that I have received that excuse from businesses in Tasmania for the non-supply of a particular product on time even when I personally knew that there were no strikes on the Melbourne waterfront at the time. In other words, the inadequacy of the delivery system or communication or inability of the manufacturer to supply were not the reasons given when, in fact, they were the true reasons. The easy reason given was that there was allegedly a strike on the Melbourne waterfront. So if we are going to deal with this matter, let us deal with the facts and not with innuendo and untrue allegations.Another matter that Senator Patterson touched upon was the comparison of the Australian waterfront with the waterfront situation in New Zealand. I happen to have received a copy of an article from the Journal of Industrial Relations of September 1997 entitled `Waterfront labour reform in New Zealand: pressures, processes and outcomes'. The author of that is James Reveley, who has a PhD and is a research associate at the Department of Sociology, University of Canterbury. It is a lengthy document but, for the purposes of the exercise, I just want to refer to the conclusion. This is what James Reveley says:In a comparative article about waterfront reform published in 1992, Turnbull argued that, unlike Britain, Australia had potentially laid the basis for long-term sustainable change. In an update on Britain, it was found that the waterfront industry is currently experiencing a `vicious spiral of cost-competition and ever decreasing margins which is undermining port performance and debasing labour relations.' Notwithstanding differences in port systems, if Australia follows the New Zealand model of waterfront labour reform, which under the Employment Contracts Act is rapidly moving in the direction that employment relations in Britain's ports have taken, this sustainability may well be lost. Far from something to be emulated, the New Zealand experience of waterfront labour reform, like its British counterpart, should be avoided.In the short space of four years waterfront labour reform in New Zealand moved from attempts by waterfront employers to decentralise bargaining, to the abolition of the Waterfront Industry Commission, through to challenging historic union rights. As a result, the waterfront industry shifted very quickly from union control to employer control, but the imbalances and problems that have occurred are no less numerous or significant than in the 1970s, when the industry was characterised by a dynamic of union strength and employer weakness. Under the Employment Contracts Act the pendulum has now swung too far in the opposite direction, to the point where recent moves by employers to increase labour `flexibility' are threatening to undermine the gains in efficiency that resulted from the abolition of the bureau system.I commend this article to Senator Patterson and other members of the Senate because, far from being based on innuendo and falsity, it is an analysis of the situation in New Zealand. If we are to compare our situation with the outcome in New Zealand, then we had better know where we are headed.80313:49:00803Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALDYW4QLDLP10—Today I will speak on an exciting matter which again demonstrates the quality of Australian science and engineering and the world-class expertise of Australia's Bureau of Meteorology. Coincidentally, it is also a matter that was reported on in today's Daily Telegraph in an article by environmental reporter Simon Benson.An event recently took place in the skies off the coast of Port Hedland in Western Australia. This event is a wonderful example of necessity being the mother of invention, though in this case it is more a matter of self-preservation because, until now, important weather information being obtained from within a cyclone was an occupation solely for the foolhardy. It involved daring aviators flying expensive aircraft as far into storms as they could physically go in an attempt to gather as much data as they possibly could to help meteorologists get a better understanding of cyclones and therefore improve their ability to forecast them.So it is with some enthusiasm that I tell you that on Tuesday, 27 January this year, as tropical Cyclone Tiffany was spinning her way down the Western Australian coast, a small gathering of meteorologists and technicians were preparing to launch a small robotic aircraft called an Aerosonde for its first data collecting flight. By all accounts, the mission was a success. So this small aircraft has confirmed its potential as a very useful, low-cost method of gathering and transmitting weather information from remote areas of Australia and its surrounding oceans.The magnitude of this feat is most definitely of biblical proportions in so far as this small aircraft, with its thin three-metre wing and a distinctive inverted V-tail structure on twin booms, seemed wimpish and no match for a decent thunderstorm—let alone a cyclone like Tiffany, much like a David and Goliath contest. Consider that this Aerosonde has been designed to withstand stresses of up to 15 times the force of gravity. If you compare that with a passenger airliner in flight that is designed to withstand stresses of around five times the force of gravity, that gives you some idea of the conditions inside these cyclones.This first operational fight was part of a six-week trial that involved eleven Aerosondes in all, which saw a range of missions take off from the Cargill Salt Works outside Port Hedland in north-west Western Australia. The locals call this area Cyclone Alley, and indeed the team were fortunate enough to be able to test this aircraft during that severe tropical Cyclone Tiffany. A significant feature of the aircraft is that while in this case they were being launched and recovered at Port Hedland, the staff working in the Perth Regional Forecasting Centre of the Bureau of Meteorology, some 1,500 kilometres away, were actually the people in control of this aircraft. By this process, forecasters were able to make special requests for observations anywhere within the designated flight region.The most satisfying aspect of this innovative environmental monitoring concept is that it is being driven by Australians. The Aerosonde is being developed by a Melbourne company, Sencon Environmental Systems, in collaboration with the Bureau of Meteorology. The project leader, Dr Greg Holland, who is from the Bureau of Meteorology Research Centre, has been working for several years on a project to harness converging aeronautical, computing and communications technologies and developing a weather reconnaissance instrument that would economically monitor those huge areas of the southern hemisphere where no direct weather observations exist or, if they do exist, are very rare.The project has been endorsed by the World Meteorological Organisation and the United Nations International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction and is a result of commendable international collaboration, involving both public and private sectors. Dr Holland's major technical collaborator is a Canadian engineer, Tad McGeer, of Insitu Group Inc. Together they planned an airframe made of carbon fibre and kevlar tough enough to survive inhospitable weather and powered by a 20cc engine. Within this very small air craft they crammed robust, even smaller computers, the emerging technology of global positioning satellite systems and sophisticated communications equipment. They worked out how to enable the aircraft to fly itself under almost infinite options of flight missions, and they drew upon an expanding web of communications satellites to learn how to command the aircraft in flight and how to transmit data continuously and, not least, they learned how to bellyland the l5 kilogram aircraft automatically on the nearest available paddock or bit of flat ground.Sencon Environmental Services is now assembling production aircraft in Melbourne. It has the potential to be a valuable scientific export for Australia, with more than 30 aircraft already sold to the United States and Taiwan. While the current aircraft are designed primarily for weather reconnaissance, carrying virtually the same radiosondes as are lifted by balloons from 37 Bureau of Meteorology stations around the continent, the Aerosonde is expected to be used in other environmental monitoring tasks as well. For example, it will be able to carry a small video camera or a wide range of chemical or other sensors or perhaps search and rescue operations support.The model that is being tested at this time will fly for over 30 hours at up to 16,000 feet, if needed—all of this on a 20cc engine. There is essentially no noise or environmental pollution. Recent trials included flights of 31 and 26 hours, with eight daylight flights over seven hours. The research team expects that by the new century the Aerosonde will be able to fly continuously for four days or so with a range of 7,000 kilometres, and it will reach perhaps 45,000 feet with a new turbocharged engine—enough to fly over a cyclone and descend into its relatively calm eye.Even with today's aircraft, a laptop computer and a mobile phone will enable a scientist in eastern Australia to command the operations of an aircraft monitoring a cold front west of Perth. Indeed, during the recent trials, a test connection via the Internet enabled a scientist at the Bureau of Meteorology Research Centre in Melbourne to assume operational command of an Aerosonde flying north of Port Hedland. That is quite a remarkable feat.There has been close liaison with the Civil Aviation Safety Authority from the start of this program to ensure that Aerosondes can operate to their full potential while maintaining a high degree of safety and minimal disruptions to large aircraft operations in the area. The meteorological applications are numerous.As a North Queenslander with some unhappy acquaintance with tropical cyclones, I can see the immediate benefits of something which can remain in the vicinity of dangerous weather systems for days or even penetrate those cyclones. For instance, forecasting cyclone landfalls remains a difficult task, and anything which can capture and relay precise numbers, the pressures, the temperatures, the wind speed and direction from these hazardous systems will make for improved forecasts and a safer community.You can imagine other targets: pinning down the timing and intensity of a cold front affecting firefighters; tracking a southerly buster whipping up the New South Wales coast; patrolling the data void in the Indian Ocean west of Perth. There is research as well. In late 1995, prototype Aerosondes contributed to international atmospheric research projects, which studied the afternoon thunderstorms which form over the Tiwi Islands north of Darwin before the wet season. Following the Port Hedland operational trials, the weather squadron is to be sent off to another multinational experiment, studying the monsoon life cycle in the South China Sea. Transport is pretty easy: you simply unbolt the wings and the tail assembly and then you carry this aircraft in special suitcases. A scientist can carry an Aerosonde as aircraft luggage.Aerosondes are expendable, of course. They will be expected to work at times in weather conditions that menace the big planes, and they will do it very well. They will be able to go where humans are unable to. Their complex computing, navigation and communications package complicates the risk but, with a production cost currently below $20,000 each, and at least 20 missions expected from every airframe, they are a monitoring device that merits serious consideration.I commend the lateral thinking and effort that created these tiny high-tech environmental monitors and the elegant engineering that has provided a robot that flies itself and currently squeezes over 500 kilometres from a litre of fuel. To all of those involved in the design and development of this very special aircraft, I say well done.Questions Without Notice805805805Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—My question is to Senator Warwick Parer, Minister for Resources and Energy. Is the minister aware of a report in Monday's Financial Review that Australia's minerals and energy exports are under serious threat from the Asian economic crisis? Minister, what has this government done to protect Australia's important minerals and energy exports from serious economic downturn? Is it not a fact that you, as Minister for Resources and Energy, have done absolutely nothing to protect critical Australian industries like coal—industries critical to your home state of Queensland—from the ravages of the financial crisis in the Asian region? What justification can there be for your spokesman to state that the outcome for these industries remains positive?805Parer, Sen WarwickSenator PARERKI4QLDLPResources and Energy10—I am delighted that at long last I am asked a serious question about what has happened with the Asian fallout, instead of the stupid, nitpicking stuff that usually comes from the other side.As Senator Cook says, the energy and minerals sector is vital to Australia. Our major markets in the Asia-Pacific region are Japan, Korea and Taiwan. Very little of those energy materials goes to the other Asian countries that have been part of the financial meltdown. The country that has suffered most is Korea. I am having continuing discussions with people within the industry. In those discussions, it is their view and mine that one of the major things we have done relates to export controls. I took great exception to Senator Cook saying we have done nothing, and I will list some of the things we have done. You persisted in keeping export controls over the whole 13 years you were in government. By doing that, you forced those countries to diversify to other countries at the expense of Australia. We got rid of export controls. Countries such as Korea, Japan and Taiwan are now free to purchase more from Australia rather than diversifying between countries. In other words, they can diversify within Australia without the threat of a hostile government holding them hostage in the future. That is an opportunity.With regard to the Korean situation, the government acted very quickly. I had a number of calls just before Christmas from exporters who were concerned about the fact that banks in Australia were not prepared to accept letters of credit from Korea. We acted very quickly. We increased the EFIC finance by some $300 million. We also added in another $300 million, approximately, in respect of what I think is called public interest, or words to that effect. As I understand it, there is no restriction whatsoever at the moment with regard to the export of coking coal and steaming coal in respect of Korea.Korea was the country with which we were most concerned. It has been a long-term trading partner of Australia, going back over 20 years to when the first contracts were signed between Australian coking coal companies and Pohang Iron and Steel. I will take you back to those days, Senator. In those days the Korean economy was not that great, but the early suppliers to Korea actually sold their coking coal without letters of credit and on trust. This was very much appreciated by the Koreans, and I know from the discussions I have had in recent times with the Korean purchasers that they are very appreciative of the actions taken by this government in supporting their industry in their time of need.806806Gibson, Sen BrianSenator GIBSONBX5TASLP10—My question is to the Assistant Treasurer, Senator Kemp. I refer the minister to the magnificent work this government has done in turning the $10.3 billion budget deficit inherited from the former Labor government into a surplus, within three years. Could the minister please outline the vast benefits to the Australian community of this strategy. Also, Minister, has the government received support for the strategy in the parliament, and what have been the alternative strategies put forward by the other parties? What would be the implications of such strategies on taxation, interest rates, budget deficit and government debt?806Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—I thank Senator Gibson for that important question. In this parliament Senator Gibson has always shown a great interest in economic matters, and it is not surprising that he has raised this question.All senators will know of this government's determination to restore fiscal responsibility to the nation's finances. We are determined to take the $10.3 billion deficit inherited from Mr Beazley and transform it into a surplus within this term. Our strategy has helped to cut debt, lower interest rates and build a platform for strong and sustainable growth. It is worth noting that we now have the lowest underlying inflation figures on record and the lowest inflation rates since the late 1960s. Senators will remember that under the failed Labor government interest rates peaked at 17 per cent for some home owners. At present we have one of the fastest growing economies in the developed world. I would have thought that was all good news. Although the Labor Party are complaining about it, people outside are cheering this on, because it is good news.Sadly, the fiscal responsibility adopted by this government has been opposed in some quarters. The loudest and most vigorous opposition to it has come from the Australian Labor Party. The Labor Party has opposed billions upon billions of dollars worth of budget repair over the four years. On top of that they opposed the very important Telstra saleconstitutionAs for promises in recent times, shadow ministers have gone around promising to spend more, all of it uncosted. There are promises, for example, that Mr Beazley made recently in relation to health. Mr Beazley promised to spend another $1.7 billion in that area—unfunded—and, of course, that would have to be costed in to what the Labor Party's policies are for the next election. They have made other promises in relation to foreign-owned nursing homes and indeed—Senator Cook will correct me if I am wrong—R&D syndicates, and Senator Cook was a strong supporter of that area.RF4COOKSenator Cook—You are wrong.WW4Senator KEMP—Senator Cook, you opposed this crackdown in this chamber and you were a very strong and vigorous support er of R&D syndicates, and that cannot be denied.RF4COOKSenator Cook—Absolutely!WW4Senator KEMP—`Absolutely!' he says. Well, we have got that on the record again. A huge tax rort and you support it—that's all right.RF4COOKSenator Cook—Wouldn't it be good for Australia—WW4Senator KEMP—Thank you for the quote. It is recorded in Hansard , Senator Cook. Thank you for that.As the Treasurer has said on a number of occasions, if people support Labor at the next election interest rates will go back up to where they were under Labor. The Labor Party is a high tax, high deficit, high interest rate party and that was completely shown to be the case during their term in office. Just to illustrate how advantageous our policies are, at the current low level of interest rates the average family is saving some $300 a month or more on an average $100,000 mortgage. Huge savings are being delivered to home owners, and I think they are greatly appreciated by home owners throughout Australia.One of the things we went to an election on was to avoid the sort of shenanigans we saw under the previous Labor government in relation to hiding the real state of the economy, and, of course, this government has promoted a charter of budget honesty. The truth of the matter is Labor vigorously opposed the charter in this chamber but now they have backflipped. (Time expired)807807Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—My question is directed to the Minister for Resources and Energy. Is it the case, Minister, that you hold shares through your family trust in Queensland Coal Mine Management Pty Ltd, or have you disposed of them? Have you ever de clared this shareholding in the register of senators' interests, as you are required to do? Minister, have you complied with the requirement set out by the Registrar of Senators' Interests in his letter of 20 March 1997 that senators should notify actual shares held by relevant family or business trusts on the grounds that `it would not be sufficient to declare only the name, activity and beneficiary of the trust company or partnership'?807Parer, Sen WarwickSenator PARERKI4QLDLPResources and Energy10—I am pleased to answer the question by Senator Faulkner. I personally have no shares in mining companies. As required in the disclosure rules of the Senate, I have disclosed all interests that I have from a pecuniary point of view. As regards the Prime Minister's requirements, let me say that I have fulfilled all the requirements of the Prime Minister's letter in regard to any investments that I have or that are held by the family trust.807Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question.Government senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senators on my right will cease interjecting. Senator Faulkner, I have not called you yet; I am waiting for the noise on my right to cease. I call Senator Faulkner.5K4Senator FAULKNER—Thank you, Madam President. Can I ask you again, Senator Parer: have you complied with the requirements set out by the Registrar of Senators' Interests in his letter of 20 March 1997 that senators should notify actual shares held by relevant family or business trusts on the grounds that `it would not be sufficient to declare only the name, activity and beneficiary of the trust company or partnership'? Minister, what, if any, other undeclared shareholdings do you own through your family trust?807Parer, Sen WarwickSenator PARERKI4QLDLPResources and Energy10—The trust to which Senator Faulkner refers is 28 years old. It is a family trust. I do not control it; in fact, it is controlled by others. It is a discretionary trust which is spelt out in the Register of Senators' Interests and I have one-ninth of that. I have fulfilled, to my best recollection, all the requirements of the Senate in that regard, and that goes back many years. I have never tried to hide anything.807807Knowles, Sen SusanSenator KNOWLESTH4WALP10—My question is to the Leader of the Government in the Senate and the Minister for the Environment, Senator Hill. I refer the minister to the government's goal to protect Australia's unique marine biodiversity, reduce marine pollution and ensure that marine resources are used in an ecologically sustainable way. What action is the government taking to promote off-reserve conservation measures in our vast marine territory? Will the minister indicate how those actions relate to the government's coasts and clean seas program, which is a key feature of the natural heritage program?808Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment10—I thank the honourable senator for that important question. It contrasts starkly with the sort of smear questions that we hear from the other side particularly from Senator Faulkner, who has not even got the decency to come in here and apologise to the Baillieu family—to apologise to those Baillieus who are alive and those Baillieus who are dead—just to demonstrate a little bit of basic decency. He might then be better credentialled to ask questions. Anyway, that is by the way.Senator Knowles has raised the important issue of off-reserve preservation of conservation values in Australia's marine environment. It is important because it is another area that has, of course, been neglected in the past, but we now have a responsibility for one of the largest marine territories in the world, an area more than one and a half times Australia's land mass.One of our goals has been to ensure that our marine environment is protected through a representative system of marine protected areas. Our announcement of a new reserve in the Great Australian Bight, which will be Australia's second largest reserve, is, of course, a down payment on that commitment. But we also recognise that marine parks are not the only answer in protecting marine biodiversity. Just as important will be those measures that we develop off reserve. I am therefore pleased to announce that the Commonwealth has agreed to work with the Western Australian government and the petroleum industry to develop a comprehensive conservation strategy for Commonwealth waters surrounding the Montebello Islands off Western Australia. This is a first. It is an historic development. It is an occasion when an industry organisation will work in partnership with two governments to develop such an important strategy.At the end of the process we are confident that we will have in place measures that will protect an area of enormous conservation significance, an area that has been identified as providing habitat for a range of marine life, including humpback whales, dugong, turtles and a number of sea and shore birds. So I particularly want to take the opportunity to congratulate the petroleum industry. It is an industry that has itself identified many of these important conservation values within this region and is, as I said, an industry that is prepared to work with government to conserve those values, and for that they deserve to be commended.I also want to take the opportunity to comment on the coasts and clean seas component of the Natural Heritage Trust. As senators will be aware, the $125 million coasts and clean seas program represents the largest financial commitment by any Commonwealth government to protect our marine and coastal environment. Through that program, we are encouraging innovative solutions to problems such as sewage and stormwater pollution, introduced marine pests, threats to marine species and ad hoc coastal development.I want particularly to highlight the fact that applications for the 1998-99 round of community grants for the program opened last Saturday. The application period closes on 30 June, after which proposals will be assessed by community based panels before presentation to me. $8.5 million will be available in the year 1998-99 for the community component of the program, and I would encourage senators to ensure that community groups in their areas are aware of the opportunities that the program provides.I would particularly like to encourage Labor senators, those that have disregarded the opportunity to improve Australia's natural resource base, to improve Australia's natural environment, through the opportunity to support community groups in this way. This is an opportunity for Labor senators to move off the smear path. Perhaps Senator Faulkner could make a start by apologising to the Baillieus, and then opposition senators might commence to do something constructive in this important area of marine environment.809809Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—My question without notice is to the Minister for Resources, Senator Parer. Minister, are you aware of clause 14 of the explanatory notes to the statement of registrable interests, which requires senators to publicly disclose:. . . any other interest where a conflict of interest with a senator's public duties could foreseeably arise or could be seen to arise.Minister, did you list under this section—Government senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! There are too many interjections on my right. It is necessary that I hear the question and it is necessary that Senator Parer hears the question.AW5Senator CARR—Minister, why did you list under this section matters such as married, ratepayer and Christian but fail to list your significant shareholding in a coalmining company? Is it the case, Minister, that you were going to use the Eastcourt defence that you have previously used?809Parer, Sen WarwickSenator PARERKI4QLDLPResources and Energy10—I did list those things because I think they are important, perhaps more important when it comes to one's considerations than any other sorts of things that you might talk about. Senator Carr says `listing my shareholdings'. My shareholdings are listed under the Senate register. I think the important thing about this is that we have fairly strict guidelines, as laid down by the Prime Minister. Let me just repeat that I have adhered strictly to those Prime Ministerial guidelines.809Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—Madam President, I have a supplementary question. Minister, can you confirm that you still have a shareholding, as listed in the ASC documents, in Queensland Coal Mine Management worth over $2 million, or have you disposed of these shares?809Parer, Sen WarwickSenator PARERKI4QLDLPResources and Energy10—Madam President, I do not have any shares—Government senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! It is necessary that the answer be heard. Senators who are talking loudly shall cease. I call Senator Parer.KI4Senator PARER—I have indicated two or three times that I do not own any shares in mining companies.809809Lees, Sen MegSenator LEES8U4SAAD00—My question is to Senator Herron, the Minister representing the Minister for Health. Minister, do you agree with the statement made by your colleague Dean Brown, South Australian Liberal Minister for Health, that the federal government has:. . . failed to understand the needs and the growing demand of Australians for health care and is ignoring the reality of what is occurring in public hospitals.Isn't it true, Minister, that this government does not particularly want to understand what is going on in the public system and that you do not care, because what you are planning to do, and indeed what you are doing, is deliberately starving Medicare to death in the hope that people will shift over into the private system? How else can you explain the massive cuts, now in the billions of dollars, that your government has made to the public health system?809Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—I thank Senator Lees for the question. No, I do not agree with Dean Brown's statements because, as you know, Senator Lees, you and I were both around when the previous government was in office when the same charade went on with the states over the Medicare agreements. It is standard practice for the states to come along and demand more money.LI4PATTERSONSenator Patterson—And posture.VW4Senator HERRON—And posture. Thank you, Senator Patterson. This goes on every time. It is a natural progression that occurs, where the states come along and cry that they are poor when in fact in many cases—and I refer to one state—they have boasted how they had cut the amount of funding that went to the public hospitals because of the money that had come from the federal Medicare agreement at the time. You will recall the deals that were done, because you were on the community affairs estimates committee when we considered the previous Medicare agreement.To answer the second part of your question, I would like to read from a statement made by a previous health minister:As every person pulls out of private health insurance, the profile worsens for those left in. The sick obviously are going to stay in and so the premiums go up. More and more people get pushed out. As they get pushed out, the premiums go up more. It just feeds on itself the whole time, and it is going to come to a crunch point because as they leave private health insurance they are dependent on the public hospital system.No more, no less than Senator Richardson when he was health minister. I think that if you do not accept my explanation, you will accept his explanation.Of course there are increased pressures on the public hospital systems of this country. The reason that it occurred is that those opposite left it in tatters and forced people out of private health insurance. As I started to say yesterday, but Senator Forshaw would not let me, 61 per cent were in private health insurance when the Labor Party came into power and by the time they left it was down to about 35 per cent.Those opposite are responsible for the effects on the public hospital system which were brought about by their de-funding the private health system by removing the bed day subsidy. They gloated about that at the time, how it was going to socialise medicine in Australia because that was the ideal—to have everybody in the public hospital system. But, allied with that, there is something that is not their fault—it is to the credit of the medical profession, as much as anything else in this country—the increasing longevity of people, where two-thirds of the health care expenditure goes on people over the age of 65.The fact of the matter is that we have got a rapidly ageing population which is causing increased pressures on the public hospital system of this country. We recognise that as a government. In fact, the offer to the states is three per cent over what they had last time, and there is an increase in recognising the difficulties there.But the reality is that the states have to put money into the public hospital system because it is their responsibility to do so. A fair offer has been made by the federal government to them which they have not accepted—as you know, the previous government went through the same episode before. This happens on every occasion. The states come along crying poor. They come to the federal government, demand funds and say it is the Commonwealth's responsibility, but the reality is that the states have a responsibility in this regard and they have got to devote resources to the public hospitals.I am delighted to say that in Queensland they are. There is a major rebuilding program going on under the present state government, which is to their great credit. There are new hospitals being built right throughout the state. When the Labor Party was in control, they were deliberately run down and capital expenditure decreased to less than three per cent. (Time expired)810Lees, Sen MegSenator LEES8U4SAAD00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Minister, you may accuse the states of posturing, but isn't it the case that you have cut some $700 million out of state grants, $400 million from the public dental health system and $700 million from the PBS—and so it goes on? Isn't it really the case, Minister, that the basic health policy of your government is to starve the public system and to push people into the private and then, if that does not work, to blame the private health insurance system failures?810Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—That is almost a laughable supplementary question. I would have thought that Senator Lees would have a better understanding of the situation. The public hospital systems and the private hospital systems of this country worked when there was equilibrium—about 50 per cent in either system in my own state. Anybody who was around 20 years ago knew that the system worked very well. Then the Labor Party ran it down by removing bed day subsidies.The Commonwealth government has offered $30 billion, compared with $23 billion paid over the last five years, and $27 billion in the current forward estimates. So it is ridiculous to say that there is less money being offered. There is not less money being offered. We believe, on the other hand, there needs to be a reversal to that equilibrium that occurred before. Anybody who is listening to this broadcast would know that, 20 years ago, there were not the problems that exist today, because the private and the public hospital systems were in equilibrium, and our subsidy was designed to keep people in, to raise the number of people in private health insurance so that they could afford the private hospitals.810810Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—My question is directed to Senator Parer, the Minister for Resources and Energy. Minister, is it true that Investment Management Pty Ltd, IMPL, which is your family trust, holds 16 shares in Queensland Coal Mine Management Pty Ltd comprising 1.4 per cent of the 1,111 QCMM shares? Minister, is it further true that you personally own 44 employee shares in the QCMM Group (ESP) Pty Ltd?810Parer, Sen WarwickSenator PARERKI4QLDLPResources and Energy10—All I can say is exactly what I have said previously—that I have made full disclosure in accordance with the Prime Minister's requirements. I have got to think carefully about this. ESP, as my recollection is—and I stand to be corrected and I will check this—has nothing to do with the mining company itself. It was an employee scheme of some sort that occurred in the days when I was fully involved. I might point out that, on the day I got this appointment—I think within 24 hours; certainly within 48 hours—I resigned from all interests, directorships and chairmanships of that particular company and, I might say, all subsidiary companies. Since that time I have had nothing whatsoever to do with the operation of that particular company.810Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Minister, can I ask you if you have informed the Prime Minister that you have a personal shareholding— Government senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Parer cannot hear and neither can I. Senators on my right will cease interjecting.5K4Senator FAULKNER—Minister, have you informed the Prime Minister that you have a personal shareholding in a subsidiary of Queensland Coal Mine Management, called QCMM Group (ESP) Pty Ltd? I might say, you appear not to have disclosed this on the parliamentary register. Wouldn't this mean, Minister, that you would appear to have breached both parliamentary and Prime Ministerial requirements in relation to disclosure of these shareholdings?811Parer, Sen WarwickSenator PARERKI4QLDLPResources and Energy10—Madam President, I respond again to the Senator. I do not know how often I have to say this. I have exactly fulfilled the Prime Minister's requirements in fully disclosing everything that I own. With regard to ESP, my recollection is that the ESP itself was abandoned some years ago but I will check that. I have no particular recollection of that thing continuing.811811Colston, Sen MalcolmSenator COLSTONPF4QLDIND00—My question is directed to Senator Vanstone, the Minister for Justice. I refer the minister to the legislation passed in this parliament in relation to the international transfer of prisoners. Could the minister advise the chamber what the status is of the scheme which is being established under this legislation? As there is at least one Australian woman who has been in a Thai prison for well over 10 years, can the minister also advise when it is likely that a bilateral treaty between Australia and Thailand on international transfer of prisoners will be in place?811Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPMinister for Justice10—I thank Senator Colston for that question. The government is anxious to have the international transfer of prisoners scheme operating as soon as is possible. Following the passage of the Commonwealth International Transfer of Prisoners Act 1997 last year the next step is the enactment of complementary legislation by the participating states and territories. Tasmania, Queensland and New South Wales have now enacted such legislation and I am advised that legislation has been introduced into the South Australian parliament.We are also taking preparatory steps to enable Australia to become a party to international agreements for prisoner transfers as soon as is possible. Our first priority is to join the Council of Europe Convention and the Commonwealth scheme. The conclusion of a bilateral transfer agreement with Thailand is also a high priority. But, Senator, I cannot put a date on it. I have no indication of the time span we might need to conclude such agreements. I can assure you that the government remains committed to maintaining cooperation amongst all jurisdictions in participation in the national scheme and, as I say, to working with our first priority, which is the Council of Europe Convention and the Commonwealth scheme. But a high priority is a bilateral transfer agreement with Thailand.811811Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—My question is directed to Senator Parer, the Minister for Resources and Energy.Government senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senators on my right will cease interjecting.656Senator FORSHAW—Minister, can you confirm that a wholly-owned subsidiary of Queensland Coal Mine Management, a company called Advanced Queensland Resources and Mining—Government senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order!656Senator FORSHAW—I might start again for the benefit of the minister so he clearly understands it. Can the minister confirm that a wholly-owned subsidiary of Queensland Coal Mine Management, a company called Advanced Queensland Resources and Mining, operates the Jellinbah Coal Mine in the Bowen Basin in Queensland? Minister, is it also the case that Advanced Queensland Resources and Mining is a significant recipient of the diesel fuel rebate, claiming $1.7 million in 1995-96?811Parer, Sen WarwickSenator PARERKI4QLDLPResources and Energy10—If anyone cares to look back over the Register of Senators' Interests, and I am sure that that is what you have done, you will find that in the past not only was I on the board of QCMM, in fact I was the chairman of the board. Advanced Queensland Resources and Mining is simply an operating company that is a subsidiary of QCMM. That is correct. If you look back to past years you will find that I put it down there. In fact, when we had to disclose travel I put `travel in association with the company'. It was paid for by the company. From the day that I was appointed as a minister I resigned from that board, I resigned as chairman and I have had nothing whatsoever to do with it since.812Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. The minister has directed himself to the first part of the question but he has said absolutely nothing about the second part of the question. Minister, is it also the case that Advanced Queensland Resources and Mining, which you have indicated you have had a past interest in, is a significant recipient of the diesel fuel rebate, claiming $1.7 million in 1995-96?812Parer, Sen WarwickSenator PARERKI4QLDLPResources and Energy10—Madam president, I have no idea—Government senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senators on my right will cease interjecting.KI4Senator PARER—It reminds me of a question that Senator Cook asked once as to whether John Anderson's tractor had diesel in it. I am sure that they use diesel because it is a mining operation. What else do you expect me to answer? Of course they use diesel. I have no idea what they are paid in diesel fuel rebate.812812Chapman, Sen GrantSenator CHAPMANFF4SALP10—I direct my question to the Assistant Treasurer. I refer the Assistant Treasurer to questions raised yesterday concerning the role of the office of the Minister for Finance and Administration in a letter from Deloitte & Touche staff, which was published in the Australian Financial Review , regarding savings from outsourcing of information technology. Is the minister aware of a response from Deloitte & Touche regarding this matter?812Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—We have seen a deliberate tactic in this chamber in recent question times where individuals, some of whom are not members of this parliament, are regularly defamed. Senator Faulkner has led that attack. His notorious attack on the Baillieu family remains. The errors having been pointed out to him, he refuses to apologise.I regret to report to the Senate that yesterday Senator Sherry made inferences about Dr Lisle-Williams of Deloitte & Touche in his supplementary question. Dr Lisle-Williams has written to me; he has taken great exception to the question from Senator Sherry. The letter from Dr Lisle-Williams reads as follows:Dear Senator Kemp,It has come to my notice that Senator Sherry has implied or suggested that my letter to the Australian Financial Review concerning Commonwealth IT outsourcing resulted from pressure from the Minister for Finance, his office or his officers. This was not the case. I wrote the letter on behalf of my firm in somewhat angry response to the misleading slant and errors of fact contained in the Australian Financial Review article. These errors were acknowledged by the journalist responsible for the article and by the editorial staff in phone discussions.Dr Lisle-Williams continues:I take exception to the imputation that I or my firm would yield to ministerial or bureaucratic pressure. The fact is that the article was wrong. Yours sincerely, Michael Lisle-Williams.I table that letter. There was a serious inference in the question regarding Dr Lisle-Williams. I trust that Senator Sherry will now do the right thing and appropriately apologise to Dr Lisle-Williams.812812Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAYUI4VICALP00—I direct my question to Senator Parer on the same subject.Government senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senators on my right should observe the provisions of standing order 197 and refrain from speaking while another senator has the call.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—Madam President, I raise a point of order. I respect that you can call whomever you want, but when Senator Ray was given the call he was actually stand ing behind Senator West. Is it appropriate for Senator Ray to seek the call while he is wandering around the chamber, sitting in the advisers box or speaking to Senator Faulkner? Or should senators stand in their place and seek the call?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—The custom for question time has become that I follow a list that I am provided with. There are many senators who do not stand up when they should; they wait till they are called to even stand. Senator Ray was standing at the time, though not quite in his place.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—Madam President, on the point of order: I do not regard a senator waddling along the back row as standing. It was a waddle, not a stand.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—You are out of order, Senator Campbell.UI4Senator ROBERT RAY—My question is directed to Senator Parer. Minister, could you explain why the ASC company returns for Queensland Coal Mine Management Pty Ltd showed that as of 30 January 1998 your family trust owned 16 shares in that company and also listed an address which I think you would know very well—I do not want to put the address on the record at the moment, Senator. Can you confirm that this company's asset value is $153 million? Can you confirm that the shares that your family trust holds are 16 C class shares? Are you now willing to say on the record whether these shares have derived very substantial income into your family trust, of which you are a beneficiary?813Parer, Sen WarwickSenator PARERKI4QLDLPResources and Energy10—I pointed out earlier that this family trust has been in existence for 28 years.UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—But you were present, Warwick, at the meeting.KI4Senator PARER—Let me continue. I point out that I have a one-ninth interest and that it is a genuine family trust—it is not a tax lurk or anything like that. It goes back 28 years. I certainly do not recall in the past 10 years ever getting a dividend or a distribution from that particular family trust. We have a large family of seven children, and that is what it is—a trust. I confirm—I do not move away from it; this information certainly has been given to the Prime Minister as required—that the shares in that company are 16 non-voting shares.Government senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! The level of interjection is unacceptably high, as it has been on days recently, and totally out of order as far as the standing orders of this Senate are concerned. An interjection from time to time that is witty may add to the ambience of Senate question time and is acceptable, an intelligent interjection may also be acceptable, but the sledging, shouting and screeching that goes on is not acceptable. Senators should be warned that I have drawn the standing orders to their attention.813813Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—My question is addressed to the Minister for the Environment. Minister, I refer to your review of the Commonwealth environment legislation. Yesterday you twice avoided answering a simple question about regulations on world heritage areas, so today I will make it a little easier for you. The Commonwealth lists three invertebrates, 19 fish— Government senators interjecting —10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senators on my right will cease making so much noise. It is important that I hear the question that is being asked.1M6Senator ALLISON—The Commonwealth lists three invertebrates, 19 fish, 14 amphibians, 52 reptiles, 82 birds, 49 mammals and 886 plants as rare or endangered. Minister, in abolishing the Endangered Species Act, will you give a commitment in this chamber to the Australian people that you will relist every one of these rare or endangered species under your new legislation?813Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment10—Of course I will. We were advised on which species to list by an independent scientific subcommittee. The point that I regret that you are failing to appreciate, Senator, is that the purpose of this legislation is to update and improve what currently exists, which is now very outdated. In the case of biodiversity protection, it does not exist at all. It is time that the Common wealth's environment laws were brought up to best practice.1M6ALLISONSenator Allison—Madam President, I raise a point of order. I did not ask about whether or not the legislation needed to be updated; I asked whether the minister would guarantee that those rare or endangered species would be protected. It is a simple question to which the answer is yes or no.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—I think the minister is dealing with the question as asked, and I would say there is no point of order.BH4Senator HILL—I thought I started answering the question by saying yes, they will be protected. But the point I was going on to make is that they will be better protected under the new legislation than they are under the old. If Senator Allison reads the consultation paper in relation to endangered species—8U4LEESSenator Lees—That's our worry; we have.BH4Senator HILL—If she reads it in relation to endangered species, she will see exactly why that is so. I will ask Senator Lees, who has interjected, whether a threat to endangered species on state land at the moment triggers the Commonwealth protective mechanisms under the ESP Act. The answer is it does not. At the moment it does not on non-Commonwealth land. Under the new legislation it will. I do not mind taking some further Commonwealth powers to protect the most valuable of our national natural resources. I will do that through a scheme that will provide a better mix of roles and responsibilities between the Commonwealth and the states. The outcome will be a more effective, contemporary, protective arrangement to protect these great resources. Whether it is world heritage areas, they will continue to be protected more effectively than they are at present.As I said yesterday—and you have gone on about it again today, Senator; you did not listen—there will be no damming of the Franklin, there will be no logging within the wet tropics area. Not only will world heritage be protected to the extent it is under current legislation; it will be more effectively protected. That is our objective, and we are quite proud of it. I do not understand why you are opposed to it.814Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I thank the minister for his answer. We are vaguely reassured but I must say that the problem here is that the minister has put out the most vague discussion paper possible on this and it is very difficult for the public to understand what the intention is. Again, I ask: will these endangered species be listed in the schedule? That is the important point. So far we have heard much about responsibility being transferred to the states but the point here is whether those species will be listed.814Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment10—They will be listed. They will continue to be protected on Commonwealth land as they are under the existing legislation, and they will be further protected because the Commonwealth will take a wider responsibility in relation to those endangered species, no matter where they are.Distinguished Visitors81410000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! I draw the attention of honourable senators to the presence in the chamber of a parliamentary delegation from the Federal Republic of Germany led by Mr Klaus Hasenfratz. On behalf of honourable senators, I have pleasure in welcoming you to the chamber and wish you a pleasant and enjoyable stay in this country.Honourable senators—Hear, hear!Questions Without Notice814814814Murphy, Sen ShayneSenator MURPHYFX5TASALP00—My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy. Minister, is it a fact that the Howard government last year announced a $3.6 million funding cut to the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation? Can you confirm whether fishing is the only primary industry to have had funding cuts to its R&D corporation?7E4VANSTONESenator Vanstone—Didn't you hear that?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Vanstone. Senator Murphy, have you finished the question?FX5Senator MURPHY—No, I want to add a little more to the question. I thought I might find something about shares in here. Minister, given that recent reports have supported an increase in research into fisheries, how do you justify this cut taking effect as it does in 1998—the Year of the Oceans?815Parer, Sen WarwickSenator PARERKI4QLDLPResources and Energy10—Madam President—C16HEFFERNANSenator Heffernan—Declare an interest.KI4Senator PARER—Yes. This was very much canvassed in an estimates committee, but let me point out the background to it. Yes, there was a $3.6 million cut and it came from reserves held by the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation. The background to it is that, when we came to government, we inherited a total disaster in the south-east fisheries—something that the last government should be totally ashamed of. There was litigation after litigation by people who had been unfairly dealt with by the previous government. The only way to handle this was to go into a buy-out scheme, so I appointed a special committee to look at a buy-out scheme so that those people who had been unfairly treated could be given the chance to sell their licences. Compensation was paid in certain cases.An estimate was made and, if my memory is correct, about $6.9 million was required. We had to find the funds. It is difficult to find funds when you come into government and you need to do something like this but you have a $10.5 billion black hole left to you as a legacy of the mismanagement of the previous government.Two sources were found. Part of the moneys was obtained from AFMA, the Australian Fisheries Management Authority, from a fund that they had set aside for adjustment, but there was not sufficient funds to be able to do that. The rest we sought and it was obtained from reserves that had been built up by the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation. We naturally would have preferred not to have taken that route, but the priority was to fix up a disaster left to us by the previous government and, because of the stringent financial conditions at the time, this was the only way it could be done.815815O'Chee, Sen BillSenator O'CHEEEU4QLDNP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Communications, the Information Economy and the Arts. In light of today's release of the final report of the National Competition Councils's review of the Australian Postal Corporation Act, I ask: is it true that the government is committed to increasing competition in the postal sector whilst adhering to the coalition's election commitments to retain Australia Post in full public ownership and to maintain a standard letter service for all Australians at a uniform rate? Further, is the minister aware of any alternative proposals or approaches to postal services? Are these alternatives being given serious consideration by the government?815Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, the Information Economy and the Arts10—I welcome the release of the report from the National Competition Council. It is a review that has taken many months to prepare. It certainly reflects the extensive consultation process that has been undertaken. I personally thank Graeme Samuel and his fellow counsellors and staff for the work that has been put into the preparation of this comprehensive report.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—Another little mate!LD4Senator ALSTON—What about Skase's little mate? That is what you should be more concerned about. The government will develop a comprehensive response to the NCC recommendations in the next few months. But, as Senator O'Chee rightly says, any response will fully honour the coalition's election commitments—namely, that Australia Post will be retained in full public ownership and that the entire nation, including those in rural and regional Australia, will receive a standard letter service at a uniform rate.At the same time, we are committed to increased competition in the postal services sector which, in every other area of human endeavour, normally leads not only to greater efficiencies but also to price reductions. There is no reason why that cannot occur in this industry as long as the proper community safeguards are in place. Of course, that is very good news for consumers. It is also the fact that with new technology developments, particularly the Internet, there is going to be constant competition for Australia Post and other postal providers in any event. They will clearly continue to be under increasing pressure to deliver faster, cheaper and higher quality services for consumers.So we have a clear position. We are committed to reforms, but sensible ones that reflect the paramount concerns of users of the service, consumers in general. By contrast, the Labor Party is once again all over the shop. If you look at the Australian Financial Review in October last year, you will see Senator Schacht claiming that no case had been made to change the current rules. The ALP did not see any reason to change the current arrangements. He said that before this discussion paper was even released—at the very start of the process. In other words, he could not be bothered addressing himself to any of the policy issues.Senator Schacht's idea of serious policy formulation is to wander down to Manuka on a Friday afternoon and have a nice, long, leisurely lunch with the Jim Middletons, the Peter Cole-Adamses and all the other members of the club who congregate there on a regular basis. We do not regard that as a substitute for policy formulation. This bloke can hardly put a word on paper. He certainly cannot put anything on his web site, we know that. He cannot ever address any submissions to inquiries.Now it is quite clear, from what happened in Hobart, that he has no idea in terms of policy reform in this important area. You do not have to take my word for it. Simon Crean, the industry spokesman, in September 1996 said that you can never rule anything out site unseen. He obviously did not know Senator Schacht's form. He said, `If you retain a community service obligation, it is possible to open up to more competition as long as you are guaranteeing the service.' So there is the Simon Crean position in relation to Australia Post.The alternative, which presumably is still espoused by the ALP and its official spokesman, the leader of the faction for disgruntled unionists, is one that simply says, `I can't be bothered. I'm not interested. I'm going to bury my head in the sand. I'm going to try to get through this election with the sort of dirt and scum that we have had thrown up to distract attention from Senator Bolkus's unprecedented censure in this place.' In almost 30 years we have not had a senator censured; yet this person has been censured by everyone who was in here, except his mates, who felt they had no choice but to support him. That is not our approach.816816McKiernan, Sen JamesSenator McKIERNAN1I4WAALP00—My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy. Minister, are you aware that in your home state of Queensland Minister Anderson has funded the following projects under the Natural Heritage Trust: $63,350 for a project officer for the northern dairy industry; $70,000 for the fruit and vegetable industry future profit project; $112,800 for eight workshops entitled `Planning a future in beef—North Queensland'; and $10,500 for office accommodation for the Hodgson Creek catchment project officer? Minister, can you tell the Senate exactly how projects such as these meet the Natural Heritage Trust objective of `a better environment for Australia in the 21st century'?816Parer, Sen WarwickSenator PARERKI4QLDLPResources and Energy10—As Senator McKiernan will know, before agreements are reached on the funding of various projects in the various states, they have to go through a regional assessment process and a state assessment process. They then come to the minister. What Senator McKiernan is raising, I think, is yet again the issue of accountability, which Senator Hill was pursued on at great length.The minister, Mr Anderson, has worked hard to ensure that accountability is built in at all levels of the trust's activities. The Natural Heritage Trust provides a repository for funds and a mechanism to coordinate delivery of a range of nature conservation and sustainable agricultural initiatives. I think the very issues that you touched on—I did not pick them up; I do not know them individually—relate to agricultural industries. The details of these initiatives were set out in the government's election commitment documents and the Natural Heritage Trust application guidelines. As I mentioned earlier in reference to what they call RAPs and SAPs, project assessment is a rigorous process which demonstrates the strict standards of accountability built into the trust. The applications were received in all states and territories, not just Queensland, and assessed by the community and state assessment panels. Each state then forwarded a prioritised bid to the Commonwealth. Recommendations made by the panels provided the basis for decisions on project funding made by Ministers Hill and Anderson.There is not much I can add to that. That is the process that is gone through. As far as I am aware, apart from questions raised by people opposite, there has not been any complaints from my home state of Queensland.817McKiernan, Sen JamesSenator McKIERNAN1I4WAALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Minister, thank you for your answer, as far as it went. But you, Minister, would also be aware that the Prime Minister has guaranteed that the Natural Heritage Trust would be used for capital expenditure and not for recurrent purposes. How can you and Minister Anderson justify NHT grants going to pay for office accommodation?817Parer, Sen WarwickSenator PARERKI4QLDLPResources and Energy10—In response to Senator McKiernan, the detail of that I will refer to Minister Anderson, but my understanding is that it has gone through all the very strict processes involved with the Natural Heritage Trust, from the regional assessment programs, the state assessment programs and then back through the ministerial office. But I will refer that specific request to the minister and get you an answer.817817Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEYO15NSWLP10—My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs. I refer to Senator O'Brien's allegations in the chamber on Monday that a Queensland company, Allhands Hire Pty Ltd, was selected to provide employment services when it had financial problems with unprofitable contracts and was put up for sale only days after DEETYA informed the company of its success in the tender process. Can the minister shed any light on Senator O'Brien's allegations?817Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSchools, Vocational Education and Training10—Thank you for that question, Senator Tierney. Senators will recall that the day before last Senator O'Brien asked a question about Allhands Hire Pty Ltd. The allegation was that that company was going to be sold and that there was some financial difficulty thereby and also casting doubt on the government's Job Network process. Let me tell the Senate that that company is not for sale.AX5EVANSSenator Chris Evans—Was it for sale?9X5Senator ELLISON—As a result of that, it has lost two clients.AX5EVANSSenator Chris Evans—Was it for sale?9X5Senator ELLISON—I have been advised that that company has lost two clients.AX5EVANSSenator Chris Evans—Was it for sale?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Evans!9X5Senator ELLISON—It is not for sale.AX5EVANSSenator Chris Evans—Was it?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Evans!9X5Senator ELLISON—A member of the family who contacted the department today has said that approaches were made to the company for the sale of it and that there was no aspect of it being sold. This is a smear tactic to cast doubt on Job Network. More importantly, it has damaged a citizen. It has damaged a private entity which does not have the ability to reply. It does not have the protection that we in this chamber have. As a result of that, it has lost two clients. That is despicable.As I stated the other day, the opposition must be very careful before it makes these sorts of allegations. It must get its facts straight. It was reported yesterday in the Sydney Morning Herald that this business was not for sale. It is an experienced business in the employment sector, and it has a lot to offer those job seekers. It is a respectable business and there is no problem with it.Let me also tell the Senate that the process that we have put in place requires that, if any business is sold, if any Job Network member intends to sell its business, it has to go back to the department for vetting. It has to go back to the department for vetting so that you cannot just on sell your business and the contract goes to someone else. It has to go back to the rigorous process that it went through when the tender was granted.This is a usual tactic. When the government puts forward something constructive for the job seekers of Australia, we have a smear tactic which not only causes scaremongering amongst job seekers but also damages a private Australian, an Australian who does not have the ability to answer that allegation like we have in this chamber. It is despicable. You want to cast your minds back to when employment was at an all time high under your government of 11 per cent and see what you did for job seekers then. Nothing. Look at what we are doing: we are offering job seekers more diversity and more choice, and you should apologise.818Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEYO15NSWLP10—I ask a supplementary question, Madam President. Minister, was Senator O'Brien's wildly inaccurate allegations against a reputable company just part of a pointless trawl by the ALP through the Job Network tender process that wasted two days of the Senate's time last week and revealed nothing? Would the minister care to compare the success of this program with Labor's failed Working Nation program?818Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSchools, Vocational Education and Training10—I thank Senator Tierney for his supplementary question. As we all know, Working Nation was a $12 billion disaster. It was a training roundabout which just put people back into training. It did not find people jobs. What we have embarked on here with Job Network is a tendering process to find the best people to match people for the jobs concerned. What we are doing here is providing a choice between those private providers and Employment National, and we are providing a variety of services from job matching to intensive training for those disadvantaged job seekers.This is an innovative scheme which will answer the needs of Australian job seekers. The opposition fails to remember that, when their current leader was minister for employment, long-term unemployed increased by 95,000. That is what they want to think of before they attack Job Network. This is a process which will meet the needs of Australian job seekers, one which they could never have thought of. (Time expired)BH4HILLSenator Hill—Madam President, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.Miscellaneous818818818Parer, Sen WarwickSenator PARERKI4QLDLPResources and Energy10—Yesterday in question time Senator Quirke asked me a question with regard to the spending of $25,328 for the sod-turning ceremony at the AGSO building. He then went on to ask a number of other questions, such as, was there an open tender process and how could I justify paying this ludicrous amount of money for a sod-turning ceremony without testing the market. When he referred in his question to the fact that this had been something that Senator Faulkner raised, he should have been on his guard. You always have to be careful of the Left. My reason for saying that is that this contract with Burson-Marstellar was given under the term of the previous government.UNKNOWNGovernment SenatorsGovernment Senators—Ha, ha!KI4Parer, Sen WarwickSenator PARER—I have here a letter written on 15 January 1996 where Burson-Marstellar were advised that they were successful and that they should spend no more than $25,000 depending on the cost of printing the kits.The other question raised is in respect of a shovel. I think Senator Faulkner asked me whether I had declared it. So I thought had I better check as to what the cost of this shovel was. It was apparently bought at the local BCC Hardware, taken out for chrome plating, and has a total cost of $110.One of the concerns I had was what to do with this shovel. I thought to myself that probably a more appropriate use of the shovel would be if I gave it to Senator Quirke; he could use it to clean the bulldust out of this place that we are used to from day to day. Another thing he could do would be to use it in an appropriate way to get back at Senator Faulkner for giving him a question where, as pointed out in a headline in the Daily Telegraph today, it says `Sod it, it happened under us'.819819Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—Senator Forshaw asked me a question yesterday about the Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service and outsourcing. I seek leave to incorporate the answer in Hansard .Leave granted.The answer read as follows—Senator FORSHAW—My question is directed to 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 disadvantaged group in the labour market and, accordingly, another that the government should be condemned for?Senator FORSHAW—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 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 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 up until now?Senator HERRON—In response to the question asked on 10 March 1998 by Senator FORSHAW, the Minister for Health and Family Services has provided the following answer:"The Minister for Family Services announced in a media release on 22 December 1997: * the Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service (CRS) will separate from the Department of Health and Family Services on 30 June 1998;* the Government's intention to introduce competition for provision of Commonwealth funded rehabilitation services to give people with an injury or disability choice of provider for the first time, and best possible value from the Government's substantial investment in rehabilitation services;* the government's intention to consult with both industry and consumer groups on how best to introduce such competition.Transitional legislation will be introduced into the Parliament in this Sittings to facilitate establishment of CRS as a Commonwealth owned company which, pending introduction of competition, will operate under a contract to the Department of Health and Family Services, which will continue to be subject to administrative law requirements. No Government decision has been made on how competition will be introduced and won't be until there has been an opportunity to consult with industry and the community. No decision has been made to introduce competitive tendering for rehabilitation services and this is only one among a number of ways of introducing competition.Accordingly the Honourable Senator's questions on outsourcing and competitive tendering are misdirected.The Government is interested in achieving the best possible outcomes for people with an injury or disability. Eligible persons rights to Commonwealth funded rehabilitation services will be maintained under these reforms."819819Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPMinister for Justice10—Senator Lees asked a question of me in my capacity representing the Attorney-General a few days ago, and I seek leave to incorporate into Hansard his answer.Leave granted.The answer read as follows—Senator Vanstone: On Monday 9 March 1998 Senator Lees asked me a supplementary question in my capacity as Minister representing the Attorney General about legal advice provided to the Government on the operation of s.57 of the Constitution and the Native Title Amendment Bill.Her 2 questions to the Attorney-General were:(1) Whether any minister sought a formal legal opinion from him or his Department? and(2) Whether or not this advice was delivered before the House of Representatives laid the original bill aside. I undertook to refer the matter to the Attorney General who has provided me with the following response:The Government did obtain legal advice on the operation of section 57 and its implications for the Native Title Amendment Bill.That advice was provided prior to the House resolving to lay the Bill aside.The Government completely repudiates any suggestion by Senator Lees that there is any notion of a "dodgy joint sitting" in relation to the Government's actions in relation to this Bill.I note that the Government' s legal advice has been independently affirmed by George Williams—an ANU Law Faculty Constitutional Law expert. In a research note for the parliamentary Information & Research Services titled "The Road to a Double Dissolution?", Mr Williams states:"On 6 December 1997 the House of Representatives indicated that it would not agree to many of the Senate amendments and laid the Bill aside. This meets the requirement in s.57 that the Bill be passed by the Senate `with amendments to which the House of Representatives will not agree"'."However, in the opinion of the Clerk of the Senate, Mr Harry Evans, s57 has not been complied with. He argues that `there must be an ongoing unwillingness by the House of Representatives to accept amendments made by the Senate' . . . ."However, in the opinion of the Clerk of the Senate, Mr Harry Evans, s57 has not been complied with. He argues that `there must be an ongoing unwillingness by the House of Representatives to accept amendments made by the Senate' . . . .Mr Williams then goes on to state"This interpretation may, as Evans argues, be supported by `the procedures of both Houses'. However, it is not supported by the text of the Constitution. Evans places too much weight on the words `will not agree' in s.57 to find that it is mandatory that the Bill be returned to the Senate after the House of Representatives has rejected the Senate amendments. The Constitution merely requires that the Bill be passed by the Senate `with amendments to which the House of Representatives will not agree'. The extra step set out by Evans goes beyond the demands of the Constitution. It is also not necessary in order to maintain the Senate's role in the lawmaking process."Mr Williams article completely supports the position taken by the Government on the true interpretation of section 57 of the Constitution. The Government has always been careful to ensure that it is acting within the clear scope of the processes provided for by the Constitution for resolving deadlocks. It will continue to do so and, as appropriate, seek legal advice as required.Response to a Supplementary Question from Senator LeesSenator Vanstone: On Monday 9 March 1998 Senator Lees asked me a supplementary question in my capacity as Minister representing the Attorney General about legal advice provided to the Government on the operation of s.57 of the Constitution and the Native Title Amendment Bill.Her 2 questions to the Attorney-General were:(1) Whether any minister sought a formal legal opinion from him or his Department? and(2) Whether or not this advice was delivered before the House of Representatives laid the original bill aside.I undertook to refer the matter to the Attorney General who has provided me with the following response:The Government did obtain legal advice on the operation of section 57 and its implications for the Native Title Amendment Bill.That advice was provided prior to the House resolving to lay the Bill aside.The Government completely repudiates any suggestion by Senator Lees that there is any notion of a "dodgy joint sitting" in relation to the Government's actions in relation to this Bill.I note that the Government' s legal advice has been independently affirmed by George Williams—an ANU Law Faculty Constitutional Law expert. In a research note for the parliamentary Information & Research Services titled "The Road to a Double Dissolution?", Mr Williams states:"On 6 December 1997 the House of Representatives indicated that it would not agree to many of the Senate amendments and laid the Bill aside. This meets the requirement in s.57 that the Bill be passed by the Senate `with amendments to which the House of Representatives will not agree"'."However, in the opinion of the Clerk of the Senate, Mr Harry Evans, s57 has not been complied with. He argues that `there must be an ongoing unwillingness by the House of Representatives to accept amendments made by the Senate' . . . ."However, in the opinion of the Clerk of the Senate, Mr Harry Evans, s57 has not been complied with. He argues that `there must be an ongoing unwillingness by the House of Representatives to accept amendments made by the Senate' . . . . Mr Williams then goes on to state"This interpretation may, as Evans argues, be supported by `the procedures of both Houses'. However, it is not supported by the text of the Constitution. Evans places too much weight on the words `will not agree' in s.57 to find that it is mandatory that the Bill be returned to the Senate after the House of Representatives has rejected the Senate amendments. The Constitution merely requires that the Bill be passed by the Senate `with amendments to which the House of Representatives will not agree'. The extra step set out by Evans goes beyond the demands of the Constitution. It is also not necessary in order to maintain the Senate's role in the lawmaking process."Mr Williams article completely supports the position taken by the Government on the true interpretation of section 57 of the Constitution. The Government has always been careful to ensure that it is acting within the clear scope of the processes provided for by the Constitution for resolving deadlocks. It will continue to do so and, as appropriate, seek legal advice as required.821821Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPMinister for Justice10—Yesterday Senator Collins asked a supplementary question of me again in my capacity representing the Attorney-General. I undertook to get an answer from the Attorney-General, and I seek to incorporate that in Hansard .Leave granted.The answer read as follows—Senator VANSTONE : On Tuesday 10 March 1998 Senator Jacinta COLLINS asked me a supplementary question, in my capacity as Minister representing the Attorney-General, about comments made by the Administrative Review Council about the contracting out of services.I undertook to refer the matter to the Attorney-General and to provide an answer at a later time. I am now able to table a response to the supplementary question asked by Senator COLLINS. The information has already been provided to Senator Jacinta COLLINS.FURTHER RESPONSE TO SUPPLEMENTARY QUESTION BY SENATOR JACINTA COLLINS ON 10 MARCH 1998Senator Vanstone:Senator Collins implied that the Administrative Review Council has formed a final view on issues of accountability and contracting out. The ARC has not yet issued a final report on Contracting Out but it issued an Issues Paper in February l 997 and a Discussion Paper in December 1997. Both docu ments predated the Government's announcement on proposed amendments to the FOI Act and, therefore, do not take it into account.Accountability to the public will be maintained in the process of Government outsourcing. The Government's strong commitment to this is demonstrated by its already announced decision that the Freedom of Information Act will apply to requests by individuals for access to and correction of personal information about themselves held by contractors on behalf of the Government. Government agencies will ultimately be accountable for compliance with obligations imposed by the Act.Access to information in the hands of contractors will still also be available through contractual provisions under which a government agency has a right of access to documents held by a contractor. The Government intends that there will be minor clarifying amendments to the FOI Act which will ensure that access can be sought under the FOI Act where there are such contractual rights of access.The ARC' s final report on Contracting Out is also expected to canvass issues of access to administrative review in respect of contracted service provision.Response to a Supplementary Question from Senator LeesSenator Vanstone: On Monday 9 March 1998 Senator Lees asked me a supplementary question in my capacity as Minister representing the Attorney General about legal advice provided to the Government on the operation of s.57 of the Constitution and the Native Title Amendment Bill.Her 2 questions to the Attorney-General were:(1) Whether any minister sought a formal legal opinion from him or his Department? and(2) Whether or not this advice was delivered before the House of Representatives laid the original bill aside.I undertook to refer the matter to the Attorney General who has provided me with the following response:The Government did obtain legal advice on the operation of section 57 and its implications for the Native Title Amendment Bill.That advice was provided prior to the House resolving to lay the Bill aside.The Government completely repudiates any suggestion by Senator Lees that there is any notion of a "dodgy joint sitting" in relation to the Government's actions in relation to this Bill.I note that the Government' s legal advice has been independently affirmed by George Williams—an ANU Law Faculty Constitutional Law expert. In a research note for the parliamentary Information & Research Services titled "The Road to a Double Dissolution?", Mr Williams states: "On 6 December 1997 the House of Representatives indicated that it would not agree to many of the Senate amendments and laid the Bill aside. This meets the requirement in s.57 that the Bill be passed by the Senate `with amendments to which the House of Representatives will not agree"'."However, in the opinion of the Clerk of the Senate, Mr Harry Evans, s57 has not been complied with. He argues that `there must be an ongoing unwillingness by the House of Representatives to accept amendments made by the Senate' . . . ."However, in the opinion of the Clerk of the Senate, Mr Harry Evans, s57 has not been complied with. He argues that `there must be an ongoing unwillingness by the House of Representatives to accept amendments made by the Senate' . . . .Mr Williams then goes on to state"This interpretation may, as Evans argues, be supported by `the procedures of both Houses'. However, it is not supported by the text of the Constitution. Evans places too much weight on the words `will not agree' in s.57 to find that it is mandatory that the Bill be returned to the Senate after the House of Representatives has rejected the Senate amendments. The Constitution merely requires that the Bill be passed by the Senate `with amendments to which the House of Representatives will not agree'. The extra step set out by Evans goes beyond the demands of the Constitution. It is also not necessary in order to maintain the Senate's role in the lawmaking process."Mr Williams article completely supports the position taken by the Government on the true interpretation of section 57 of the Constitution. The Government has always been careful to ensure that it is acting within the clear scope of the processes provided for by the Constitution for resolving deadlocks. It will continue to do so and, as appropriate, seek legal advice as required.Privilege82210000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—The Economics References Committee has raised with me a matter of privilege concerning the unauthorised disclosure of a draft report of the committee. The committee has investigated the matter and reported to the Senate in accordance with the order of the Senate of 20 June 1996, relating to the unauthorised disclosure of committee proceedings and documents. The committee has reported, in accordance with that order, that the unauthorised disclosure caused damage to the committee's work.The matter clearly meets criteria which I am required to consider. I therefore determine that a motion to refer this matter to the Privileges Committee may have precedence. I table the letter from the committee. A senator on behalf of the committee may now give a notice of motion to refer the matter to the Privileges Committee.822Collins, Sen JacintaSenator JACINTA COLLINSGB6VICALP00—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the following matter be referred to the Committee of Privileges: The unauthorised disclosure of a draft report of the Economic References Committee referred to in the report by the committee of 10 March 1998.Miscellaneous82282215:11:00822Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—I move:That the Senate take note of answers given by the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Parer), to questions without notice asked today, relating to the financial interest of Senator Parer.Today the opposition has raised a number of questions regarding very serious matters—questions that we believe it is appropriate for the Minister for Resources and Energy to answer comprehensively on the public record. We now, of course, have a situation where apparently the government believes that it is not appropriate for the opposition to hold the executive accountable during question time. We will not be adopting that level of ministerial and parliamentary accountability when, as we have a situation here, we have been provided with information—H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—Have you been at the ASC again looking up dead directors?10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Campbell, it is disorderly to interject, in the first place; but it is even more disorderly to interject out of your seat.5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—When we have information that indicates that discrepancies exist between the minister's own statements, his entries on the Register of Senators' Inter ests and publicly available Australian Securities Commission companies information.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—He is very good at looking up dead directors.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order!5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—We believe it is appropriate that the minister set the record straight on these issues. We invite the minister to provide answers to a number of questions, and they are important ones. Senator Parer ought to address himself to the issue of whether his Register of Senators' Interests lists all shares.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—You found your way down there!10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Campbell. Senator Faulkner, excuse me.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—Take your seat.UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—You are not sitting down either, grub.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—Yes, I am.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Ray. It is not appropriate to interject in this place at any stage, and it is more inappropriate to interject when you are not in your seat. I would please urge you to observing standing orders and to cease your interjections. Thank you.5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—Thank you, Madam Deputy President. We ask Senator Parer: does your Register of Senators' Interests list all shares held either directly or indirectly by your family trust? If not, why not?H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—When is the next meeting of dead directors?5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—We ask Senator Parer: does your register of interests identify your apparent interest in a coal-mining company as a potential conflict of interest; and, if not, why not?H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—Why don't you apologise, you scumbag?10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Campbell.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—When is the next meeting of dead directors?10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Campbell.5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—We ask: have you divested yourself of all shares in the area of your portfolio responsibility; and, if not, why not? We ask Senator Parer: is your directorship of a trust which holds mining shares likely to conflict with your public duty? We ask Senator Parer—H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—We ask you to apologise.5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—We ask Senator Parer: do your business interests expose you to charges of using public office for private gain? We ask Senator Parer, in relation to the details of his family trust—and we know that it owns the shares in QCMM from third party sources—what else does it do?H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—We ask: when are you going to apologise, you scumbag?5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—We ask: is it, or its related entities, engaged in activities related to Senator Parer's ministerial responsibilities? We ask: where does it get its income? We ask: does it have the power to influence, directly or indirectly, any other company?The opposition is asking for substantive answers to what we believe are very important questions, because we are well aware of the requirements incumbent on ministers regarding their public duties and private interests. For example, there is the statement of registrable interests which says that:Any senator must notify any relevant interest in any shares which enables the senator, the senator's spouse or dependent children to exercise control over the right to dispose of those shares. This includes shares held by a family or business trust.The notes also state:The senator must list any other interest which in the opinion of the senator holds the potential for real or apparent conflict of interest with the senator's public duties to arise.We ask about the discredited Prime Minister's guidelines on ministerial conduct. We just say that the Prosser defence, that is, `I have complied with all requirements', is not good enough. This minister must be accountable on these important issues.15:16:00824Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALDYW4QLDLP10—Another grubby attack from the gutter by the Labor Party. Regrettably, the attack is a smokescreen to try to hide the absolute inconsistencies and the smearing by the Labor Party in this chamber of the parliament.But the distressing thing is that the Labor Party choses to attack one of the ablest ministers of the Howard government, Senator Parer. Senator Parer has devoted his life to Australia and has created something of real wealth for this country. He has done something which employs hundreds of workers in the coalmines and elsewhere and he is a very great Australian. The Labor Party choses to attack and smear this man, just as they always do.We thank Senator Richardson for his book, Whatever It Takes. He told us how the Labor Party, when they are in trouble and want to attack a competent person, brings out the smears and lies to do it. That is what has been happening today.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—You should hear what he says about John Faulkner.YW4Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALD—I know what he says about John Faulkner, but he does not take much notice of Faulkner and neither does anyone else. It is the old Labor Party, union, bully-boy stuff to attack one of the ablest ministers.It is a smokescreen to hide the censure of the would-be first officer of this nation, Senator Bolkus, from those very serious charges of which he has been found guilty; not just in this chamber and not just in the other chamber, but in both chambers. They know that this is a rare and very serious thing and they will smear and tell lies to try to hide that from tomorrow's media.It is also a smokescreen to try to hide the ineffectual leadership that the Labor Party has in this chamber. We all know how Senator Faulkner and Senator Cook got their jobs here. It is without question that Senator Ray—for all his faults—is the real leader of the Labor Party in this chamber and should be on the frontbench. Senator Faulkner and Senator Cook got their jobs because the Labor Party has to share the factional jobs around. In the other chamber Mr Beazley happened to be elected as leader and Mr Evans happened to be elected deputy leader and they were both from the Right.You would know, Madam Deputy President, as everybody over there does, that they had to give the Centre Left and the Left a job. What did they do? They put the most able, Senator Ray, up in the back row—and Senator Ray acquiesced in this because he knows the deal—and they put some dummy from the Left at the main table and some guy from the Centre Left who was the second choice behind him. That is how we get this weak ineffective leadership in this chamber.The Labor Party will smear and tell lies about Senator Parer and anyone else to try to hide this lack of leadership. It is also a smokescreen to hide the ineffectiveness and absolute lack of any intestinal fortitude of Mr Beazley as the Leader of the Labor Party. Can you imagine what would have happened in this very hypothetical instance if Mr Howard had been Leader of the Labor Party over the last week? Senator Bolkus would not have lasted five minutes, because Mr Howard would not have anyone on his frontbench who deliberately leaked a stolen document and distributed it to the world just so that Mr Skase—that criminal who used to be in Australia—could escape retribution. Senator Bolkus has released that information so that a criminal, Mr Skase, can escape.5F4CALVERTSenator Calvert—Why did he do that?YW4Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALD—Senator Calvert might well ask, `Why did he do that?' Mr Beazley's leadership is what tells. Everybody knows that Senator Bolkus will never, ever be the first law officer of the land. There is not a person sitting opposite who would argue with that. What it shows is that Mr Beazley simply cannot control his troops. He would like to get rid of Bolkus, but he cannot stand up to the Left and Centre Left of his party.Also, Mr Beazley is showing lack of any leadership in the way he has dealt with the Oxley preselection. There is a woman who wants to get up there and the national exec utive of the Labor Party has threatened to tip a bucket over her so she will be put out of the race. Where is Mr Beazley coming into this? He should show some leadership and stop the ALP from threatening to tip a bucket over this woman. You would understand, Madam Deputy President, that the women are supposed to have 35 per cent of the safe seats in the Labor Party. Where is Mr Beazley's leadership? This whole attack is a smokescreen to hide Mr Beazley's inefficiencies. (Time expired)15:21:00825Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAYUI4VICALP00—The questions asked of Senator Parer today do require an answer—maybe not immediately because there were some complex questions asked and we will certainly give Senator Parer time to answer them. It did appear from some of the questions today that he either was confused at the type of questions that went to him, or on a couple of occasions said that he was having some difficulty with his memory in this particular area. We await him going back, going through the records and giving us answers to those particular questions that he could not quite focus on today. But the one thing he consistently said was, `I have complied with the Prime Ministerial guidelines.'We do not know whether to challenge that totally or not because we do not see the declaration Senator Parer makes to the Prime Minister. What we do see is the declaration that Senator Parer makes to this chamber and to the public as a whole through the parliamentary process of disclosure. That is on the record, not only in its basic text but also in any amendments made over the last four years. We see that. But if Senator Parer has accurately stated all of his interests to the Prime Minister and it is not reflected in his pecuniary interest form in the Senate, then it reflects badly not only on him but even more so on the Secretary to the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, to whom the Prime Minister himself has said he entrusted the task of checking it all carefully. Surely he would have compared the Prime Ministerial declaration form with the Senate one to see if there were any inconsistencies.While I am on the Senate one, I still have this problem with Senator Parer: he lists a company, as I understand it, that controls his family trust. I do not think he ever actually goes to the point of declaring his family trust, but that could have been an oversight or a belief that, by putting the organising company in there, that would be good enough in terms of declaration.We did have a letter go out some time in March 1997, following some controversy, asking people if they owned family trusts that had substantial shareholdings and to put some more detail on the record. Senator Parer has made no such amendment. But the thing that really confused me today was when Senator Parer said, `I think some of these things may have happened more than 10 years ago.' The basic thrust of our questioning, in terms of owning shares that may have a benefit in coalmining, is that this was set up in 1994—just four years ago. I would have thought Senator Parer would have remembered this arrangement for these 16 C class shares. For anyone thinking that 16 shares is not much, there are only just beyond 1,100 shares in totality for a company that values its own assets at $153 million—so we are not talking about peanuts.Apparently he cannot focus on and remember the allocation of those shares in 1994. I will tell you why I am even a little more shocked by that: guess who chaired the meeting in 1994? Senator Parer. It was more than one meeting—at least three that I know about. He chaired the meeting in which these matters were discussed and decisions were made. So we do want him to go back, check his records and find out.It is no use Senator Parer coming in here and saying, `I don't own any shares personally.' The fact is that, if the investment company that runs his trust and the trust own 16 shares that are valuable, and they depend on the fortunes of the coal industry and he is the minister directly responsible for export controls on the coal industry, for diesel fuel rebates and all of these other things that impact there, an allegation could then be made of a potential conflict of interest. So as to avoid those allegations the Prime Minister has properly ruled that, if you own shares either directly or by way of a family trust—other than a blind trust, and no-one has argued that this is a blind trust—and if you are going to get what we understand is a very substantial franked dividend out of all this process into the family trust in which you have an interest, and you are making decisions that affect it, the allegation can be there of a potential conflict of interest.I would never think for a moment that Senator Parer would consciously and directly take a decision affecting the coal industry to directly benefit himself but that is not the point. The whole point is that he should have declared, in some detail in his Senate pecuniary interest form, the details of the holdings in this particular company. So it is no use the other side going on and saying these are absolute smears; these people are accountable. (Time expired)15:26:00826Abetz, Sen EricSenator ABETZN26TASLP10—Anybody who has watched question time since the parliament resumed would have been aware that Senator Bolkus was in the sights of the government for having leaked confidential Federal Court documents. As a result, the Labor Party have engaged in a deliberate besmirching tactic dealing with people who have been dead for decades, the Baillieu family, and with the Natural Heritage Trust. Do we get any apology from them? No. What do they do? They simply move on to the next issue, such as Senator Quirke making a false allegation about a contract that he alleges this government let, only to find it was the previous Labor administration that let the contract. Do we get an apology from the Labor Party? Absolutely not.We had the spectacle of Senator Sherry asking his first question on his return, making some very grubby allegations in relation to the minister and Deloittes. Today, that was completely debunked. Do we get an apology from Senator Sherry? No. We then had the allegation yesterday from Senator Kerry O'Brien from the Labor Party about an employment agency. That was completely debunked today at question time and exposed as untrue and incorrect. Do we get an apology from Senator O'Brien? No.Today we moved a censure motion with the support of every senator in this place, other than those from the Labor Party, against Senator Bolkus for his most outrageous behaviour in deliberately and knowingly leaking a confidential Federal Court document. He did that deliberately and knowingly. The Senate has quite properly condemned him for that by censuring him. So what does the Labor Party do? They say, `They finally got Bolkus. They nailed him. What do we do? Our little besmirching tactics on the Natural Heritage Trust, bringing in dead people, making accusations against Deloittes about employment agencies and about contracts being let, and the question Senator Quirk asked have all failed. What are we going to do? We will embark upon a deliberate campaign to besmirch Senator Parer as a smokescreen.'Senator Parer is one of the most honourable people in this place. To his great credit Senator Ray, in his speech, was very careful not to besmirch the character of Senator Parer. Indeed, he made this telling point. If Senator Parer did something that was not within the guidelines it would have been done inadvertently, in sharp contradistinction to the behaviour of Senator Bolkus, who did what he did knowingly, connivingly and with a deliberate intent to put on the public record a confidential court document in breach of the Federal Court rules.This taking note of answers today and the Labor Party tactic at question time have been designed simply as a smokescreen to try to protect Senator Bolkus. Senator Bolkus cannot and will not be protected from his own actions and activities. He deliberately embarked upon leaking those two pages of that confidential court document. The Labor Party can try as much as they like to besmirch innocent citizens of this country, dead people or companies but there is nothing as rock solid and as proven as the case against Senator Bolkus for deliberately leaking the information he did.The Labor Party tactic in this matter is so transparent and such a sham. The Labor Party know what they ought to do; that is, remove Senator Bolkus from the frontbench. If Sena tor Bolkus will not move, he ought to be moved. If Mr Beazley is not willing to move him, I am sure the Australian people will ensure that Mr Beazley never becomes Prime Minister, let alone Senator Bolkus becoming the Attorney-General of this country.15:31:00827Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—It is a pity that Senator Parer is not here and that he has not taken the opportunity to defend himself in this debate. With the greatest respect to Senator Parer, he moved more rapidly out of this chamber than I have seen him move at any other time around this building.The issue of the probity and the honourable conduct of government ministers was made an election matter by the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) himself at the last election. He promised the people of Australia that there would be a code of ministerial conduct which would ensure that private and public dealings by responsible ministers in this country were at the highest possible level and he promised that he would hold his ministers to that code.In his document, the Prime Minister said:Ministers are required to divest themselves of all shares and similar interests in any company or business involved in the area of their portfolio responsibilities. The transfer of interests to a family member or to a nominee or trust is not an acceptable form of divestment.That is what the Prime Minister has said is required in these circumstances. What is beyond doubt is that there is an interest of a particular sort by Senator Parer in a mining company, and we know that Senator Parer is the Minister for Resources. That would appear to be directly in conflict with what the Prime Minister requires.As well as that, there are the Senate's own requirements. The Senate requires that, in stating what their interests are, senators should say what their shareholdings in public and private companies, including holding companies, are and should indicate the names of the companies. This goes to the issue of family and business trusts and nominee companies as well. What we have here are quite clear, fundamental requirements to which senators and ministers have to comply. We also have an obligation by the Prime Minister to ensure that ministers hold to those standards.What are the facts of this debate, as we know them to this point? In my view, we know that in his words in answers to questions at question time Senator Parer was quite careful in what he said. He said, `I have exactly complied with the Prime Minister's requirements.' I do not know, and I am prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt at this stage, whether that means in a technical sense or in a full blown, proper sense. He said as well, `I have personally no shareholding in a mining company.' Again, that may be a very tightly drawn, technical meaning of what he has said compared to what the facts are and it may not meet the intent or the requirement of the provisions.What we do know now is that the Parer family trust owns 16 shares in QCMM. QCMM wholly owns Advanced Queensland Resources and Mining which operates the Jellinbah Coal Mining Company in the Bowen Basin. Those 16 shares amount to, I understand, about 1.4 per cent of the company; that is, the trust owns about 1.4 per cent of the mining company, which is valued, according to its June 1996 annual report—the last I have a reference to—at $153 million, which is not an insubstantial amount. Therefore, it is proper and reasonable to conclude that the minister has a beneficial interest in QCMM through a family trust. Apart from the interest QCMM has in Advanced Queensland Resources, the operation company of Jellinbah Coal Mining, QCMM also has a 70 per cent interest in Bowen Basin Coal Pty. Ltd. There is a substantial case to answer here.In addition to that, the ASC records show that on 30 June this year Senator Parer held 44 shares personally in QCMM Group (ESP). There is a substantial case for the minister to answer here about how those facts set out in the ASC records and documented in the proper way in the companies commission tally with his allegations that he has properly complied with the ministerial code of conduct and that he has no shares in a mining company. It may not be directly that he does but through his trust. He has to answer those allegations fully and properly. (Time expired)15:36:00828Ferguson, Sen AlanSenator FERGUSONEP5SALP10—I do not know why you hate successful people so much on your side of the chamber. As soon as anybody is successful, you find the best way you can to try to smear them in any way possible. When Senator Faulkner stands before this chamber and uses the option of his quietly spoken voice to talk, we know that his heart is not really in it. After a series of questions to Senator Parer, he then had to make the big decision about whether to take note of the answers or not, because no answers given by Senator Parer were likely to raise any issues other than those you have tried to raise by trawling around and conducting this smear campaign you have started today—a tactic you have used on practically every other person you have chosen to vilify, inside or outside the Senate chamber.I think I heard Senator Faulkner say during his speech that he was accusing Senator Parer of using public office for personal gain. I think that was the phrase that he used—using `public office for personal gain'. Talking about using public office for personal gain, how do you measure the personal gain that anyone gets from holding a public office? Is it a monetary gain? Is it some position that they gain after they have held public office? I can think of a couple of examples. Former President Kerry Sibraa: was it personal gain after holding public office when he was given a job by the former government as an ambassador overseas? Neal Blewett, a former member: was that personal gain from holding a public office? Graham Maguire: just an ordinary backbench senator all his life who managed to score a few jobs on some boards when he finished—was that personal gain from holding public office? I would not want to go too far if I were you.There are a great number and you can name as many as you like but, if you are going to talk about personal gain from holding public office, you had better be careful about where you start and where you stop. Can you remember your defence, only two or three years ago, of a former Prime Minister who had a very considerable involvement in a piggery? Would you have considered that to be personal gain from public office? Probably only a few million but that is neither here not there, just a drop in the ocean for these people. `Personal gain from public office'—former member Wayne Swan would not have had a job of personal gain from the public office that he held before; I am quite sure about that. So when you come in here and start talking about personal gain from public office and when you talk about a senator who has spent his life working in the mining industry—as Senator Parer did, and he is well respected and is someone who has been successful; he did not have to have his job propped up by any factional colleagues—Senator George Campbell interjecting—EP5Ferguson, Sen AlanSenator FERGUSON—Senator Campbell, let me tell you that he was not responsible for the loss of a hundred thousand jobs either. Senator Parer was responsible for employing people. He actually created employment and, Senator Campbell, a former Prime Minister accused you of costing this country a hundred thousand jobs. That is something you will always remember, Senator Campbell, and we remember it well because the comment was made by someone from your side.Let us get down to the real issue of why the so-called attack on Senator Parer was made today. As Senator Abetz highlighted, it is a fact that we have had a situation today where one of your colleagues has been censured by this parliament. He has been censured in the House of Representatives and he has been censured in the Senate, where the government does not have a majority. A person cannot be censured unless you get the support of other parties in this chamber, and the only ones who stuck by Senator Bolkus were the Labor Party senators.Let me tell you that some of those did it very reluctantly. I would not want to name names but, although some of those were sitting on that side of the chamber, when the votes went up—and the vote was 44 to about 26 or 27—I could not help but notice a bit of a wry smile come over the faces of some of Senator Bolkus's so-called colleagues when he was censured by this parliament. So this effort today to try and attack Senator Parer for some alleged mistakes in his register of interests can only be described as a very poor effort to try and protect Senator Bolkus. (Time expired)10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! The time for the debate has expired.Question resolved in the affirmative.82910001CLERK ASSISTANTThe Clerk—A petitions has been lodged for presentation as follows:8291971M6Allison Sen LynTo the Honourable President and Members of the Senate of Australia:The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House our concerns about proposals to introduce legislation amending the Native Title Act. We feel that the Government's proposed 10-point plan appears to favour the vested interests of pastoralists over the principles of fairness and justice for indigenous peoples. Such legislation would also severely impede the reconciliation process, and would rob Aboriginal people of their dignity and right to self-determination.Your petitioners therefore request the House to:reject the Government's proposed 10-point plan;ensure any legislation passed maintains the integrity of the Racial Discrimination Act and respects the High Court's native title decisions; andencourage the introduction of legislation that includes negotiated agreements that are fair and workable for indigenous peoples as well as pastoralists.Senator Allison1M6Senator Allison(from 197 citizens)Petition received.Notices829829829Campbell, Sen GeorgeSenator GEORGE CAMPBELLNB5NSWALP00—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the following matter be referred to the Economics References Committee for inquiry and report by 27 August 1998:The current state of, and issues and opportunities within the use of, information technology in Australian industry, with particular reference to:(a) the level and extent to which information-based technologies are being used to increase productivity and improve competitiveness in Australian industry; (b) the level and extent to which information-based technologies are being used, or can be used, to integrate regionally-based companies into Australia's mainstream industrial network;(c) the growing importance of service-enhanced products in world trade and the enabling role played by information technology in their development;(d) the speed of take up of enhanced manufacturing technologies by Australian industry; and(e) the extent of commercialisation within Australia of ideas and products developed with the assistance of research and development tax concessions.829829Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT5F4TASLP10—On behalf of Senator O'Chee and the Regulations and Ordinances Committee, I give notice that, 15 sitting days after today, he will move:That the Veterans' Vocational Rehabilitation Scheme, as contained in instrument no. 5 of 1997 made under subsection 115B(1) of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986, be disallowed.I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a short summary of matters raised by the committee.Leave granted.The summary read as follows—Veteran's Vocational Rehabilitation Scheme, being Instrument No 5 of 1997, made under subsection 115B(1) of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986The instrument seeks to assist specified classes of veterans to find employment and to continue in employment.Clause 1.3 .1 defines a service provider as a person or organisation with which the Commission or the Department has entered into an arrangement to provide services. It would appear from the tenor of the Scheme as a whole that such service providers may well be commercial organisations. However, there is no avenue provided in the terms of the Scheme whereby a person or organisation, which is dissatisfied with the decision to reject its application to be a service provider, may seek a review of that decision.Clauses 1.4.1 to 1.4.3 permit the Secretary to require a veteran to be examined or assessed, or both, by a service provider, and for that service provider to report to the Secretary, who in turn reports to the Commission. However, there is no provision in the Scheme requiring the service provider to maintain confidentiality of the informa tion it acquires in that process. Since the service providers may be private individuals or companies, it does not appear that they would come within the restrictions of the Privacy Act 1988, with the result that any requirement of confidentiality would have to be included in this Scheme.Paragraph 1.5.2(b) requires the service provider or the Secretary (if they have prepared a rehabilitation plan) to agree with the veteran on its details. This would appear to be an unenforceable provision as the law cannot force parties to come to an agreement.Clause 3.2.3 provides that an approved scheme should not normally include particular elements. If a scheme were not to be approved because it contained some such element, it would appear to be impossible for a veteran to succeed in a review of that decision. There are, however, no criteria by which the reviewing body might determine whether the case before it was normal or not.Clause 4.5.2 gives to the Secretary a discretion to determine whether or not a grant has been applied for a proper purpose. However, Chapter 5, which deals with rights of review, applies only to the review of decisions of the Commission, and hence does not apply to the decision of the Secretary under this clause. There does not appear to be any provision in the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 which allows for review of any decisions of the Secretary.The Committee has written to the Minister for advice.830830Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT5F4TASLP10—On behalf of Senator O'Chee and the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances, I give notice that, on the next day of sitting Senator O'Chee will withdraw business of the Senate notices of motion Nos. 1 and 2 standing in his name for two sitting days after today for the disallowance of the Exemption Order made under section 8G of the Christmas Island Act 1958 and Locally Engaged Staff Determination 1997/31 made under section 82D of the Public Service Act 1922, respectively. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the committee's correspondence concerning these instruments.Leave granted.The correspondence read as follows—Exemption Order made under s.8G of the Christmas Island Act 19582 December 1997The Hon Mark Vaile MP Minister for Transport and Regional DevelopmentParliament HouseCANBERRA ACT 2600Dear MinisterI refer to the Exemption Order made under s.8G of the Christmas Island Act 1958 , which exempts two companies from the need to comply with the operations of the Travel Agents Act 1985 (WA) as it applies to Christmas Island. The Committee would appreciate your advice on the following matters.The Explanatory Statement does not indicate whether these are the only agents operating on the Island and, if this is not the case, whether other agents been arbitrarily excluded from the benefits of the Order.Clause (2) does not appear to serve any practical purpose as the Order must necessarily have effect until revoked and does not need the clause to say so.Clause (3) provides that the Minister may not unreasonably withhold consent to the approval of an insurance policy. The Explanatory Statement does not advise whether a decision by the Minister to withhold consent is subject to merits review.The requirement in Clause (3) for the applicants to deliver the policy to the Minister could cause difficulty if an applicant subsequently wished to claim on a policy. In such circumstances delivery of a copy of the policy would appear to be sufficient.The Explanatory Statement advises that the Order is a temporary measure only but does not indicate how long the Order will be needed. The Explanatory Statement also notes that the Order must be laid before each House of the Federal Parliament but that it need be gazetted only in the Territory Gazette . It may also be appropriate to also gazette such Orders in the Commonwealth Gazette.Yours sincerelyBill O'CheeChairmanSenator Bill O'CheeChairmanStanding Committee on Regulationsand OrdinancesParliament HouseCANBERRA ACT 2600Dear Senator O'CheeThank you for your letter of 2 December 1997 addressed to the Honourable Mark Vaile MP, Minister for Transport and Regional Development concerning the Exemption Order issued under the Travel Agents Act 1985 (WA)(CI)(the Act). I am replying as Mr Vaile executed the Order on my behalf.The following are the responses to your queries concerning the Order and Explanatory Memorandum.The two travel agents cited in the Order are the only ones operating in the Territory of Christmas Island. Both are major participants in the Territory's tourism industry and play an important role in the Territory's economy. The Order was made to facilitate their obtaining a licence to operate as travel agents and to enable them to become members of IATA so there was no impediment to their arranging international travel to the Territory.I take your point that the statement that the Order continues until revoked is redundant. However, this statement was included because paragraph 6(2)(a) of the Act provides that the order may specify the period during which the order shall remain in force. It was not thought appropriate to specify a period in the circumstances.Paragraph 6(2)(b) of the Act provides that an order may provide that its operation is subject to such conditions as are specified in the order. There is no provision in the Act for merits review of the imposition of conditions under section 6 or an exercise of power in a condition. I have instructed my Department to draft an order varying the Order to provide an opportunity for a merits review in the local court in Christmas Island of the Minister's decision to withhold consent pursuant to Clause 3 of the Order.As you may be aware, travel agents' licences are issued by the Commercial Tribunal of Western Australia. The tribunal must hold hearings if objections to the issue of a licence are lodged and in certain other cases. Should an applicant be refused a licence or have its licence revoked, the applicant is entitled to appeal to the District Court of Western Australia under Division 4 of Part 11 of the Act.I agree that copies of insurance policies and premium receipts would suffice if it were considered necessary for these to be delivered to the Minister.It was not possible to estimate how long the Order should remain in force, hence the statement in clause (2). It was considered preferable to have an open-ended order rather than to have to remake it if permanent arrangements could not be made within a set period.Section 74A of the Interpretation Act 1984 (WA)(CI) provides that if an applied law requires a person to publish an instrument in the Gazette, the requirement is satisfied if the instrument is published in the WA Government Gazette, the Commonwealth Gazette or the Territory Gazette. It is considered that it is sufficient to publish instruments in these cases in the Territory Gazette. This is readily available to Territory residents, who are the main clients of the travel agents. The gazettals would be of limited interest to persons outside the Territory.Yours sincerelyALEX SOMLYAYMinister for Regional Development, Territories and Local Government21 JAN 1998Locally Engaged Staff Determination 1997/312 December 1997The Hon Alexander Downer MPMinister for Foreign AffairsParliament HouseCANBERRA ACT 2600Dear MinisterI refer to Locally Engaged Staff Determination 1997/31, which provides for aspects of medical insurance for locally engaged staff in Kenya.New subclause 5.32.11(4) appears to limit to six the number of children a locally engaged employee may enrol in the group medical assistance scheme to which that clause refers. This would appear improperly to discriminate against those locally engaged staff who have a large family. The Committee would be grateful for your advice.Yours sincerelyBill O'CheeChairman30 DEC 1997Senator Bill O'CheeChairmanStanding Committee on Regulations and OrdinancesAustralian SenateParliament HouseCANBERRA ACT 2600Dear Senator O'CheeThank you for your letter of 2 December 1997 concerning Locally Engaged Staff Determination 1997/31 which provides for aspects of medical insurance for locally engaged staff in Kenya.The High Commission in Nairobi originally recommended that the number of children a locally engaged employee may enrol in the group medical assistance scheme be limited to six. This was done to provide the Commonwealth with some protection against fraudulent claims relating to extended families. The number was limited to six because this was the maximum number of children declared for enrolment by any member of the staff at the High Commission. My Department has reviewed the situation and is satisfied that the High Commission can achieve a reasonable degree of protection against fraudulent claims by ensuring that only those children who are defined as dependants by the providers of the Scheme are enrolled. An amending determination will therefore be issued to remove the subclause which limits the number of children which may be enrolled.Yours sincerelyAlexander DownerMinister for Foreign AffairsCommittees832832832832Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT5F4TASLP10—I present the second report of 1998 of the Selection of Bills Committee.Ordered that the report be adopted.5F4Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT—I seek leave to have the report incorporated in Hansard .Leave granted.The report read as follows—ReportSELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEEREPORT NO. 2 OF 19981. The Committee met on 10 March 1998.2. The committee resolved-That the provisions of the following bills be referred to committees:Bill titleStage at which referredLegislation CommitteeReporting dateAged Care Amendment Bill 1998 (see Appendix 1 for a statement of reasons for referral)immediatelyCommunity Affairs2 April 1998Australian Capital Territory (Planning and Land Management) Amendment Bill 1997 (see Appendix 2 for a statement of reasons for referral)immediatelyRural and Regional Affairs and Transport31 March 19983. The Committee resolved to recommend—That the following bills not be referred to committees:. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission Amendment Bill 1997. ANL Sale Bill 1997. Chemical Weapons (Prohibition) Amendment Bill 1997. Child Care Legislation Amendment Bill 1998. Commonwealth Places (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1998. Commonwealth Places (Mirror Taxes) Bill 1998. Commonwealth Places Windfall Tax (Collection) Bill 1998. Commonwealth Places Windfall Tax (Imposition) Bill 1998. Electoral and Referendum Amendment Bill 1997 . Health Legislation Amendment Bill 1997. Intellectual Property Laws Amendment Bill 1997. Insurance Laws Amendment Bill 1997. Legislative Instruments Bill 1996 [No. 2]. National Residue Survey Administration Amendment Bill 1998. National Residue Survey (Customs) Levy Bill 1998. National Residue Survey (Excise) Levy Bill 1998. Privacy Amendment Bill 1998. Public Employment (Consequential and Transitional) Amendment Bill 1997 [No. 2]. Public Service Bill 1997 [No. 2]. Social Security and Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Budget and Other Measures) Bill 1997. The Committee recommends accordingly.4. The committee deferred consideration of the following bills to the next meeting:(deferred from meeting of 2 December 1997). Health Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1997(deferred from meeting of 3 March 1998). Primary Industries and Energy Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1997. Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 7) 1997. Workplace Relations Amendment (Superannuation) Bill 1997(deferred from meeting of 10 March 1998). Social Security Legislation Amendment (Youth Allowance Consequential and Related Measures) Bill 1998.(Paul Calvert)Chair11 March 1998Appendix 1Name of bill:Aged Care Amendment Bill 1998Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:. Uncertainty over application of accommodation bonds. concern over working of additional recurrent funding and future provision capital for upgrades.. concern over future of uncertified homes and the residents of these homes.. concern over equality of access and treatment.. concern over the future viability of the sector.Possible submissions or evidence from:Nursing home providers (not for profit and for profit), consumer groups, concerned individuals.Committee to which bill is to be referred:Standing Committee on Community Affairs.Possible reporting date:8 April 1998(signed)S. ConroyWhip/Selection of Bills Committee memberAppendix 2Name of bill:Australian Capital Territory (Planning and Land Management) Amendment Bill 1997 Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:Provisions of the bill are contrary to reports and recommendations made previously. There is concern as to whether the Territory should have the power to determine its own land management system, and in the spirit of reconciliation, indigenous people need to be consulted.Possible submissions or evidence from:ACT GovernmentMichael Moore, MLAACT conservation groupsAustralian Democrats, ACT DivisionResidents' associationsCommittee to which bill is to be referred:Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation CommitteePossible reporting date:As soon as possible.(signed)Vicki BourneWhip/Selection of Bills Committee memberBusiness833833Motion (by 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 25 March 1998.833Motion (by Senator Bourne, at the request of Senator Lees) agreed to:That general business notice of motion No. 960 standing in Senator the name of Senator Lees for today, relating to complementary medicine, be postponed till the next day of sitting.833Motion (by Senator Hogg) agreed to:That general business notice of motion No. 983 standing in the name of Senator Hogg for today, relating to the tender process for employment services, be postponed till the next day of sitting.833Motion (by Senator Carr) agreed to:That general business notice of motion No. 965 standing in the name of Senator Carr for today, relating to funding for vocational education, be postponed till the next day of sitting. 834Motion (by Senator Reynolds) agreed to:That general business notice of motion No. 984 standing in the name of Senator Reynolds for today, relating to Israel's 50 Year Jubilee release of prisoners, be postponed till until the next day of sitting.834Motion (by Senator Carr) agreed to:That general business notice of motion No. 971 standing in the name of Senator Carr for today, relating to government responses to Employment, Education and Training References Committee, be postponed till the next day of sitting.834Motion (by Senator Hogg) agreed to:That general business notice of motion No. 990 standing in the name of Senator Hogg for today, relating to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, be postponed till the next day of sitting.834Motion (by Senator Carr) agreed to:That general business notice of motion No. 980 standing in the name of Senator Carr for today, relating to the common youth allowance, be postponed till the next day of sitting.Committees834834834Motion (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 Migration Legislation Amendment (Strengthening of Provisions relating to Character and Conduct) Bill 1997 be extended to 23 March 1998.Miscellaneous834Motion (by Senator Troeth) agreed to:That the Senate recognising International Women's Day on 8 March 1998, notes:(a) the contribution of rural women to Australia's agricultural sector and rural communities;(b) recent research which indicates that: (i) 32 per cent of Australia's farm work force is female, (ii) women contribute over 28 per cent of hours worked on farms, representing $4 billion per annum, (iii) women also contribute 80 per cent of off-farm wage income to the sector, and (iv) despite their level of input, women occupy less than 20 per cent of paid management and board of management positions in the agricultural sector; and(c) Coalition Government programs which encourage women in the agricultural sector to become more involved at a leadership level, including: (i) a rural women's scholarship worth $37 500 which allows the successful applicant to participate in the Australian Rural Leadership program (ARLP), and which has, since the introduction of the scholarship in 1997, led to an increase of 25 per cent in the number of female applicants for the ARLP, (ii) a roundtable of leading rural women to contribute to the development of a business plan for Australian agriculture, held in December 1997, (iii) the support of the Rural Women's Unit in the Department of Primary Industries and Energy, which provides an important link between the Commonwealth Government and women in rural Australia, (iv) progress towards establishing a national action plan for women in agriculture and resources management, and (v) the introduction of the Farm Business Improvement program through the Agriculture-Advancing Australia package, which will benefit farmers by providing activities that will develop their farm business and financial planning capabilities, with a specific component for women.Miscellaneous834834Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEYHX5QLDAD00—I ask that general business notice of motion No. 950 standing in my name for today relating to an order for the production of documents be taken as a formal motion.15:49:00834Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4NTCLP10—This is not an objection and, whilst the government is not opposing the formality of this proposal, I seek leave to make a short statement.Leave granted.6E4Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING—This matter relates to the tabling of legal advice in relation to the NTAB and the operation of section 57 of the constitution. The government has clearly received extensive legal and policy advice in relation to the Native Title Amendment Bill 1997 [No. 2] . I am informed by the Attorney-General (Mr Williams) that he is prepared to admit that this legal advice extends to the correct interpretation of section 57 of the constitution. Indeed, the Attorney has informed me that the government has received legal advice on section 57 on a number of occasions. This is not surprising, given the constant difficulties the government has faced in getting its legislative program, for which it has received a clear mandate from the Australian people, through the Senate.The legal advice to the government is clear. The government's action is clearly disagreeing with some of the Senate's amendments, and laying the bill aside in the House has triggered the first stage of section 57 of the constitution. The government's position has been expressly supported by constitutional legal experts. This includes many expert commentators who do not normally support the government's view. In this regard I draw the Senate's attention to the comments of Professor Cheryl Saunders of Melbourne University's law faculty and George Williams from ANU reported in the Sydney Morning Herald of 5 December 1997. Professor Native Title Amendment Bill 1997 [No. 2] Saunders is quoted in this article as saying:The literal reading of the Constitution seems to suggest that all you need are amendments to the bill by the Senate and a disagreement by the House.George Williams has subsequently prepared a research note for the parliament's Information and Research Services which explicitly states:On 6 December 1997 the House of Representatives indicated it would not agree to many of the Senate's amendments and laid the bill aside. This meets the requirement in section 57 that the bill be passed by the Senate with amendments to which the House of Representatives will not agree. However, in the opinion of the Clerk of the Senate, Mr Harry Evans, s57 has not been complied with. He argues that `there must be an ongoing unwillingness by the House of Representatives to accept amendments made by the Senate' . . . . . . . . . . . .This interpretation may, as Evans argues, be supported by `the procedures of both Houses'. However, it is not supported by the text of the Constitution. Evans places too much weight on the words `will not agree' in s.57 to find that it is mandatory that the bill be returned to the Senate after the House of Representatives has rejected the Senate amendments. The Constitution merely requires that the bill be passed by the Senate `with amendments to which the House of Representatives will not agree'. The extra step set out by Evans goes beyond the demands of the Constitution.The only contrary and very vocal view is that being promulgated by the Clerk of the Senate. The Clerk, despite his undoubted expertise in Senate procedural matters, is not a lawyer, is not a constitutional law expert, and regularly puts forward views which extend the power of the Senate. It is not surprising that the government does not seek to rely upon his interpretation.The government's expressed intention is to pass the Native Title Amendment Bill 1997 [No.2]. We have, in consultation, developed a fair and balanced compromise of all the interests involved. The coalition does not want to have a double dissolution election on the issue of native title. The content of any legal advice which addresses the operation of section 57, therefore, is really irrelevant to the forthcoming Senate debate. The government, nonetheless, will be opposing this motion in accordance with established principle. The general position is clear: legal advice provided to the government is subject to legal professional privilege.The Senate is well aware of the position taken by successive governments, whether ALP or coalition, that the Senate should not demand the tabling of documents which attract either public interest immunity or legal professional privilege. Indeed, it is interesting to note the views expressed by Senator Bolkus on the tabling of legal advice when he was sitting on the government benches in relation to the Carmen Lawrence matter. After not tabling documents, which included legal advice from the Attorney-General's Department, Senator Bolkus supported this position by stating:These documents clearly fall within the accepted boundaries of legal professional privilege and public interest immunity. The Senate has traditionally recognised these claims.The next day, Senator Bolkus went further, in referring to the return to order passed by the Senate, as follows:That is why your return to order motion is at best vacuous and at worst blatant hypocrisy. It is a disregard of the accepted principles of practice in this place. It is a disregard of accepted principles of government. You know that but, despite knowing it, you come in here with a wish list that you know any responsible government cannot meet.The now Deputy Leader of the Opposition, Gareth Evans, also commented on the need to respect legal professional privilege. On 28 August 1995, Mr Evans said:The government simply does not make available government documents which fall within accepted boundaries of legal professional privilege and public interest immunity to the Senate. We certainly will not be doing that to a Senate committee. Nor is it the practice or has it been the practice over the years for any government to make available legal advice from its legal advisers made in the course of the normal decision making process of government, for good practical reasons associated with good government and also as a matter of fundamental principle.The then Senator Evans went on to say:. . . we are not prepared, as I have already indicated, to make available legal advice prepared in the ordinary course for the purpose of the development of government policy or the making of specific government decisions. The confidential relationship between the government's legal advisers is an essential part of the business of government.The claim of legal professional privilege as a basis for not tabling material in the Senate has been used by governments of all persuasions.Other recent examples include Senator Sherry in his then capacity as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy on 1 March 1995 in respect of a motion for documents associated with the granting of woodchipping licences. Similarly, on 23 May 1996, the Minister for Social Security, Senator Newman, refused to provide legal advice on the basis that it was subject to legal professional privilege. Senators will all be aware that successive governments have refused to table legal advice on the basis that it is protected by legal professional privilege. As has previously been acknowledged by the ALP, the availability of this privilege is an essential element of good government. The government, therefore, does not accept that it can be compelled to provide any such advice, if it exists, as referred to in the motion. Consequently, the government opposes the motion.15:57:00836Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEYHX5QLDAD00—by leave—I must say that, in granting leave for Senator Tambling to make a brief statement, I did not realise that in that brief statement he was going to insult half of Australia. However, he has done that, and I certainly must object to the way in which it was done.I am offended by the reference to the Clerk of the Senate. I do not think that matter needed to have been dragged in here. We certainly have used the Clerk of the Senate's advice, but the important thing about the clerk's advice is that he pointed out that the opinion of Sir Garfield Barwick was the basis for that advice, and the comments of Sir Garfield Barwick stand in this debate. They are very important. Those comments said that, unless the processes of the Senate and the House were followed, a double dissolution and a joint sitting of the House would be based on very shaky ground indeed. Those words of Sir Garfield Barwick cannot be contradicted; they stand in this debate. That is what the government should be taking issue with, not with whether the Clerk of the Senate has entered the debate. He gave the Democrats that advice because it was asked for, and it was very legitimate advice indeed. I really do feel a little offended by the way in which Senator Tambling has given his comment to the Senate.What the Democrats are trying to do, of course, is to allow the people of Australia to have some part in the spending of their money. If we go to an early election, we will be spending $60 million upfront to have an election which may be based on dubious constitutional grounds if, in fact, the purpose is to pass legislation such as the Wik legislation, which we may then find at a later occasion is struck down by the High Court. That is the gamble we are talking about; it is a gamble about opinions. We do not believe that it is worth taking that gamble when, in fact, the Senate and all the people of Australia—all of us—could have a look at the opinions upon which the government is relying.We accept that the government received legal opinion. What we are not sure about still is whether or not the government sought and received independent legal opinion before its action in December in laying aside the bill. We hear what you are saying. We are not going to contradict that. Obviously you sought legal opinion. But the question still remains as to whether or not you sought independent legal opinion before the bill was laid aside. That question still remains an open question. For those reasons, I have asked that general business notice of motion No. 950 be taken as a formal motion and we will see where we go.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Is there any objection to this motion being taken as formal?Leave granted.HX5Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEY—I move:That there be laid on the table by the Special Minister of State (Senator Minchin), on the next day of sitting, no later than 12 noon, any legal advice received by the Government on how the Native Title Amendment Bill 1997 satisfies the requirements of section 57 of the Constitution. Question put:16:01:00The Senate divided. (The Deputy President—Senator S. M. West)34Allison, L. Bartlett, A. J. J.Bishop, M. Bourne, V.Brown, B. Campbell, G.Carr, K. Collins, J. M. A.Colston, M. A. Conroy, S.Cook, P. F. S. Cooney, B.Crowley, R. A. Denman, K. J.Evans, C. V.* Faulkner, J. P.Gibbs, B. Harradine, B.Hogg, J. Lees, M. H.Lundy, K. Mackay, S.Margetts, D. McKiernan, J. P.Murphy, S. M. Murray, A.Neal, B. J. O'Brien, K. W. K.Quirke, J. A. Ray, R. F.Sherry, N. Stott Despoja, N.West, S. M. Woodley, J.32Abetz, E. Boswell, R. L. D.Brownhill, D. G. C. Calvert, P. H.*Campbell, I. G. Coonan, H.Crane, W. Eggleston, A.Ellison, C. Ferguson, A. B.Ferris, J. Gibson, B. F.Heffernan, W. Hill, R. M.Kemp, R. Lightfoot, P. R.Macdonald, I. Macdonald, S.MacGibbon, D. J. McGauran, J. J. J.Newman, J. M. O'Chee, W. G.Parer, W. R. Patterson, K. C. L.Payne, M. A.Reid, M. E.Synon, K. M. Tambling, G. E. J.Tierney, J. Troeth, J.Vanstone, A. E. Watson, J. O. W.Bolkus, N. Alston, R. K. R.Collins, R. L. Herron, J.Reynolds, M. Knowles, S. C.Schacht, C. C. Chapman, H. G. P.Forshaw, M. G. Minchin, N. H.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.Miscellaneous837Motion (by Senator Margetts) agreed to:That the Senate—(a) notes, with concern: (i) the imprisonment in Romania of a lesbian, Mariana Cetiner, for allegedly attempting to seduce another woman, and (ii) the existence of the notorious Article 200 in Romania's penal code, which makes it an offence to entice or seduce a person to practise same sex acts or to form propaganda associations or engage in other forms of proselytising with the same aim;(b) notes that Amnesty International has announced that Mariana Cetiner is their first ever prisoner of conscience jailed on the basis of sexuality; and(c) calls on the Australian Government to appeal to the Romanian Government to release Mariana Cetiner and others gaoled for consensual homosexual acts, and for the repeal of Article 200.Bills838s156838Motion (by Senator Stott Despoja) agreed to: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.Motion (by Senator Stott Despoja) agreed to:That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.Bill read a first time.83816:09:00838Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—I move:That this bill be now read a second time.I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.Leave granted.The speech read as follows—The rapid developments of genetic technology have changed the basic identity of individuals so that it is now possible to distinguish between individuals on the basis of their genetic material—the sequence code that makes up genes and chromosomes in every cell of our bodies. This achievement is significant and has the potential to provide considerable benefits through improved medicine and treatment of diseases. However, these advances also bring the need to develop new laws to deal with the new possibilities to make sure we achieve the full benefit of the new technologies.Genetics has been examined by the Parliament in legislation and before Parliamentary Committees. The Report to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Industry Science and Technology `Genetic Manipulation: The Threat or the Glory?' (February 1992) set out at recommendation 7:"The Committee recommends that a Parliamentary Standing Committee be given responsibility for examining and monitoring complex issues involving the overlap between technology, law and the protection of individual rights." Following this Report, the Privacy Commissioner prepared a Discussion Paper, `The Privacy Implications of Genetic Testing' (September 1995) which set out a range of issues, but did not make firm recommendations. Since then the Parliament has not considered this matter in any form of legislation. The Genetic Privacy and Non-discrimination Bill 1998 (the bill) does this, and sets out in detail the mechanisms by which human genetic information may be collected, stored and used.The recognition of genetic privacy in Australian law is timely. On 11 November 1997, the General Conference of the United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organisations (UNESCO) adopted, unanimously and by acclamation, the Universal Declaration on the Human Genome and Human Rights. The General Conference matched the Universal Declaration with a resolution on its implementation, which provides, in part:"Urges Member States:(a) in the light of the provisions of the Universal Declaration on the Human Genome and Human Rights, to take appropriate steps, including where necessary the introduction of legislation or regulations, to promote the principles set forth in the Declaration, and to promote their implementation;"Article 7 of this Universal Declaration provides:"Genetic data associated with an identifiable person and stored or processed for the purposes of research or any other purpose must be held confidential in the conditions set by law."This bill is based on the model `genetic privacy act' published by George Annas, Leonard Glantz and Patricia Roche of the Boston University School of Public Health and the bill called the `Genetic Confidentiality and Non-discrimination Act 1997' sponsored by Senators Pete Domenici, Christopher Dodd and James Jeffords (introduced on 11 March 1997) in the Senate of the United States. However, changes have been made to these templates relying on the enactments of other States and the unique institutions in Australia dealing with privacy and discrimination.There is a need for the Commonwealth to lead this debate and provide the guiding principles. The exponentially increasing number of genetic conditions which may be tested and the huge range of genetic information that will be available from the Human Genome Project will make genetic information a reality for many in our community. It is estimated there may be 3 000 to 4 000 genetic hereditary diseases and conditions and their identification at the gene level is possible. Each person probably carries a number of non-functioning genes (often lethals) and most probably a larger number of genes which place the individual at risk of developing some condition. Further, a harmonising national approach is essential to make compliance with the laws as easy as possible and avoid the potential for different, and conflicting, State and Territory legislation. These argument have been applied to all forms of privacy protection and it applies equally to genetic privacy and discrimination.This legislation is also necessary to reassure the Australian community that genetic science and (bio-)technology should be used for the benefit of society. Genetics is a rapidly developing science and technology with many prospects for commercialisation. The existing and future applications of this science and technology require a framework of legislative protections to ensure that the information which becomes available can be obtained and used with a certainty that it is not being misused. Without certainty that personal information is safe, our communities will continue to be reluctant to adopt the great potential that genetic sciences and technologies offers. This bill is essential to make sure we achieve the full potential of the technology and the promises of improving human health.This bill recognises there is a difference between personal information and personal genetic information. The Privacy Act 1988 addresses personal information and the Privacy Amendment Bill 1997 which I introduced earlier this year extends that protection to personal information in all sectors of the Australian community. This bill, however, addresses only genetic privacy and the related issue of genetic discrimination. The key difference between personal information and personal genetic information is that genetic information is a permanent part of our lives and those of our biological relatives.The issues are probably best illustrated by the example of the hunt for the breast cancer gene called BRCA1. Following a diagnosis of breast cancer in 1986 Kay Dickersin and her three sisters submitted themselves to DNA testing in Mary-Claire King's laboratory in Los Angeles. Through analysis of the sister's DNA, the laboratory and other collaborating laboratories identified a region of DNA which carried the undiscovered BRCA1 gene. Since then the gene has been cloned and the predictive DNA test is available. The issue for the community is how to ensure that this test, and others like it, are applied so that the basic privacy of individuals is adequately protected.In Kay Dickersin's case she had three sisters, two of whom also developed breast cancer at age 38. With 3 of the 4 sisters developing breast cancer before menopause, and the youngest sister aged 35 and free of breast cancer, this represented a good bet for an inherited breast cancer gene. If a predictive test had been available at that time, the issue for the family could have been to determine which family members carried the BRCA1 gene and whether the other family members should be tested or offered the test?This illustrates the central concern, and that is, how should the personal genetic information be collected, stored, corrected and disclosed. The information of the older sisters was that they have the BRCA1 gene. This was their information which was directly relevant to their lives. However, that information was also relevant to their youngest sister. She shares genes with her sisters and it was very likely she would have the same BRCA1 gene. Is her sister's genetic information also her information and what entitlements does she have to that information? Does she have a right to know that her siblings or relatives carry specific genes?This bill addresses some of these issues by providing for a scheme which gives to the individual the right to determine how their genetic information is disclosed. Under this bill, the individual will have to provide written authorisation for the collection, storage and analysis of a DNA sample. The genetic information can then only be disclosed (or re-disclosed) if the individual has authorised the disclosure, the disclosure is required or authorised by or under law or the person who possesses the information believes on reasonable grounds that the disclosure is necessary to prevent or lessen a serious and imminent threat to the life or health of the individual or of another person. The information may also be re-disclosed only to the extent reasonable in the exercise of judgment for professional medical consultation for the direct benefit of a patient or with the written authorisation of the individual.The recent High Court decision in Breen v. Williams confirmed patients do not have a right at common law of access to their medical records. These are the records that would in the majority of cases contain genetic information and the ways the information was obtained. This bill provides a right to inspect the genetic records and a mechanism to correct or identify disputed accuracy of those records. These provisions are not an acquisition of property and they should not offend the court's decision or the proprietary rights of medical record holders.This bill also addresses the issue of who owns the biological material from which the genetic information is derived. The case of Moore v Regents of the University of California concerned the ownership of biological materials and illustrates the problem. John Moore was diagnosed to have hairy cell leukaemia and sought help from Dr David Golde at the UCLA Medical Centre. John's cancerous spleen was removed and Dr Golde and his laboratory cultured cells from the tumour. They discovered unusual proteins in a cell line and filed a patent. The matter resulted in a dispute when Dr Golde attempted to get John to sign away his rights, which ended up in court. The court eventually decided that Dr Golde should have revealed his research to John, but granted the property rights of the cell line for a limited period to Dr Golde.The effect of this decision was to say that John did not own his own bodily material. This does not seem to be a satisfactory result and by extension means that bodily material, such as blood and DNA, used to obtain genetic information becomes the property of the tester. This is unfair. A patient with their unique biology should not be removed to the status of an interesting source of wealth, and their body and its materials should not be owned by another.A part of this concerns is addressed in the Patents Amendment Bill 1996 which is presently before the Senate. That bill excludes the patenting of gene and gene sequences. However, that bill does not adequately address the ownership of biological materials from a person. In this bill there are provisions which require authorisation for the collection, storage and use of biological material used to obtain the genetic information, and as a part of this authorisation there is a requirement that the individual have consented to the commercial use of the sample with a waiver or provision for the economic benefit to go to the individual. This provision is a balance between the interests of complete ownership and promoting the opportunity of researchers to derive a commercial benefit from their endeavours. This is not an easy compromise and may need to be reviewed based on the experience of this practice in Australia and overseas.Genetic discrimination describes the different treatment of individuals and their family based on genetic differences (presumed or actual) and may be distinguished from discrimination based on having symptoms of a genetic disease. On 11 November 1997, the General Conference of UNESCO adopted, unanimously and by acclamation, the Universal Declaration on the Human Genome and Human Rights. Article 6 provides:"No one shall be subjected to discrimination based on genetic characteristics that is intended to infringe or has the effect of infringing human rights, fundamental freedoms and human dignity."This bill outlaws genetic discrimination which occurs when an act involving a distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference is based on genetic information which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of any human right or fundamental freedom in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life. This discrimination should be unlawful unless the community sanctions particular forms of discrimination which are clearly set out in legislation. This bill achieves this goal by making all discrimination on the basis of genetic information unlawful except in certain circumstances of employment and insurance.There are no reported cases of discrimination based on the results of a test for BRCA-1 (or BRCA-2). The commercialisation of these tests will lead to more widespread testing and increase the dangers of genetic discrimination. However, if Kay Dickersin youngest sister as a healthy young woman went to her doctor for a routine checkup and mentioned her sisters had been diagnosed with the BRCA-1 gene and that was recorded on her medical record, then it would be open to an employer, an insurance company, etc. to use that information to treat her differently. It is estimated that a woman carrying the BRCA-1 gene will have an 83 per cent chance of getting breast cancer by the time they reach 70 years of age. Up until they develop the cancer the person may be healthy and may never suffer breast cancer. To treat Kay Dickersin youngest sister differently because she had a sister with the BRCA-1 gene or that she had the BRCA-1 gene itself is unfair. This form of discrimination should not be allowed and this bill will outlaw such discrimination.This bill recognises that genetic information may be of particular interest to an employer, employee and/or prospective employee where it would enable a genetically susceptible employee to avoid occupational exposure to substances with a mutagenic or teratogenic effect or determining a genotype that is otherwise directly related to the work and is consistent with business necessity. However, this use of genetic information must not restrict any right or benefit otherwise due or available to the employee (or prospective employee).The impact on insurance of genetic information is substantial and must be controlled. The insurance providers in Australia have taken steps towards addressing the use of genetic information, and these steps are commendable. However, this bill provides clear guidance that insurance providers cannot discriminate against a person or their family based on genetic information where that person or family member is presently healthy or on the basis of a request for or receipt of a genetic service. Further, an insurance provider cannot require an applicant to undergo genetic analysis or be questioned about genetic information and they must inform the person about their rights under this bill.Although there are no reported cases of genetic discrimination in Australia and world-wide the data is limited, such discrimination most probably does occur. A survey of 322 people with genetic disorders in 44 United States States found 22 per cent were refused health insurance and 13 per cent were denied or dismissed from a job. These findings do however, show genetic discrimination is an issue which should be addressed. This bill also deals with the vexed issue of those with a legal disability (for example, children) being subject to genetic analysis and how the resulting information will be disclosed—these decisions are left to the parent, guardian or legal representative.Where genetic analysis is carried out on a foetus, the foetus is treated as a part of the mother for the purposes of the bill. When the foetus is born alive, the genetic information then becomes the genetic information of the newborn and dealt with under the bill accordingly. That information remains available to the mother according to the disclosure provisions in the bill.The collection of genetic information about individuals is central to the advancement of our understanding of genetics. However this must be balanced against the privacy rights of individuals. This bill attempts to draw this distinction by requiring authorisation and notice for the collection of the information and for the storage and analysis of the DNA sample(s). The measures set out in this bill are directed at ensuring many of the contentious issues are dealt with before the research is undertaken so that there is agreement between both the researchers and their subjects. These measures are significant in that they allow the disclosure of genetic information for purposes other than those for which it was collected if personal identifiers are not used. Alternatively the authorisation of the individual can be obtained.We recognise the inherent dangers in limiting the availability of information collected for research purposes on the potential of that information as a resource for further research. The measures in this bill are a balance between the interests of the individual and the interests of researchers.This bill sets out a comprehensive scheme to deal with genetic testing. The bill is necessary because genetic science and technology are rapidly advancing and what was once difficult and expensive will soon be routine and cheap. The wealth of this new information must be recognised and put towards the benefit of our communities.Debate (on motion by Senator Calvert) adjourned.Miscellaneous841Motion (by Senator Chris Evans, at the request of Senator Reynolds) agreed to:That the Australian Government should mark International Women's Day 1998 by responding publicly to the recommendations made by the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women in July 1997, which include:That the Government should carefully monitor the impact of recent policy changes in all areas covered by the convention for inclusion in its next periodic report. To that end, it recommended that Australia conduct analyses of the successes and shortcomings of the new policies with a view to providing data for future action, both in Australia and elsewhere. It recommended that the Government design a long-term strategy aimed at the full implementation of the convention.That an evaluation should be conducted of the Workplace Relations Act 1996, assessing its impact on women of different age groups, with different educational levels and in different occupational groups. The Government should assess whether the Act leads to increased or decreased part-time and casual work, and its impact on women workers' benefits and on workers with family responsibilities, particularly women's ability to obtain maternity leave. A similar evaluation and assessment was recommended for Australia's new child care benefit scheme.That the Government assess the benefits of a continuing national women's health policy and ensure that any further change in that policy did not lead to a decreased access by women, especially vulnerable groups of women, to comprehensive health services. It also recommended that data and indicators on health should be collected, disaggregated by sex, age, ethnicity, rural/urban areas and other distinctions. Data should also be collected on the impact of the shift in responsibility for health care from the federal to the State level.That the convention, as well as the Beijing Declaration and Platform of Action, should be translated for non-English speaking Australians.That a comprehensive strategy to eliminate violence against women should be adopted following the National Domestic Violence Summit, with an emphasis on prevention, and with sufficient funding. It also recommended that ways should be found to involve women's groups in the development of strategies to reduce violence in the media, including electronic media, and that they should participate in the development of self-regulatory codes of practice of the media. The Government should further assess its monitoring and enforcement responsibilities in that regard.Noting the differing State provisions in relation to prostitution, the Government should assess the effectiveness of the varying measures in reducing the exploitation of prostitution.That the Government collect statistical data on the participation of indigenous women in the work force, in decision-making, in politics and administration, and in the judiciary. It suggested that the Government might include representa tives of indigenous communities when it presented its next report to the committee.That, in the light of the Mabo and Wik judgments of the High Court, the Government should develop the necessary legislative and policy measures to ensure women's equal access to individual ownership of native land.The Government strengthen its support for women's studies, provide funding for research and teaching, and facilitate international academic exchange and cooperation in that field.The Government resume its active and visible participation in international forums on women's equality, such as in the Commonwealth and the United Nations.The wide dissemination of these concluding comments in Australia, so as to make individuals aware of the steps that had been taken to ensure de facto equality for women.Miscellaneous842Motion (by Senator Allison) agreed to:That the Senate—(a) notes that: (i) the Minister for the Environment (Senator Hill) has released a consultation paper, entitled, Reform of Commonwealth Environment Legislation , seeking public comment by 23 March 1998, (ii) comment is called for on the most extensive review of environmental powers ever initiated by the Commonwealth, (iii) if it were a true public consultation process there would be no drafting of legislation until comments had been received and evaluated, (iv) while the Minister wants the legislation introduced into Parliament in April 1998, there is no need for this haste, and (v) the Minister is already getting the legislation drafted so that it will be ready regardless of the public comments received, making it a cynical public relations exercise; and(b) calls on the Minister to give a commitment to the Senate that the drafting of the legislation will immediately stop until the date for comments has closed and those comments received have been evaluated and incorporated into the review process.Miscellaneous842Motion (by Senator Stott Despoja) agreed to: That the Senate—(a) notes: (i) that 6 March 1998 was `Go Casual for a Cause' day, and (ii) that, on this day, members of the community are encouraged to `Go Casual for a Cause' by wearing jeans, pyjamas, a moth-balled relic from the past, or an `I would if I could' badge for those who cannot bring themselves to dress casually; and(b) commends the Spastic Centres of Australia in their bid to make Australians `Go Casual for a Cause' on 6 March 1998 in support of therapy, research, education and services for people with cerebral palsy.Matters of Public Importance842842UNKNOWNThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Patterson)The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Patterson)—The President has received a letter from Senator Woodley proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion, namely:The failure of the government to do anything effective about the crisis in the Australian citrus industry resulting in the loss of more than 440 million fresh Australian oranges a year.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—16:14:00842Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEYHX5QLDAD00—The state of the citrus industry is a very important matter. It is certainly important to those many primary producers who are affected by the fact that the government has done nothing to prevent the collapse of their industry. I would like to point out, not in my own words but largely in the words of the industry itself, what the failure of this government has meant.I will quote from a number of different sources. The first quote is from a media release by Sunraysia Citrus Growers Inc. headed `Orange growers dump Canberra'. They do not actually mean the city of Canberra, or even all the politicians in Canberra—quite specifically, they are dumping on the government. This press release is about impoverished citrus growers who want to draw attention to their dying industry which has been ruined by imported orange concentrate and improper labelling. Mr Peter Crisp, chief of Sunraysia Citrus Growers Inc., is reported as saying:It beggars common sense that a government of economic rationalists is sacrificing an industry which is not only internationally competitive but in the export arena outperforms beef, wheat and wool!He goes on:We have been lied to, conned, ignored and patronised by the Federal Government because they just won't act nationally or internationally to save our industry . . .Sunraysia Citrus Growers went on to say in their press release that `Australia is awash in a sea of cheap Brazilian orange juice concentrate'. Mr Crisp then says:This will lead to the destruction of 500,000 orange trees within two years making a total of 1.1 million Australian orange trees ripped up over five years, all because the Government—including the former government—places political expediency above rational economics. We believe consumers will react with horror when they discover this means the loss of more than—this is where the figure comes from—440 million fresh Australian oranges a year.He goes on to say:What makes us angry is Australian companies, some of whom received financial support from their State governments, are selling Brazilian concentrate as an Australian product! Because of ludicrous labelling laws this amounts to misleading Australian consumers in a big way—again promises from Federal and State politicians/governments have resulted in no tangible action!EP5FERGUSONSenator Ferguson—So what is your solution? Have you got some solutions?HX5Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEY—Again, talking about pre-election promises for labelling legislation, the South Australian Farmers Federation, Senator Ferguson would be interested to know, said to me that this government has done nothing and they are very upset that the legislation promised to them has not eventuated. The press release continues:Lending support to the growers plight, Mr Adam Thyssen, manager of the nation's largest fresh orange juice enterprise, the Original Juice Company, said today, "We have been running a TV and radio campaign to convince consumers to buy Australian orange juice because, quite frankly, if they don't the industry will simply disappear. An unnecessary, tragic loss for Australia".Let me also quote some facts and figures from an orange fact sheet supplied to me by the industry:Due to Federal Government trade policies and inadequate labelling laws, 1.1 million Australian orange trees will be destroyed by 2000. Reducing the amount of oranges grown in Australia by a staggering—I will repeat the figure because I know some members were incredulous when they read it on the Notice Paper ; this is from the industry—440 million per year!That is a loss of food to this country. Let me give some more facts:Orange juice is still the only breakfast food that pays a wholesale tax of 12%. Milk, coffee, butter, cereal, tea and bread are all tax free.In a 1997 benchmarking study the Australian citrus industry was confirmed as being internationally competitive.So the industry are doing their best. They are not relying on just domestic markets. They are trying to be competitive in export markets, but they are having the ground stripped from underneath them. The fact sheet continues:During the last two years Brazilian orange juice concentrate has flooded into Australia at an alarming rate equivalent to 300,000 tonnes (of fresh fruit) per annum, or 150,000,000 litres of orange juice a year.Despite promises from both State and Federal politicians to reform labelling laws, Brazilian concentrate is still on our supermarket shelves labelled in such a way that it can easily be confused by the consumer for an Australian product.. . . . . . . . .Southern Australia's 2,400 citrus growers (located in NSW, Victoria, SA) employ directly and indirectly around 7,000. Australia's juice processors employ approximately another 3,000 people—this is the industry that this government refuses to support—Together they are an economic rationalist's dream in terms of efficiency and export performance. These industries contribute $millions to the national economy. So why is it that Federal and State governments alike sit on their hands watching the entire industry crumble? The Original Juice Company pays Australian orange growers $210 per tonne and the average labour rate is $110 per day.(Time expired)16:21:00844Troeth, Sen JudithSenator TROETHGX5VICLP10—I thank Senator Woodley for giving us this opportunity to talk today about the true state of the citrus industry and how the government is assisting growers. This situation is not new. Citrus growers have been aware for a long time that they need to move into higher value produce, and indeed many have done this. The returns from whole fruit for export and the production of whole fruit for the domestic market compared with the returns for juice have been and always will be very much higher. In view of Senator Woodley's comments that the industry is disappearing, it is important to note that in 1996-97 total citrus exports were valued at $175 million—3½ times the level of citrus imports. So we are obviously exporting far more citrus than we import.The decision as to what people grow and how they grow it is made by, as in any other industry, growers. It is not a government decision that trees are being removed. On the other hand, it is the decision by growers to deliberately concentrate on either growing trees that will produce better or other products such as wine grapes or table grapes that will return a far greater level for their investment.As far as Senator Woodley's charges are concerned that the industry will disappear, it is also important to note that citrus exports in 1996-97 were five times the value of exports seven years ago. That is a growth of over 30 per cent per annum—a good improvement in anyone's terms and certainly not an indication that this very important industry is disappearing. The returns from the 20 per cent of citrus production that is exported represents about 50 per cent of total citrus returns. It is in that production of whole fruit that the real value of the industry lies. The progressive citrus producers are now pruning, thinning and consciously culturing their trees in order to increase the quality pack-out ratios and thereby reduce their reliance on the juice concentrate sector. I must emphasise that that reworking of trees does not necessarily involve pulling the trees out.I do not deny that the Asian currency crisis has obviously had an impact on fresh product, particularly that going to Indonesia. But the government is acting to minimise this impact through IMF assistance packages to Thailand, Indonesia and South Korea as well as through the Export Finance Insurance Corporation's short-term credit insurance through the national interest facility. I would like the Senate also to note that, as a result of recent events, Indonesia has recently reduced tariff levels on imports of fresh citrus from 25 per cent to five per cent—an event which will help Australian exporters considerably in the longer term.I chair the Citrus Market Development Group, which over the previous five years has had a budget of $8.4 million to assist citrus growers. This money is available for a variety of projects that will benefit the industry in terms of developing market opportunities. Since 1994, projects have been funded to assist the industry with export market and development, with technical adjustment and with promotion of 100 per cent Australian fresh orange juice on the domestic market. We look forward to further activity on behalf of this group, which has $500,000 to commit in this financial year and a further $1.54 million in the next financial year to fund these projects. But it is up to the industry to determine how they want that money spent and to put it to that group for consideration. It is not for government, Senator Woodley, to tell growers what they should grow or how they should grow it.I would now like to move to the issue of labelling. The industry believes strongly that one of the key ways in which the government can assist the industry is through improved labelling laws. I am pleased to say that the Hon. Warren Truss, the Minister for Customs and Consumer Affairs, will be introducing legislation very shortly to improve our labelling laws, not only to benefit the industry but also to provide further information to consumers in a way that is much clearer.Like me, all senators and indeed all those listening will have been into supermarkets where they have been unable to read the very fine print on labels to determine where exactly the product comes from. Under these new laws the label `Product of Australia' will mean just that: 100 per cent Australian content. To use the `Made in Australia' label, two tests will have to be passed: one, the product will have to be substantially transformed in Australia to be a new and significantly different product; and, two, at least 50 per cent of the cost of production must have been incurred in Australia.The regulations will specifically address the very point that Senator Woodley made. It will no longer be possible to add Australian water to Brazilian concentrate and pass that off as an Australian product. They will specifically preclude that advantage being taken. Senator Woodley, we expect you and the Democrats to support this legislation when it comes into the Senate. So, having taken into account the remarks you have just made on labelling, we certainly expect to see the Democrats voting with the government when those labelling laws arrive.HX5WOODLEYSenator Woodley—We will vote with you. We will probably have to fix it up, though, before we do.GX5Troeth, Sen JudithSenator TROETH—No; it is such carefully crafted legislation that any assistance from you probably will not be needed.I would now like to move to the rural partnerships programs. The government has made funds available to the major citrus growing areas of New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia through the rural partnership program. The kick-start Sunraysia strategy centred around Mildura will provide $10.8 million over three years to the Sunraysia region to enable irrigation farmers to initiate redevelopment programs and move towards planting some of the crops that I mentioned earlier. They will then become sufficiently viable to be able to continuously invest in the world's best technology for production and sustainability. Similar plans are under way for the final form of the Riverland and Murrumbidgee irrigation area strategies. A commitment is in place by this government. Funding is available and we await the cooperation of the state governments in this happening.The other assistance that we have provided includes such items as the tri-state fruit fly strategy; the government advancing agricultural Australia package of $500 million, which assists citrus farmers, among others, with farm business plans; the research and development matching dollars provided by the government through the payment of industry levies; and the benefit of a more open trade environment, with new markets being opened in Thailand, Taiwan, the Philippines and the US.I must emphasise that industry has its part to play in this. We are looking for expressions from industry through the Citrus Market Development Group, the Australian Citrus Growers Association and all those grower, processor and marketing groups which take an interest in the citrus industry. All of those groups have avenues to government. We look for expressions of interest from them. There will be no heavy-handed government interference in this industry, Senator Woodley. The days of that have passed.This government looks for an open expression of interest from the industry as to the way in which this government can best assist it. We will then move towards that assistance through the programs that I have already mentioned, certainly through my own activities as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, the Hon. John Anderson, and in my role as having particular responsibility for horticulture and, through that, the citrus industry. Those citrus growers with whom I have already spoken on my visits to the Riverland, the Murrumbidgee irrigation area and Queensland know that I am always very happy to hear from them about the way in which this government can continue to assist their industry.16:30:00845Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—Let me say at the outset that the opposition supports the terms of the matter of public importance that has been proposed by Senator Woodley today. We strongly support the proposition that this government has failed and failed dismally when it comes to doing anything effective about the crisis in the Australian citrus industry. It is a pity that the Australian Democrats earlier in the day did not show the sort of concern for a serious matter like this that they are now showing. It is a pity that we wasted a lot of time on the disgraceful censure motion that the government moved. It would have been better spent devoting more time to this important issue.Let us look at the government's position. The parliamentary secretary, Senator Troeth, at the conclusion of her remarks called upon the industry to put forward their views and their strategies, to be a partner in an approach to looking at the problems with the industry. That is all well and good. The problem, however, that Senator Troeth, Minister Anderson and the government have to come to grips with is that this is a crisis. The word in the motion is correct; there is a crisis in the citrus industry.I have had the opportunity over a number of years to be involved closely with the citrus industry and the fruit growing industry particularly in my former capacity as an official of the Australian Workers Union. Whilst members of the government like to deride anybody who happens to have a trade union background, the fact is that that gave me an opportunity to visit many, if not all, of the fruit growing regions of Australia and talk to employers, particularly family orchardists, fruit growers and their employees. Many of those employees, as Senator Ferguson coming from South Australia no doubt recognises, are hardworking seasonal itinerant workers. They come back year after year to the same district to bring in the fruit crop.The problem we have today is that, because of a range of factors, particularly because of the depressed—in fact, collapsed—price for fruit internationally, Australian fruit growers are being hit harder than they have ever been hit before. It is no good standing up and talking about strategies and plans for partnerships when you have the jobs of 9,000 employees under threat and you have the interests of 3,000 fruit growers under threat. Action has to be taken and taken now.EP5FERGUSONSenator Ferguson—What are your solutions? 656Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW—I will come in a moment to what we propose, Senator Ferguson. We are here talking about the failures of this government.This is one of Australia's major rural industries. It has a great tradition in this country. For a long time Australia has been about 75 per cent self-sufficient in terms of its requirements for fruit and fruit juice. As Senator Woodley referred to, and as I think all members of parliament know—if they do not they should know because of the constant cries from industry representatives and from my former trade union, the Australian Workers Union, to members of parliament who have been lobbying us—we have this major problem of the importation of large quantities of Brazilian fruit juice concentrate.We all recognise that Australia played a leading role in the promotion of trade liberalisation. Our government, the former Labor government, was at the forefront of that with the establishment of the Cairns Group. We do not resile in any respect from that, but the dilemma that is faced today that was not necessarily faced even a couple of years ago is that, with this massive collapse in prices that has occurred in the last couple of years and with the ability for manufacturers in this country to import huge quantities of Brazilian fruit juice and then market it often in a disguised way or in a misunderstood way as if it is produce of Australia because it has Australian water added to it, we have fruit growers and fruit industry workers on their knees.This government has talked about what it is going to do in the areas of labelling, but when is it going to get around to it? This issue has been on the government's doorstep for at least 12 months. This government has talked about the fact that industries should cooperate and participate in developing alternative products. That may be a good long-term view, but when it came to the crunch in the textile, clothing and footwear industry and when it came to the crunch in the motor vehicle industry this government was forced to backtrack on the implementation of its policies. That was because of the critical situation that was reached in those industries.It is quite clear that one can support quite openly the appropriate reduction of tariffs over time. But crisis situations do arise in industries, as they did in the steel industry when our government was in office—and we dealt with it at the time, as would be known about by Senator George Campbell. Your government eventually was forced to the table with textile clothing and footwear and vehicle manufacturing industries. So why can't you also do the same thing in respect of the citrus industry?We have a situation where growers and grower organisations have been screaming for months now, sending deputations to the government, and they are still waiting for responses; they are still waiting for some glimmer of hope from this government. But, of course, this government is preoccupied. It does not really seem to have too much of a concern about the crisis facing many people in rural and regional Australia. As I said the other day, we have not heard boo from this government or this minister about the problems that have affected the people in Cobar, or in Grafton, or now in Woodlawn Mine—and equally in respect of the citrus industry.In contrast, Senator Ferguson referred earlier to the ALP's position. The position of the ALP was firmly put down at the national conference held in Hobart only a couple of months ago. In relation to its position, I would like to read to you, Senator Ferguson, from a newspaper report of that conference. This is from the Area News, a country newspaper in rural New South Wales, of Wednesday 28 January. These are not newspapers that are necessarily noted for their great support for the Labor Party. But the heading of the article is `Welcome citrus news from ALP conference'. It states:Citrus growers should be heartened by the knowledge their plight has been recognised and taken on board by the Australian Labor Party at national policy level.By embedding anti-dumping measures in its core policy, the Labor Party is formally acknowledging that Australian industries must be allowed to compete fairly in order to survive. The Shadow Minister for Trade, Simon Crean has declared his view that Australian industry should not be forced to compete unfairly against product coming in that itself is not fairly priced.. . . . . . . . .. . . Labor is giving some hope to citrus growers and other industries which have suffered under the current trade conditions.Then it goes on:Support for the citrus industry has also come from Russ Collison, the State Secretary for the Australian Workers Union, who was in Griffith last year and spoke at the Citrus and Chicken Meat Rally.The citrus industry is now waiting on a response from the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade, Tim Fischer, following on the meeting at Tooleybuo recently.As many in the industry recognise, now is the time to put pressure on politicians while they're in election mode.So, Senator Ferguson, I would say that you can expect a few more phone calls from the citrus growers. The article concludes:Unless something is achieved soon, then growers will be waiting for the ballot box to make their views known in the only way some politicians understand.So the position of the Labor Party is that there needs to be urgent action; there needs to be a package of support for citrus growers and employees in the citrus industry—and that package of support should be developed and should be provided urgently. Furthermore, the long term position of the industry, particularly in respect of how it can cope with the depressed price market and the quite unfair comparative tariff levels in other countries, needs to be resolved.In conclusion, we support this motion. It is self-evident that this government has failed the citrus growers and the citrus industry. They are but one group of many in this country that are complaining long and loud about the lack of support for rural and regional Australia.I note that Senator Boswell will be speaking after I have concluded. Senator Boswell no doubt will try and get up here in some pathetic attempt to defend the government's record. But Senator Boswell knows just as I know that, when you go out—and Senator Woodley knows this—into the rural and regional areas, as I am constantly doing, and talk to the sugar growers, or the wheat growers, or the meat industry employees, or the miners, or the local government representatives in country towns, or when you talk to the citrus growers, as I have done down in the Riverina, they have one message. That message is: this government has failed them.What they are even more concerned about, what they are even more upset about is that the National Party has failed them. All these seats in these areas are invariably held by National Party members. I go up to Page fairly regularly—EU4O'CHEESenator O'Chee—You have not made much impression then, have you?656Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW—We have made a large impression, I tell you. Ian Causley is a very worried man. Just as the electors of Clarence elected Harry Woods to the state parliament with a resounding victory at that state by-election, they are going to kick Ian Causley out of his seat because he has done nothing for the farmers and people in that area. I support the motion wholeheartedly.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Patterson)—Order! Senator Forshaw, would you refer to members of the other side by their proper title?656Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW—Member Causley.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Mr Causley, thank you.656Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW—Mr Causley.16:42:00848Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I am encouraged by the words of some members of the Labor Party today, in particular those of Senator Forshaw saying that the Labor Party has discovered some of the problems in relation to the citrus industry. I am encouraged because, as some honourable senators will know, the citrus industry was extremely concerned in the lead-up to the Uruguay Round of GATT about the implications that so-called free trade would have on the industry—and they were basically left floating at that time.The current crisis in the citrus industry is no surprise to the Greens WA. During the debate on the Uruguay Round of GATT and the World Trade Organisation, and currently in relation to the Multilateral Agreement on Investment, the Greens have repeatedly warned the major parties against embracing these agreements wholeheartedly without thorough consideration of the impacts and implications for Australians. We wanted to look, if you recall, at the social, economic and environmental impacts of these changes over time. What would be the impacts on productive capacity; what would the impacts on employment; and what would be the impacts in the long run on the balance of trade—and we know what the impacts have been on that.We also know what the impacts have been on some of those industries which were meant to be the big winners—the beef industry and the wool industry. A lot of those other rural industries were basically told to be quiet because there was going to be so much benefit for other parts of the rural industry—and, of course, it did not happen.The major parties have assumed, without investigation, that the benefits will be realised and everyone will be a winner. The citrus industry is a shining example of the devastating effect that can result from this kind of blind attitude. The industry has been burdened with a reduction in tariff protection from 35 per cent to five per cent in the last decade, and a sales tax of 12 per cent on freshly squeezed orange juice, without adequate assistance for the industry in the adjustment phase. As a result, there has been a flood of cheap Brazilian concentrated orange juice, the citrus industry has had to destroy thousands of trees, and the viability of the industry is under threat.We acknowledge that the export figures have increased over the last six years, and this evidences the commitment of the citrus industry to building up export markets and pursuing international areas. However, a strong home base is crucial for the continued survival of this industry, which is trying desperately and valiantly to adjust and diversify. Figures stated in the Australian Commodity Statistics 1996, produced by ABARE, show that imported orange juice has increased from a mere 7.1 per cent of domes tic availability in 1988-89 to 67.8 per cent in 1995-96—or from 6.3 million litres in 1988-89 to 129.7 million litres in 1996-97. (Time expired)16:45:00849Ferguson, Sen AlanSenator FERGUSONEP5SALP10—I am not surprised at Senator Woodley's contribution to this debate, or Senator Margetts's, because they are entirely predictable. Senator Woodley travels around Queensland and other rural areas of Australia trying to canvass some support for the Democrats in those areas, and he will never get it because everything he says is totally illogical. Senator Woodley tries to highlight what he perceives to be problems but he never offers a solution. In all the time that he spoke, not once did he offer any solution. I am not surprised at his contribution, or that of Senator Margetts, but when it comes to Senator Forshaw's contribution, I am somewhat surprised.Senator Forshaw, your government was in power for a long, long time, and a lot of the things that we have in place are there as a result of the actions taken by your government. Yet now, for some perceived political gain, you choose to change practically every view that you have had. You are now getting to the stage where you never get up and say, `All we did was wrong and we are going to change our ideas.' All you are saying is that you are going to tinker at the edges. I asked you to provide some solutions as to how this problem could be overcome—because you said you had all the solutions when you were in government, which in fact you did not—but you did not come up with one concrete solution. What would you like us to do? Would you like to raise imports?10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Patterson)—Senator Ferguson, address your comments through the chair.EP5Ferguson, Sen AlanSenator FERGUSON—I am sorry, Madam Acting Deputy President. The question I would put to you is: what would Senator Forshaw have us do? Would he have us prevent imports and raise tariffs? That is one solution. That is really what you are after.You say that many growers have called for restrictions on imports of orange juice concentrate and that is a fact; specifically, they have talked about stopping imports from Brazil. But let me ask you, Senator Forshaw: what would happen if we did decide that we were going to cut our imports? If we cut off any of our markets to overseas suppliers, how is that in Australia's interest? As well as increasing prices, restrictions on imports would be challenged by our trading partners—who are members of the WTO—and this could only lead to retaliation, which would not be in the best interests of Australian industry, Australian farmers or Australian jobs.You allude to the fact that orange juice concentrate is dumped in Australia. There are anti-dumping measures in place, but nobody has made use of the anti-dumping measures to try to stop what they perceive to be dumping of concentrated orange juice. Lost export markets, if we have retaliation, would not be in the best interests of Australian industry, Australian farmers, rural producers or Australian jobs. There are 130 countries in the World Trade Organisation and there are another 28 countries seeking to get into it because of the benefits it provides. Not once, Senator Woodley, did I hear you mention any of the benefits it provides, because with 0.3 per cent of the world's population and only one per cent of the world's trade, Australia cannot gain by closing off our markets and having our export markets shrink.We do not believe that we can just naively go outside the rules agreed on in the Uruguay Round of world trade negotiations which were finalised by the previous government. Your government finalised them, and we do not believe that we can just naively go outside those rules. That hard-won market access has benefits of an estimated $5 billion per annum to Australian industry, including $1 billion to the agricultural sector. The government is not prepared to put at risk these benefits to the wider Australian community.The benefits of open trade are not always well known because this is the good news that no-one complains about. But in citrus alone over the past two years, as my colleague Senator Troeth said, new markets have been opened up in Thailand, Taiwan, the Philippines and the United States. We know that the situation is not a level playing field, but we must work hard to make it fairer. That is what this government has been consistently trying to do for a number of years now, and yet you would turn your back, Senator Forshaw, on those things that have made world trade much fairer today than it ever was—YE4BOSWELLSenator Boswell—What about all the blue-collar workers?EP5Ferguson, Sen AlanSenator FERGUSON—I am not sure that he is very concerned about the blue-collar workers, but let me tell you that it has been made fairer and we have not turned our backs like you have on your policy. (Time expired)16:50:00850Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRYZW4TASALP00—My contribution may surprise the government, but I am largely going to agree with the position and strategy taken by the government on the citrus industry to date. I will be critical in respect of the resources allocated to the strategy they are following. I would also like to take the opportunity to congratulate Senator Troeth on being appointed Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy.The difficulty facing the citrus industry is, fundamentally, the importation of cheap concentrate from Brazil. There are a number of other sources but, in the main, it is coming from Brazil. The very difficult and sad fact is that the Australian industry, when it is producing for the juice market—the fresh juice market aside—cannot compete against Brazilian and other imports. Production costs in that segment of the market, for a variety of reasons, are much lower in Brazil than can be achieved in Australia. Unfortunately, Australian citrus producers—if they are producing in the main for juice concentrate—cannot compete against Brazil.We had this debate back in 1994, and I am glad Senator Boswell is in the chamber because he was one who contributed on that occasion. We had the debate when we were considering eight bills in respect of the World Trade Organisation.The simple solution that is advocated is to put a tariff on imported concentrates of juice. The fact is that the juice concentrate being imported into this country does not fit into the category of dumping. It is produced at a lower cost and we cannot compete in that segment of the market. If you were to consider a tariff, putting aside the difficulties that Senator Ferguson has mentioned for example, it would have to be a tariff of massive proportions. It would have to be a tariff of 100, 200 or 300 per cent and that is simply not possible if we are to meet our obligations in respect of the various GATT agreements and the World Trade Organisation. It is simply not possible and I certainly do not advocate that.The approach that the Labor Party took when it was in office was to try, in a proactive way, to assist the industry to refocus and to restructure—to deal with the fundamental problems that the Australian citrus industry faces. Except for Queensland—and I am sure Senator Boswell is aware of the structure of the industry in Queensland—the producers of citrus are generally small scale land-holders, especially in Victoria, New South Wales and South Australia. Many of them have properties that have been inherited from solider settlement days. These are very small properties where it is difficult to obtain an economy of scale.The citrus industry, in common with many other areas around Australia and many other sectors of the agricultural industry, is facing the phasing of full cost recovery for water in the area of irrigation. That is a substantial problem of adjustment, particularly for the citrus industry, which is a very substantial user of water. The cost recovery of water is a position subscribed to by Labor, and Liberal and National Party governments at a federal and state level.One of the critical problems for producers in New South Wales, South Australia and Victoria is that their pack-out rate—in other words, the proportion of their crop that is produced and sold as whole fruit where it is possible to make money—is very low. I do not know the latest figures—YE4BOSWELLSenator Boswell—Sixty per cent, isn't it?ZW4Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRY—In 1994 I think it was about 30 per cent. I suspect it has actually improved since then.YE4BOSWELLSenator Boswell—Forty per cent go and 60 per cent are for juice.ZW4Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRY—That is right. If it is 40 per cent at the present time then 60 per cent of their crop, which is hand picked, goes to juice. It is a market they cannot compete in against the Brazilian imports.That is contrasted to the situation in your home state of Queensland, Senator Boswell, where the pack-out is between 80 and 90 per cent. Eighty or 90 per cent of the fruit that is picked is for the whole fruit market, whether it is domestic or export. Only a very small proportion of the crop goes to the juice market. That is one advantage that Queensland growers have. Also, because of the climatic differences, Queensland growers are able to market in the domestic market and to some extent in the export market before southern growers. That is another important advantage that Queensland growers have. Thirdly, the properties of Queensland growers, on average, are larger than properties in southern Australia, so there is an economy of scale factor. I also understand that substantial sections of the Queensland industry are relatively new in a sense compared to the three southern states. Therefore it is very difficult for producers in the three southern states to compete in the juice concentrate market.What was the approach of Labor when it was in government? I think Senator Ferguson was a little uncharitable in his remarks. Labor did recognise that there were some fundamental structural problems. Labor and the minister for primary industries and energy at the time, Senator Bob Collins, announced the allocation of $9 million for various programs in the citrus industry. This was a good example of the role of government in being proactive in industry development and industry assistance.What was the $9 million for? It was for a variety of proactive programs to benefit the citrus industry, including citrus promotion, additional research for new markets, fresh juice promotion, export marketing and product identity. That was a Labor Party initiative. I know Senator Boswell argued at the time about whether or not it was enough.The area where I will be critical of this government is their reduction of the funding from $9 million to $8.5 million. That is very disappointing given the very serious nature of the problems facing the citrus industry. It could certainly be argued that in the current climate, with the continuing increase of imports, particularly of Brazilian concentrate, the allocation of money could have been increased. I hope you take that suggestion on board, Senator Boswell, because I would like to see the National Party flex its muscles in this and other primary industry areas. Unfortunately that muscle is sadly lacking. That is not a personal reflection on you but unfortunately, under the current coalition arrangements, the voice of the National Party is not being heard in this and some other areas. That has been reflected in that budget allocation of $8.5 million.The fundamental challenge for the citrus growers, particularly in the southern states of Australia, is to improve the pack out rate. I acknowledge that that is not easy to do. It means a significant change in practices. Unfortunately, I think it does mean a significant increase in the average size of properties. Unfortunately, that means some rationalisation of the industry. I have to be honest about it. I think that is happening and is inevitably going to continue. But there is an important role for government in providing both positive assistance and assistance in other forms to the growers in that industry.I also think this does mean ongoing upgrading of many of our irrigation projects around Australia. I do not hold federal governments responsible for this, but it is a sad fact that successive state governments have neglected the irrigation infrastructure in this country. It is all very well to have constructed irrigation projects around the country and to have encouraged soldier settlement. I applaud that. But over a long period state governments did not upgrade the irrigation infrastructure in this country. We still have open channel irrigation in this country, and that is very inefficient for the delivery of water.I have touched very briefly in my contribution to this debate on some of the essential elements and problems that are facing the citrus industry. I do have some time left so perhaps I will highlight the last figures I have available, which I think are for 1992-93. I am sure these have changed, but they do illustrate the problem. The average return to a grower for concentrate was $90 per tonne. The average cost of production was $150 a tonne in 1992-93. It is probably worse now. Fresh juice products gave an average return of $176 to a grower and the production costs were $150, so they could just make ends meet in the fresh juice area. Domestic fruit orange sales were $200 a tonne and production costs were $150 a tonne. Export navel oranges gave a return of $324 to the grower and had a production cost return of $150. I am sure those figures have got worse. I can see Senator Boswell nodding. He may have some updated figures.I have been a touch critical of the government and I have to conclude by saying that the government has reached some agreements for export marketing. It could have been a little more balanced and acknowledged that in 1995 we did improve the market access to Thailand. (Time expired)17:03:00852Boswell, Sen RonaldSenator BOSWELLYE4QLDNP10—At the outset, let me commend Senator Sherry for a speech that was truthful and honest. Sometimes in this place you have to do that. You have to stand up and tell people what is good for them, although they might not want to hear it. Going out and misleading them, telling them you can build up artificial trade barriers and raise the tariffs sounds good, Senator Woodley, but it is not. You are playing right into the hands of Pauline Hanson. You are where the left meets the right. You are firmly jammed up together with her, arms around each other, walking towards dishonesty and towards misleading the primary industries of Australia.HX5WOODLEYSenator Woodley—Who is going to swap preferences with whom? That will really be the test, whose arm is around who.YE4Boswell, Sen RonaldSenator BOSWELL—Your arm is firmly around Ms Pauline Hanson's shoulders, as you march together, misleading the primary producers of Australia. Much as he would like a tariff barrier to help him out, any primary producer knows that it is not feasible. As Senator Sherry correctly pointed out in his contribution, if we were to do that we would need tariffs of around 200-300 per cent. That is not feasible.Senator Woodley, let me address a couple of items you brought up which were relevant. When I was listening to you on the TV, I responded to your address by ringing Warren Truss's office up and saying, `When is this labelling legislation coming through?' I was told that the labelling legislation would be coming into this parliament around 30 March. I have two press releases here to verify it. The points you pick up on labelling are valid, and I believe the government has responded to those points by having legislation which it will introduce on the 30th of this month. Let us put the labelling issue to one side and say that that has been fixed.The real issue is that Australia exports $23 billion worth of food and fibre. Through that process, it creates 180,000 blue collar jobs. Those are the jobs of people that work in Golden Circle, in the sugar mills and in the abattoirs. They all depend on trade liberalisation. The more the tariffs come down in overseas countries, the more our export markets increase and, therefore, the more blue collar jobs increase. The highest employer of blue collar workers in this nation is the food processing industry. It produces and provides 180,000 jobs to Australian workers. I expect you have been down to Golden Circle, Senator Woodley—HX5WOODLEYSenator Woodley—On a number of occasions.YE4Boswell, Sen RonaldSenator BOSWELL—on a number of occasions, as all good Queensland senators would. The reduction in the sugar tariff meant about $800,000 to Golden Circle. It meant $200,000 to the ginger industry. They can increase their production and their profits and their workers' wages. They can put on more workers and export. That is how it works. If you reduce your costs, you can increase your production.But then you talk about the industry being in crisis. I accept that some sections of the industry are in crisis—I have to acknowledge that—but some sections of the industry are doing very nicely. Some sections of the industry, particularly the ones in Queensland where they have gone into easy peel fruits and they have access to early markets, are doing exceptionally well. Mention a tariff to them and they will run you off their property. They do not want a tariff because they can get into the export markets, and they do not want any retaliation from Asia or the US, which have cut their tariffs and provided them with export market opportunities. We are now exporting $175 million in citrus—$175 million worth of oranges and easy peel fruits, including mandarins, are going out. So $175 million of navels are going out and around $46 million in the equivalent of orange juice concentrate is coming in. Where the swings meet the roundabouts the industry is doing reasonably well.I accept totally that some people in the industry are not doing well, and I hear it ad nauseam from John Forrest in our party room—how we have got to do more and how we have got to provide more adjustment. I hear it, I listen to him and I know the agony that he is going through.HX5WOODLEYSenator Woodley—A true National. He is a good man.YE4Boswell, Sen RonaldSenator BOSWELL—Yes, he is. I know that he has fought for and won some $3½ million worth of concessions for the fruit industry in his electorate. The way out of this—and we have got to understand it because we are doing so well—is with our exports: $23 billion worth of exports and we are actually importing about $4 billion worth of food.The dairy industry is going particularly well: $1.6 billion worth of exports. Mention tariffs to them and they go into cold shock. The sugar industry is going particularly well. The wheat industry is going particularly well. We are exporting $23 billion worth of food and importing $4 billion worth of product.Senator Woodley, if you got your way—and I do not think you do this out of ignorance; I think you actually do it out of goodwill, but your intentions are very misplaced—we would rely totally on a domestic industry. We would stop imports, we would stop exports, and someone has then got to go out to the Australian farmer and say, `I am totally sorry. Four out of five of you have got to go be cause we need only one farmer in five to grow enough, to produce enough, for Australia's domestic industry.' If your policies were implemented, Senator Woodley, someone would have to go out and say `You are redundant' to four out of five farmers. (Time expired)17:10:00853Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEYHX5QLDAD00—in reply—I will reply particularly to some of the statements made by some of the government senators on this matter of public importance. I am really amazed that Senator Boswell did not actually say what his government was going to do. He spent most of his time saying what he thought my policy was and, of course, he is wrong—but that is okay. In reply to Senator Boswell, Senator Ferguson and Senator Troeth, let me give you one solution: how about some support for our domestic markets instead of destroying them? I am not saying that we should close our borders, but I will tell you what the orange growers are saying. They are saying, `Give us a little bit of support for a change instead of allowing us to be destroyed.'The Democrats do not believe in the rhetoric about global trade. We have not seen any improvement in the fairness in the global market, and there never will be. We believe that you are chasing after a rainbow, and it is about time that you woke up.Senator Boswell said that I have got my arm around Pauline Hanson. We will see, come the federal election, where the National Party's preferences go, because I can tell you that the Democrats have already declared we will put her last. I suspect that you will find that there will be a cosy deal done between Pauline Hanson's One Nation and the National Party because they are desperate. They are going to lose a lot of their seats unless they can do that deal with her. We know where their votes are going.I am glad to hear that labelling legislation is in the pipeline at last because a lot of the farmers organisations really believed, when they heard this promise at the last election, that was actually going to happen fairly soon. It has come very late in the life of this parliament. I might say that we will look very carefully at that legislation because the cur rent legislation in terms of labelling is really quite useless.Senator Troeth said this government would not interfere with the industry. She really means that we will allow the citrus industry to try and compete with imports from Brazil. I will finish a quote that I was making in my previous contribution to show you just how unfair is the market that we compete in. The Original Juice Company pays Australian orange growers $210 per tonne and the average labour rate is $110 per day. Brazilian orange juice concentrate manufacturers pay their orange growers $30 per tonne and the labour rate is $4 per day. I presume that is what the government wants our workers to be paid. (Time expired)10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Jacinta Collins)—Order! The discussion on the matter of public importance is concluded.Committees85485485417:13:00854Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY3L6VICALP00—At the request of Senator Cooney, I present the second report of 1998 of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills. I also lay on the table Scrutiny of Bills Alert Digest No. 2 of 1998 dated 11 March 1998.I move:That the report be printed.17:14:00854McKiernan, Sen JamesSenator McKIERNAN1I4WAALP00—I want to take the opportunity to speak very briefly on the presentation of this report. I do it particularly for the reason that the chair of this committee is my colleague Senator Barney Cooney from Victoria. Senator Cooney was listed on our side as a speaker on the censure motion that took place here this morning but, when Senator Alston moved in with his gag motion, Senator Cooney and other senators on this side of the chamber were not able to make a contribution to that debate. It is the first time in 17 years that the gag has been moved and carried on a censure motion. 3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—Disgraceful.1I4McKiernan, Sen JamesSenator McKIERNAN—It is indeed disgraceful, Senator Conroy. It is worse than disgraceful, but we have got a probity in this place about the type and form of language that we use and I am not going to go further. It is indeed, as you said, disgraceful to move a gag in that fashion. Of course, the censure motion was carried—H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—You're not going to gag the native title debate.1I4McKiernan, Sen JamesSenator McKIERNAN—No, we want to speak on native title. Your motion is on the Notice Paper . I think it is next up. Actually, I was prepared to talk on that this morning. It was you running around the chamber that got things moving on that particular motion, not this side of the chamber. We are more than prepared to talk about that motion. But I am not dealing with that now; I am dealing with a very important report which has been presented to the chamber by Senator Conroy on behalf of Senator Cooney. I will explain briefly the circumstances in which I am speaking and the reason why I am speaking.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—You are a hypocrite. You voted to gag native title.1I4McKiernan, Sen JamesSenator McKIERNAN—I am not going to gag native title and I am certainly not a hypocrite. Believe it or not, Senator Campbell, today is 11 March 1998 and I am talking about events of today, not events of the past. But I am very concerned about events of the future, because major precedents have been set in this place today—precedents which will be remembered. I am not talking about the precedent that I suppose I am setting in getting up and speaking to this usually non-controversial report, the Alert Digest that has been presented. I cannot recall, in the time I have been in this chamber, where a senator has actually got to their feet and spoken on reports such as this. I have been here a few years and I cannot recall it happening.The precedent I am really concerned about is the gag that was moved and, unfortunately, was supported by the Australian Democrats and was carried. We will be remembering and recalling these precedents, because they always come back to us. That is particularly the case when we talk about due process. We talk about due process when the character of a colleague, a fellow senator, is on the line. The government know they have got the numbers with them and they can close the debate and stop people like Senator Barney Cooney speaking in defence of his colleague. The Australian Democrats sided with the government in order to silence Senator Cooney. It is not all that easy to silence Senator Cooney because he, like the rest of us on this side, has got a long memory. Were it not for the fact that he has got other important business in another part of this building today, he might in fact be in here speaking to his important report. It is a non-controversial report.Let me address a few comments to the Scrutiny of Bills Committee, which is so ably chaired by Senator Barney Cooney. I have not had the opportunity to look at the particular content of the report that is before us, but we can look at last week's report. This is actually the second report of this year, which shows you what a hard-working committee it is. Senator Calvert would appreciate that; he always appreciates hard-working committees. Last week this particular committee addressed their minds to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission Amendment Bill 1997 , the Australian Capital Territory (Planning and Land Management) Amendment Bill 1997 , the Charter of Budget Honesty Bill 1996 [No. 2], the Commonwealth Superannuation Board Bill 1997 , the Company Law Review Bill 1997 , the Criminal Code Amendment Bill 1997 [1998] , the Customs and Excise Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1997, the Electoral and Referendum Amendment Bill 1997 , the Insurance Laws Amendment Bill 1997 , the Law Officers Amendment Bill 1997 , the Managed Investments Bill 1997 , the NRS Levy Imposition Bill 1997 , the Primary Industries and Energy Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1997 , the Social Security and Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Budget and Other Measures) Bill 1997 , the Superannuation Legislation (Commonwealth Employment) Repeal and Amendment Bill 1997 , the Superannuation Legislation (Commonwealth Employment—Saving and Transitional Provisions) Bill 1997 , the Tax ation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 7) 1997 , the Taxation Laws (Technical Amendments) Bill 1997 , the Telecommunications Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1997 , the Therapeutic Goods Legislation Amendment Bill 1997 , and the Workplace Relations Amendment (Superannuation) Bill 1997 .656FORSHAWSenator Forshaw—What about my ballast Water levy collection bill?1I4McKiernan, Sen JamesSenator McKIERNAN—Your ballast water bill is coming. I am assured it is on the way. It is probably in this week's report. One of the issues that I did note in last week's report was how it addressed the matter, which was somewhat controversial at the time, of the Judiciary Amendment Bill 1997 .H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—I raise a point of order, Madam Acting Deputy President. I think that Senator McKiernan has made a most eloquent attempt to filibuster this debate. I think it is an unprecedented debate on a motion to submit the report. We know that, although the Labor Party are trying to force—AW5CARRSenator Carr—What is the point of order?H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—I am coming to the point of order. It is to do with relevance. The Labor Party will do anything to stop us coming to a vote on the cut-off motion on the native title bill. Clearly the left wing senators in this place are determined—3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—I object to that.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—I do not look at you, Senator Conroy, when I say that. The left wing senators in this place are determined to overrule Kim Beazley, their leader, on this agreement they have made to exempt the bills from the cut-off. They will do anything to stop the Senate today coming to a vote on the cut-off motion on the native title bill.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator Campbell, please come to the point.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—I am coming to the point of order, Madam Acting Deputy President. For a senator to get up and debate a motion to print the bill, a standard motion, is unprecedented—the first time in the history of Australia as far as I can determine—and a clear act of filibustering to stop the Senate coming to a vote on this cut-off legislation so that the people of Australia will know where the Senate is going on the native title legislation. It is, of course, absurd and childish and very unlike Senator McKiernan, who is a good, fellow Western Australian.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—There is no point of order.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—On the point of order, to debate the printing of this week's bill is, of course, in order. But to debate matters out of last week's report by the Scrutiny of Bills Committee is entirely irrelevant to this debate to print this week's report, and I would ask you to bring Senator McKiernan to order.AW5CARRSenator Carr—Madam Acting Deputy President, I raise a point of order. There is no doubt that this spurious point of order that has been raised is in fact an attempt to waste the time of the Senate to prevent us from discussing this issue.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—Madam Acting Deputy President, will you make a ruling on this point of order?AW5CARRSenator Carr—I am speaking to the point of order.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator Carr and Senator Campbell, please both resume your seats. I have sought advice; my advice is that there is no point of order. There is no reason for any further discussion on this point.AW5CARRSenator Carr—Can I take a point of order?10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—No. There is no point of order.7L6HOGGSenator Hogg—Madam Acting Deputy President, I raise a point of order. Senator Campbell made references to certain people being left wing. I take that seriously. I have never been called that in my life.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—What is your point of order? What standing order?7L6HOGGSenator Hogg—I think I have been defamed. It is a reflection on my character.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—There is no point of order.1I4McKiernan, Sen JamesSenator McKIERNAN—The relevance of what I am talking about is the importance of the committee. The point I was just getting to related to the very important and necessary work the committee did in the report on the Judiciary Amendment Bill 1997 that was presented to the parliament last week.There were some difficulties with the bill as first presented to the Senate. The bill went to the Senate Scrutiny of Bills Committee. They picked up this particular matter that was of concern and they, without delaying the Senate and using the very valuable time of the Senate, Senator Campbell, referred the judiciary bill to the Attorney-General's office—H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—You hypocrite!10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Campbell, you referred to Senator McKiernan as a hypocrite, and I ask you to withdraw.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—He is! He spent four and a half hours trying to censure Michael Baume less than three years ago.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator Campbell, I ask you to withdraw.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—If you ask me to, of course I will.1I4McKiernan, Sen JamesSenator McKIERNAN—There goes another minute, I think. The point I was trying to make was about the Judiciary Amendment Bill and how the committee saved the valuable time of the Senate by referring the particular clause with the problem to the Attorney-General and getting written advice from him on that matter. Those details are contained in the report that was presented last week. When I get a copy of it, I will address matters that are contained in the report for this week, which has just been presented to the parliament, but, unfortunately, I have not been given a copy of this week's report as yet.In making my contribution, I have given all of the credit for the work of this committee to Senator Cooney. I know, from my work around the parliament, that it is not only the chair of the committee who makes the contributions on committees such as this. He is ably supported, dare I say, by my other colleague from Western Australia Senator Winston Crane, who is deputy chair of the committee. Senator Cooney talks to me about these matters. He is also supported by Senator Ferris, Senator Sandy Macdonald, Senator Andrew Murray and my good friend over here Senator John Quirke from South Australia, who is in here making very valuable contributions to the good governance of this nation.Senator Conroy interjecting—Senator Ian Campbell interjecting—10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Campbell and Senator Conroy.1I4McKiernan, Sen JamesSenator McKIERNAN—We are not seeing a very good example of good governance of the nation coming from the Manager of Government Business in the chamber this afternoon. Senator Campbell, I wish you would contain yourself somewhat. (Time expired)17:27:00857Quirke, Sen JohnSenator QUIRKEZS6SAALP00—As a member of the Scrutiny of Bills Committee I should make some comment on the proceedings, and I take this opportunity to indicate to the Senate that I have learnt a great deal in the six months that I have been here as a result of my membership of this committee. Indeed, one of the first things I learnt was how to use an alarm clock because it meets very early of a morning. I think the only committee that meets any earlier is the Regulations and Ordinances Committee, and I want to thank the Senate for discharging me from that committee as of this day, I believe, last week.I must say that the scrutiny of bills committees and, indeed, the regulations and ordinances committees in many of the smaller parliaments around Australia are amalgamated into one committee that looks at both bills and at delegated legislation. I think the Scrutiny of Bills Committee does an excellent job. It certainly has a very important charter which, I understand, was set up in 1981 and, indeed, one of the most important elements of its charter is to deal with the question of retrospectivity.I do not want to take up too much of the Senate's time this afternoon, except to say that retrospectivity comes in two shapes and forms, as I found out with this particular committee. I thought it was a fairly open and shut case, but that is not so. In fact, there are sometimes unintended consequences of many of the bills that come through this place, and the retrospectivity elements of some of those unintended consequences have drawn the attention of the committee. There are others where there is, in fact, an inadvertent attempt at retrospectivity in the sense that bills have come through and they make determinations which necessarily involve going back some time—in some instances, back to announcements made by the government.Probably one of the clearest examples of that is the package of bills that has gone through here, which the committee had a very close look at, in respect of the budget, particularly in 1996—the budget in 1996 came down, as I understand it, on 20 August. There is a whole range of tax measures and other items that have gone through the committee in the time I have been there which will, when they go through this place—or those that have already gone through and received royal assent—have an impact from that particular date.In the meeting this week—and it is not my position, Senator McKiernan, to go into too many of the precise details—we spent over an hour on a number of key elements involving this very vexed question of retrospectivity. The report that will shortly come down as a result of this week's meeting of the committee will deal again with a range of measures, particularly taxation measures. One which is very close to my heart is in respect of the trigger times for when this legislation will operate. I will come to that in just a moment.For some time there has been a problem with favourable tax deals in South Australia, particularly on the Parafield aerodrome where a much more favourable tax treatment has been used by the owners of the liquor stores there. There have been a couple of owners taking advantage of these favourable deals. In state politics I have managed to close up most of those deals, with the exception of the question of the liquor licensing fees and the liquor licensing taxes. The other state impositions, which eventually we managed to have placed on these premises because they are on Commonwealth land, involved every aspect of gaming machines and opening and closing hours, as I understand it. All of the liquor operations on the Parafield aerodrome—and I presume in the rest of the country—now have to mirror the state legislative provisions.As a result of a bill which is shortly to come before the Senate and which the committee has had a very close look at there will be a mirror tax treatment now for these particular operators. So, in fact, they will not be at an advantage as compared with the rest of my constituents—the rest of the businesses around there that have to pay their legitimate state taxes. The state government is not getting the tax; the Commonwealth government is getting it but at least it establishes a level playing field.I want to finish my remarks by saying that I have enjoyed my time on the Regulations and Ordinances Committee. It has been a learning curve for me over the last six months. I want to thank the old hands here, like Senator McKiernan and the others, for their encouragement to go on this committee. I think Senator McKiernan was being unduly abused before and Senator Hogg felt abused when he was called `Left'. I have been called `Left' for a good part of my life, Senator, and it is a badge that I have carried—wrongfully, I might say—quite often quite proudly.Question resolved in the affirmative.1I4McKIERNANSenator McKiernan—Madam Acting Deputy President, on a point of order: on the Senate red I note that a report from the Regulations and Ordinances Committee is listed for presentation by the chair, Senator O'Chee. It is a paper on the scrutiny of national uniform legislative schemes. I wonder what has happened to that report? Has that been gagged as well, as we saw this morning?10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Jacinta Collins)—Senator, the Chair is not cognisant of what has happened. No-one arose to give that report. The next item is variation of committee memberships.Question resolved in the affirmative.Documents85885817:35:00858Bishop, Sen MarkSenator BISHOP2L6WAALP00—I seek leave to speak to the Defence Determination 1998-99.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—Can we do the committee memberships first? We had moved on to that; you called it.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Jacinta Collins)—Minister, I have called Senator Bishop. There was some confusion.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—You had called committee memberships and I was on my feet.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—I did not see you on your feet when I glanced towards the minister.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—That is because you keep looking over that side.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—I am sorry, Minister. I have called Senator Bishop and if leave is granted we will proceed with his matter.Leave granted.2L6Bishop, Sen MarkSenator BISHOP—Thank you, Madam Acting Deputy President. I move:That the Senate take note of the document.I wish to make a few remarks concerning the Defence Determination 1998-99. It is tabled by a Mr Nicholas Jefferson Ford, the Director-General, Financial Conditions, Defence Personnel Executive, Department of Defence. He, of course, is acting under a delegation made by the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business under the relevant regulation—regulation 72A of the Defence Force regulations made pursuant to a determination under section 58B of the Defence Act 1903. It is all properly in accordance with procedures as required under the relevant act, I point out to the chamber.The explanatory statement attached to the tabling of Defence Determination 1998-99 is of great interest and relevance to this chamber and to those listening on broadcast because it relates to something that is very close to the interests of many persons employed under industrial awards—enterprise bargaining agreements and certified agreements, whether made under state legislation or the relevant federal legislation. This Defence Determination 1998-99 authorises a bereavement payment equivalent to four fortnightly pays to provide transitional financial assistance for dependants of Defence Force members who die while rendering continuous full-time service. So that bereavement leave to members of families of Defence personnel who die or are killed in carrying out their duties is of great relevance.Bereavement leave has a long and chequered history in Australian industrial life. It first emerged as an award condition in the 1950s, when it was the subject of a series of test cases in both relevant state tribunals and what was then the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. The first grant was given by a full bench in 1952 or 1953. It awarded a very limited form of bereavement leave to immediate family members of a deceased worker employed under an industrial instrument—an industrial instrument being an industrial award or a federal award of that Conciliation and Arbitration Commission.Over time it became a routine clause of most industrial awards—indeed, probably of all industrial awards in this country. The first significant expansion of bereavement leave was when it was awarded not only to full-time workers but also to part-time workers. Part-time workers were quite rare in the pre-war days. The dominant form of employment was full-time. Casual work was supplementary labour. Part-time labour came into most industries in the immediate postwar years. In those days a series of test cases had to be run by the trade union movement to extend to part-time workers the benefits that existed under industrial awards and which formerly were awarded only to full-time workers. The extension of that particular benefit to part-time workers occurred in the late 1950s.Through the sixties and seventies the benefit was extended from being given only to the immediate family members of the affected worker to being given to a wider range of persons who were interested in the welfare of that worker—sisters, brothers, grandparents, nieces and nephews, and the like. In the late 1970s there came a standard benefit of paid leave; prior to that time, bereavement had been unpaid leave. That is, if a worker or employee employed under an industrial award should have died or been killed in the course of his employment, the preparatory time leading up to his or her funeral, when the worker's dependants needed to go through the preparations, was regarded as unpaid leave when they took time away from work. Of course, the worker's family suffered some additional financial disadvantage or harm because of that unpaid leave.The reason I have given a detailed background on the development of bereavement leave is that it was one of the foundations upon which the ACTU built its family leave test case in the late 1980s, early 1990s. That family leave test case was a most significant milestone for what was then the new type of work force—a work force that was radically different from that which existed prior to then and which had been developing since the war years.That family leave test case before a full bench of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission ended up being quite successful because it allowed workers employed under all state and federal industrial awards—it was shifted through a number of state tribunals—to access the range of leave that existed—annual leave, sick leave, long service leave and other types of leave—for the purpose of bereavement leave. That was particularly relevant in a mobile society where labour was increasingly shifting from city to city—interstate as well. It meant that, when there was a death in the family and a lot of the necessary funeral and business arrangements had to be taken care of quickly, workers could have access to other forms of leave in the period leading up to and immediately after the funeral of their departed one.Other industries took a different approach. For instance, industries dominated by female workers chose not to access existing forms of leave as a supplement for bereavement leave. Instead, they chose to go down the path of negotiating additional family leave entitlement clauses of sometimes two, three or four days. Of course, that was a significant benefit and was appreciated greatly in those industries.With that background to the development of bereavement leave leading into family leave, I turn to the explanatory statement attached to the Defence Determination 1998-99, made under the Defence Act 1903. I note that the new provisions are contained in a new part C, which is inserted into an existing principle determination. That determination goes by the name of Defence Determination No. 12, 1997. It deals with the financial entitlements on the death of a member of the Australian Defence Forces.Clauses 1 to 8 of this determination set out the formal provisions and make very minor consequential changes to the principle determination arising from the inclusion of the new part. We are told that clause 9 of the explanatory memorandum inserts the new part C, which authorises bereavement payment. The six main effects of the new provision are as follows. Firstly, clause 7 defines a term used in the new part. Secondly, clause 8 establishes a notional pay period for the purpose of assessing the amount of bereavement payment. This corresponds with the last complete fortnight of the member's service.Thirdly, clause 9 sets out an interpretation of the concept of gross fortnightly pay used in calculating the entitlement. I am sure you would be interested to know that the concept is based upon the deceased member's gross fortnightly pay for the notional pay period. Provision is made for the average amount of gross fortnightly pay during the member's final three months of service to be substituted in cases where the amount for the notional pay period is below the average.Fourthly, clause 10 in the insertion in the amending document specifies the deceased members to whom the new part applies. Fifthly, clause 11 authorises payment, in accordance with clause 12, of an amount of bereavement payment set at four times the specified amount of gross fortnightly pay. Payment is to be made in equal instalments. I seek leave to continue my remarks at a later time.Leave granted; debate adjourned.86017:45:00860Hogg, Sen JohnSenator HOGG7L6QLDALP00—by leave—I move:That the Senate take note of the document.I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted; debate adjourned.86017:45:00860Quirke, Sen JohnSenator QUIRKEZS6SAALP00—by leave—I move:That the Senate take note of the document.I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted; debate adjourned.Committees86086010000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Jacinta Collins)—The President has received letters from party leaders seeking variation to memberships of committees. I call the minister.UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—Madam Acting Deputy President, I raise a point of order. How can you call Senator Campbell when he was not in his normal place? I distinctly saw him waddling around the Deputy Clerk over there.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—There is no point of order.17:46:00860Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—by leave—Touche, Senator Ray. I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That senators be discharged from and appointed to committees as follows:Community Affairs References Committee— Substitute member: Senator Gibbs to replace Senator Forshaw for the committee's inquiry into the impact of government child care funding cuts on families, children and child care servicesEmployment, Education and Training Legislation and References Committees—Participating member: Senator MackayRural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee— Substitute member: Senator Allison to replace Senator Woodley for the consideration of the provisions of the Australian Capital Territory (Planning and Land Management) Amendment Bill 1997.Bills861r455861Bill received from the House of Representatives.Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell) agreed to:That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.Bill read a first time.86117:47:00861Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I move:That this bill be now read a second time.I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard .Leave granted.The speech read as follows—Introduction When I introduced the Native Title Amendment Bill 1997 into the Senate on 11 November 1997, I outlined the circumstances which made amendment of the Native Title Act 1993 essential and how each of the major provisions in the bill would address the inadequacies of that Act, particularly following the Wik decision in December 1996.Very briefly, in common with that bill, this bill is designed to achieve the following outcomes:. to provide an application and determination system which is constitutionally secure and which will enable the States and Territories to develop their own systems for dealing with native title matters provided they comply with national standards;. to ensure that action taken by governments and others between the commencement of the Act in 1994 and the Wik decision in December 1996 should not be invalid because of a legitimate and reasonable assumption that the grant of a pastoral lease extinguished native title, an assumption subsequently found to be wrong;. to bring a greater level of certainty to all Australians by providing, where it can reasonably be said that native title has been extinguished by types of government grants, that this extinguish ment is confirmed, rather than leave individual grants to be litigated on a case-by-case basis;. to make it clear in the Act itself what acts can be done on land and waters that may be subject to native title, including the provision of services to the public, the renewal of leases and licences, the regulation and management of water and the implementation of past reservations of land, and to apply the non-extinguishment principle in relation to those acts;. in the case of pastoral lease land, to specify the kinds of activities that can be carried on by pastoralists, and to reflect the Wik decision by expressly providing that those activities prevail over native title rights and interests, but do not extinguish them;. to protect any existing access of native title claimants to pastoral lease land while claims are being determined;. to limit application of the special statutory right to negotiate process to those areas where it was intended to apply—vacant Crown land where there are no competing third party interests; to reduce unnecessary delay in that process; and to put in place a registration test for claims which ensures that those negotiating with developers have a credible claim;. to provide a legally certain, procedurally straightforward and comprehensive agreements framework; and. finally, to help bring about an effective native title system by ensuring that Native Title Representative Bodies are efficient, effective and accountable.The 1997 bill resulted from 18 months of consultations and discussions with all sectors of Australian society potentially affected by native title, and represented an honest compromise based on the outcome of those discussions.The bill's broad policy approach and the processes which led to its development are more fully outlined in my Second Reading Speech to the Senate on 11 November 1997.The Government has at all stages indicated it is prepared to consider changes which would improve workability and reduce uncertainty, provided they did not tip the balance of interests so carefully reflected in the 10-Point Plan, and then in the bill.Indeed, a substantial number of Government amendments were moved to the bill during the Senate debate in December 1997 for that purpose.The Government's judgment about the fairness of the 1997 bill has been largely vindicated by the acceptance by the Senate of substantial parts of the bill including those dealing with indigenous land use agreements, representatives bodies, the confirmation of past extinguishment, the validation of acts before Wik , and the future act provisions, with either no changes, or only minor changes.It is noteworthy that notwithstanding the early harsh criticism from the Opposition of a wide range of these provisions, the Leader of the Opposition has now indicated support for that Senate outcome.However, the Senate made a number of changes in areas we regard as vital to the Act's workability.The Government cannot accept these amendments for reasons described in more detail below.The Prime Minister indicated when the 1997 bill was laid aside by the House of Representatives that the Senate would, after three months, be asked to consider that bill again.The Prime Minister also indicated that if it became apparent that the only way in which the bill could be passed was to use the Constitution's processes for resolving disagreements between the Houses, the Government would be prepared to take that course.The Prime Minister also indicated his hope that this option would prove to be unnecessary.A history of the BillApart from incorporating a number of amendments made by the Senate in December 1997, this bill is the same as the Native Title Amendment Bill 1997 passed by the House of Representatives on 29 October 1997.The 1997 bill itself contained the substance of the Native Title Amendment Bill 1996, which was introduced into the House of Representatives on 27 June 1996.It also contained proposed Government amendments to the bill released in October 1996, dealing with the right to negotiate, indigenous land use agreements and representative bodies.The main additions in the 1997 bill were of course the amendments developed by the Government, following negotiations with interest groups, about the best way to respond to the uncertainties created by the Wik decision of December 1996.Immediately the Native Title Amendment Bill 1997 was introduced into the House of Representatives on 4 September 1997, its contents were referred to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Native Title and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land Fund for report by 27 October 1997.The Committee undertook an extensive inquiry, holding public hearings over twelve days, visiting Broome, Alice Springs and Cairns.The fact it received over 1700 written submissions is indicative of the immense public interest in the bill.The Committee's reports were tabled in the House on 27 October 1997 and in the Senate on 28 October 1997 with the majority report recommending that the bill be adopted, and that the Government consider making amendments in four areas.The relevant amendments were moved by the Government in the Senate and accepted.The bill was passed by the House of Representatives on 29 October 1997, the House having agreed to the inclusion of a new Schedule of exclusive possession tenures.The Senate had already agreed on 2 October 1997 that the provisions of the bill should be referred to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee for inquiry and report on the constitutionality and constitutional bases of the bill.After receiving submissions from 29 bodies and individuals and hearing evidence from 11 of these, the Committee reported on 10 November 1997, with the majority concluding that, on balance, the High Court would find the bill constitutionally valid.The Committee recommended, however, that the relevant provisions of the bill be reviewed to confirm that the legislation met the constitutional requirement for the acquisition of property on just terms.What happened in the SenateThe 1997 bill was introduced into the Senate on 11 November 1997 with non-Government parties and Senator Harradine indicating they would be moving a total of over 750 amendments; in the case of the Opposition and Greens and Democrats these involved a substantial rewrite of the bill.In response to the recommendations of the Parliamentary Joint Committee and the Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee, the Government released its own amendments to the bill designed to address some of the legal and policy issues raised in their respective reports.Additional amendments were also introduced by the Government arising out of discussions with the Opposition and Senator Harradine during the Senate debate.It is important that specific mention is made of the more significant of these Government amendments because in the heat of the debate last year, they did not receive the recognition they deserved as effective measures for dealing with the issues raised in evidence to the Committees.For instance, the bill's validation provisions were amended to require notification of mining leases granted in the period from 1 January 1994 to the date of the Wik decision (Schedule 1, section 22EA in this bill).The confirmation of extinguishment provisions were amended to put beyond doubt that Aboriginal land, national parks and conservation areas and stock routes were not included (Schedule 1, section 23B in this bill).In part to address the issue of just terms compensation, a requirement for notification of native title holders of the doing of specific future acts (such as agricultural and forestry activity), and a general regulation-making power for notification of such acts, were both included.The operation of the sunset clause on compensation claims was made subject to notification of native title holders affected by the compensable act (Schedule 2, section 50(2A) in this bill).Provisions were also included to ensure that any compulsory acquisition of native title rights and interests must be done in a non-discriminatory manner, and that the requirement to pay just terms compensation for acquisitions would apply to the States and Territories as well as the Commonwealth.The capacity of governments to grant pastoralists new primary production rights was clarified, in particular by ensuring that if more than 50% of a pastoral lease of over 5,000 hectares was to be used for non-pastoral purposes, any native title must be acquired by agreement or in a non-discriminatory manner (Schedule 1, subsection 24GB(4) in this bill).In response to concerns about the registration test, and to encourage negotiated rather than arbitrated outcomes in the right to negotiate process, the Registrar was given an extra month to consider claims for registration, and the parties were given six months to negotiate an outcome.As a result of discussions with the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission, a number of changes were also made to the comprehensive representative body provisions to clarify their operation and ensure proper accountability.Perhaps most significantly, so far as indigenous criticism was concerned, the Government met the argument that the bill failed to take account of the issue of `historic' pastoral leases.Proposed sections 47A and 47B in Schedule 1 will enable indigenous people who are in occupation of an area where there are no longer any competing third party rights, to claim native title and have the Court disregard the tenure history of the area in determining that claim.It is worth noting that the Senate supported the vast majority of these Government amendments.Any fair minded observer will concede that these changes go a substantial way to meeting concerns raised about some provisions of the bill.It is also worth noting that, notwithstanding the sometimes heated and ill-informed public and media debate, and the lengthy consideration by the committee of the whole (the total time for consider ation by the Senate was over 56 hours), the Senate debate was generally characterised by its calmness, good spirit and professionalism.The Opposition combined with the Government and Senator Harradine on 5 December 1997 to vote for the third reading of the bill, with 217 Senate amendments.This outcome represented a significant narrowing of the areas of disagreement. The Opposition indicated its support for the bill's provisions which it had, until that time, denounced as racist and totally unacceptable.These provisions included—. the comprehensive validation regime for acts between the commencement of the Native Title Act in 1994 and the Wik decision;. subject to a number of additional relatively minor changes, the confirmation provisions, including the Schedule of exclusive possession tenures;. the primary production provisions which put beyond legal doubt what activities pastoralists are able to carry on; and. the statutory access rights for registered native title claimants.The general support by the Senate of many other initiatives included in the bill, such as the powers and functions of representative bodies, the regime for recognising indigenous land use agreements, and the new claims and determination process necessitated by the High Court's Brandy decision, was a welcome sign of the recognition of the substantial deficiencies of the current Native Title Act.However, the Senate also made a number of amendments proposed by non-Government parties and independent Senators which would severely undermine the workability of the Act, and this is why the 1997 bill could not be finally dealt with.The response of the House of RepresentativesOn 6 December 1997 the House indicated its acceptance of 125 of the 217 amendments in the Schedule and its rejection of 92.The House then agreed to lay the bill aside.There were four particular sets of amendments made by the Senate which were, and remain, unacceptable to the Government—they relate to the registration test, the right to negotiate, the relationship between the Native Title Act and the Racial Discrimination Act and the sunset clause on applications for determinations of native title under the Native Title Act.Also significant were those amendments relating to small claims, indigenous land use agreements, pastoralists' rights, the renewal of leases, the treatment of Crown to Crown grants, and the way in which State and Territory tribunals should operate.The Government made clear during consideration by the House of Representatives on 6 December 1997 of the Senate Schedule of amendments its reasons for rejecting the registration test, right to negotiate, Racial Discrimination Act and sunset clause amendments.It is appropriate and timely for those reasons to be reiterated.(i) Registration testEveryone agrees, including indigenous representatives, that an effective registration test as the gateway to the statutory benefits which the Act provides, is essential.While the Brandy amendments in the bill have overcome the watering-down of the current threshold test by the Waanyi and Northern Territory v Lane decisions, it is essential to the continuing acceptance of the right to negotiate process that only those people with a credible native title claim should participate.Application of an improved test will go a long way to removing the ambit and unprepared claims which are now clogging the National Native Title Tribunal, causing uncertainty for state and local governments, involving thousands and thousands of respondents and dollars, delaying many resource developments and undermining the credibility of native title processes.The registration test adopted by the Senate, while an improvement on both the current situation and the wholly ineffective test originally proposed by the Opposition and the Greens and Democrats in the Senate in December, would not provide the degree of scrutiny which those who will have to deal with registered claimants have a right to expect.For instance, it would not expressly prevent registration of a claim over land which has been subject to a freehold grant or a residential lease.It would also allow claimants to be a party to negotiations on whether a mine should go ahead even though no member of the claim group can demonstrate that they have ever visited the area.A test which sets the bar too low and does not require the Registrar to be prima facie satisfied in relation to all aspects of the native title rights and interests claimed will not effectively address the problem of claimants with limited prospects of success having access to the right to negotiate process.It should be remembered that once a court has determined that native title exists, the native title holders will, as a matter of course, have access to the right to negotiate—the registration test is only relevant to those claimants who have yet to establish their claim in court.The Government has therefore maintained the registration test previously passed by the House of Representatives (Schedule 2, sections 190A, 190B and 190C in the bill).(ii) Right to negotiateWhen introducing the bill in November 1997, I made the point that the right to negotiate procedures have failed to deliver the outcomes that were expected.The situation has not changed in the intervening 6 months.At 16 January 1998, of the 2,186 mineral tenements in Western Australia which have become subject to the full right to negotiate, only 196 have been cleared for grant following lodgement of an agreement under section 34 of the Act.The bill's amendments to the right to negotiate procedures, which were effectively rejected by the Senate, were designed to achieve two outcomes—. to exclude the right to negotiate where it is inappropriate because of the nature of the rights to be granted, the minimal impact on the land or the limited native title rights that can potentially exist; and. to streamline the process to reduce unnecessary delay and, where appropriate, to devolve greater responsibility to the States and Territories to deal with these matters.The effect of the Senate amendments to the right to negotiate provisions would be to maintain the full right to negotiate on pastoral lease land, on non-Government infrastructure development, on exploration activities and on the renewal of mining leases (even though the grant of the lease may already have been subject to the right to negotiate process) and in towns and cities.The right to negotiate is a significant brake on mining and public and private development activity.It is a right that no others with interests in land have.Because of this, the Government believes that the right to negotiate should only operate where native title holders have significant interests in the land, interests analogous to ownership of that land.Where native title holders do not have such a high level of rights, and in particular where they can only have co-existing rights with others, then the full right to negotiate is inappropriate.This bill still contains section 43A in Schedule 1 which enables a State or Territory to apply its own regime in relation to mining and relevant compulsory acquisitions where native title holders have limited co-existing rights. Of course those alternative regimes must meet specific criteria, including the provision of procedural rights to native title holders equivalent to the procedural rights of others.(iii) Racial Discrimination ActThe Senate agreed to an amendment which would replace the current subsection 7(1) of the Native Title Act (which states that nothing in the Act affects the operation of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 ) with a provision which instead states that the Native Title Act is intended to be read and construed subject to the Racial Discrimination Act.Perhaps the most eloquent exposition of the arguments against this proposal was stated by Senator Harradine in the Senate on 5 December 1997:'It is unworkable because every provision in the legislation will have to be subject to the RDA. There will be endless litigation about it. Why did we not put it in the 1993 legislation? For the very reason that we ought not be putting it in here. The Labor government at that time knew that it was a nonsense to put a similar provision in the Native Title Act. If the Labor Party faced up to the real world now, they would realise that it 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 rights of other persons. Under those circumstances, I do not intend to support the motion.'It is unclear what the amendment agreed to by the Senate actually means.On one view, it could mean that, notwithstanding a government had fully complied with all the requirements of the Native Title Act in relation to the granting or renewal of a particular lease or licence, and the Act stated that the grant was valid, the grant may still be challenged in the courts as inconsistent with the Racial Discrimination Act and on that basis be held invalid.On another view, it does no more than reflect what the High Court indicated in Western Australia v The Commonwealth , ie that the Racial Discrimination Act is relevant in resolving ambiguities in the Native Title Act and in guiding the exercise of statutory discretions under that Act.The inherent ambiguity in the proposed amendment is the kind of political double-speak which underpinned the deal done by the previous Government in relation to pastoral leases in 1993—a mistake which this Government has no intention of emulating.For this reason, the amendment should be rejected.It cannot be in anyone's interests to have such a high level of uncertainty surrounding the relationship between the Act and the Racial Discrimination Act. It is the obligation of this Parliament to make clear, precise laws.Even the Labor dominated Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee concluded in 1993, in considering the 1993 Native Title bill, that a similar formulation would be a recipe for uncertainty and recommended that it not be adopted.It is reassuring to see that someone who could never be accused of supporting the Government on native title matters recognises the uncertainty which the amendment would produce if the generally agreed aim of all parties for certainty and workability is to have any meaning.Father Frank Brennan said earlier this year that `Despite the populist appeal of this amendment, the Opposition parties should back down in the interests of certainty, justice and workability for all stakeholders'.This bill therefore maintains the existing provision in subsection 7(1) of the Act.(iv) Sunset clauseAs to the sunset clause, the Government believes that it is important that some discipline be imposed on the claims process and that those potentially affected by that process can be assured that at the end of a reasonable time, native title issues will have been finally resolved.Subsection 13(1A) in Schedule 2 is therefore maintained.The provision requires only that claims under the Act be made within 6 years of commencement of the amendments.It does not otherwise prevent native title claims being made in the courts or the exercise of common law rights.Content of the BillAs mentioned above, the content of the bill is the same as the Native Title Amendment bill 1997 as it was passed by the House of Representatives on 29 October 1997, but with the addition of a number of amendments later made by the Senate.On 6 December 1997 the House of Representatives indicated its acceptance of 125 Senate amendments, the majority of which were moved by the Government during the Senate debate.It has become apparent however that a small number of these amendments may not in fact have been `made' by the Senate.Having carefully considered the matter, the Government has decided not to include these amendments in the reintroduced bill.Technical and drafting issues have arisen in relation to a number of the 25 non-Government amendments accepted on 6 December 1997 which make it inappropriate for them to be incorporated into the bill.However, the Government still supports the policy intent underlying those amendments and intends to move, or agree with, amendments designed to achieve the same outcome when the bill is debated in the Senate.Relevant non-Government parties are being consulted on the form of the revised provisions.Finally, in relation to the small number of remaining amendments, after careful reconsideration and discussions with the other parties, the Government has decided that there are substantial policy reasons why these amendments should not be incorporated into the bill nor be supported as amendments in the Senate.Very briefly the Government does not support the following ALP-sponsored amendments in their current form:. amendments which would prevent some of those whose interests are affected by a native title claim from being parties to the court processes (Opposition amendments 242, 247, 248 and 249);. an amendment to provide that resources may be a relevant factor in deciding whether it is reasonably practicable for a representative body to notify native title holders on matters affecting their interests (Opposition amendment 382);. an amendment which would render uncertain the compensation provisions as they apply where native title is only impaired (but not acquired) (Opposition amendment 188);. an amendment which would prevent the States and Territories from including more than one future act to which the right to negotiate applies in the notification sent to native title holders and advertised in notices to the public (Opposition amendment 131).A total of 107 amendments have been incorporated and they are identified in the explanatory memorandum.The Government will also be moving a number of new but minor technical and drafting amendments in the Senate.ConclusionIn the six months since this bill was introduced into the House of Representatives on 4 September 1997, over 80 new claims for native title have been made, but there are still only two determinations on the mainland.One of those, the Hopevale agreement involving 11 separate groups of native title claimants and the Queensland Government, represents the way forward in native title matters. This is an approach which would be significantly boosted if the indigenous land use agreement provisions were in place.Since the bill was introduced, the Full Federal Court has held that parts of the Native Title Act which give the National Native Title Tribunal determinative powers are unconstitutional—an outcome which was anticipated but which makes enactment of the Brandy amendments more urgent.Since the bill was introduced, the Government's argument for legal certainty about the effect on native title of a freehold grant, and whether this effect is temporary or permanent, and the need for a new registration test, has been substantiated by the seeking of an injunction by native title claimants in the Northern Territory to prevent government development activity on land over which there is a registered claim within the city of Darwin.I note that at the end of February the Federal Court upheld the position which the Government sought to confirm in the bill—that native title is permanently extinguished by a freehold grant—a position initially opposed by the Opposition and which continues to be opposed by the Greens and Australian Democrats.The Federal Court also refused to grant the injunction.Since the bill was introduced action has been taken by native title claimants in the Federal Court in Queensland to close down a mine currently employing around 250 workers, the argument being that the relevant mining lease, not having gone through the right to negotiate procedures, is invalid.The Government believes it is in the national interest that these issues be resolved as soon as possible and that all groups have the opportunity to get on with making the Act work and securing practical outcomes.The continuing controversy and uncertainty is damaging to the interests of all key groups and the Government is aware of the community's frustration with the delay in securing passage of these important provisions.The Government is confident that on further consideration, the Senate will support the bill and this long and difficult process can be brought to an honourable conclusion which is in the national interest.I present an explanatory memorandum to the bill and recommend the bill to the Senate.Ordered that further consideration of the second reading of this bill be adjourned until the first day of the winter sittings, in accordance with standing order 111.Miscellaneous867Debate resumed.17:48:00867Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—I commenced speaking on this motion just before we moved to discussing matters of public interest earlier today. As my colleague Senator Woodley mentioned earlier, the Australian Democrats will not be supporting this move by the government to exempt the Native Title Amendment Bill 1997 [No. 2] , an important piece of legislation, from the normal Senate process. I would not have spoken further on the motion except for the need to respond to some of the comments made by the Labor Party in particular in relation to the reasons why they are supporting the government in fast-tracking the consideration of this bill.It appears to the Democrats that the Labor Party, as usual, has its eyes basically on its own potential electoral advantage—and in no place more so than Queensland. Clearly that is the same motivation that drove its approach to the native title legislation when it was debated in this place last year. It is obviously also motivating them to support the coalition in this instance on this motion. The Democrats believe that is a great shame.It does seem very curious that, as we just heard with the introduction of this piece of legislation a minute ago, the consideration of the bill is adjourned until the first day of the next sittings, which I think is in May, unless we support this motion. There is the strong likelihood that between now and then the High Court will bring down its decision on the Hindmarsh Island bridge case, a case that will clearly impact significantly on one of the key constitutional principles that underpin this bill.For the life of me I cannot see why, given that circumstance, we are not following normal process. It may be a total coincidence that it is happening but we should grasp that little bit of serendipity and simply follow normal process and wait until the next sitting to consider this bill. We will be able to do so more adequately informed about one of the key unanswered questions that this Senate cannot answer. It is a question that only the High Court can answer. The High Court is going to answer it. It seems quite bizarre to the Democrats that the Senate is not grasping this opportunity to have that matter clarified for us before we reconsider this legislation.In some ways there is more reason than ever for the exemption from cut-off motion not to be applied in this case and for the bill to follow the normal process and not be exempt from the cut-off. It is a great shame that the Labor Party appears to have chosen to support the coalition in that regard.AW5CARRSenator Carr—The former Democrats.DT6Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETT—No former Democrats over here. I can point out one or two over your way. You can keep the former Democrats. I wish to respond to similar issues that Senator Cooney raised in a fairly unfair attack, I thought, on my colleague Senator Woodley. Senator Cooney is normally a fair man, but this time he perhaps let his emotions get hold of him a little and perhaps needed to try to shoot a few rounds of bullets to cover up the weaknesses of the Labor Party's argument as to why they are falling into line behind the coalition on this crucial bill. They were complaining, as they have complained once or twice subsequently, about not being able to talk on and on in relation to the censure motion. I certainly acknowledge that a censure motion is a very important motion.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—The Democrats sitting with the Nationals—shame, shame, shame.DT6Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETT—That is where you will be sitting when this motion is called on. I would have taken more seriously the Labor Party's wounded cries of anguish in relation to that motion if they had actually shown that they were taking it seriously. It was very clear from their actions, as happened this afternoon, that they were not in any way taking that issue seriously. They are obviously not taking this particular issue seriously either. If you want to put on a par your desire to filibuster endlessly on a whole range of issues with something that is as absolutely fundamental to the future of this nation as the native title legislation, and think that talking about your regulations is as important as talking about this, then it just shows how clearly your priorities are wrong. I reiterate the point I made earlier in relation to the High Court decision and why that is so crucial and will put a different light on this particular legislation.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—Convince us.AW5CARRSenator Carr—Tell us what it is.DT6Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETT—What the High Court decision is? We do not know what it is. That is why it is all the more valuable that we have the opportunity of hearing what it is before we deal with the legislation. That is fairly self-evident, I would have thought. I simply wish to reiterate the Democrats' opposition to this motion and our sadness that the Labor Party have seen the need to put their own electoral fortunes ahead of the proper process in this regard.UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—Absolute rubbish!DT6Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETT—I take it you disagree. It is an important issue, one that should be debated fully and with the most complete information possible in relation to the legislation. For that reason, the Democrats believe the normal process should be followed with this particular legislation, that fast tracking should not apply in this regard and that the normal operation of the Senate standing orders should apply with this particular bill.17:56:00868Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—I will be very brief. I shall be opposing this motion to exempt the Native Title Amendment Bill 1997 [No. 2] —for some reason dated 1997—from the cut-off motion. As we all know, this is a new bill. Again, I am not sure why the government has entitled it `Native Title Amendment Bill 1997', since it was not introduced into the House of Representatives until 1998. It is probably a technical point. I would be interested to know why. It is a new bill. It does contain amendments which were not in the old legislation. There are probably about—HX5WOODLEYSenator Woodley—There are 120.6H4Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE—Thank you, Senator Woodley. There are about 120 amendments. As has been recognised in this chamber, standing order 111 was really one of former Senator Christabel Chamarette's legacies in this particular place, and a very good one at that. I make this point to the opposition: I want to see this legislation dealt with, and dealt with expeditiously. But I want to see it dealt with expeditiously in a fair manner so that various stakeholders—the indigenous groups, the miners, the pastoral leaseholders and various communities—will be able to focus on what the Senate did previously and to see that what we want ultimately is a fair, just and decent outcome for all of the stakeholders and for all of Australia.As I have been trying to explain to a number of the stakeholders—the miners and others—I have come to the conclusion that there is a good deal of confusion about what we were attempting to do. I thought we were proceeding pretty well in discussions to try to get some sort of common ground which will provide a workable, fair, decent and just outcome. I thought it would be desirable to have standing order 111 up one's sleeve in case there is intransigence on the part—dare I say—of the government. I am not suggesting that that intransigence is there. But why give away that very standing order, why give away that particular aspect, just at the present moment?We are in a different position than we were this morning when the debate was on. Senator Ian Campbell has now introduced the bill into the Senate, and standing order 111 operates. I will be voting against the motion for the cut-off, not because I do not want to see the legislation dealt with expeditiously but because, the week after next, it would have been desirable for everybody around the place to know where everybody else is going, including particularly the government.Senator Campbell, in introducing this legislation today, has gutted what I was proposing in respect of leaving the matter until it was introduced into the chamber. He has not done it quite deliberately. He is trying to pursue this matter expeditiously, and I accept that. But I will still be voting against the motion. Some of the points that have been made by Senator Margetts, Senator Woodley and Senator Bartlett were very telling. But, let us face it, there is no point in continuing the cut-off motion. The bill will be exempted from the cut-off motion.18:01:00869Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—I want to make a few fairly brief remarks on this issue because it is an important issue. I find myself in thunderous agreement with Senator Harradine as to the arguments. I just do not reach the same conclusion. I think his concern about dealing with the bill expeditiously and trying to reach a fair and just outcome for all stakeholders is a laudable one. I think the same motives motivate the Labor Party in this debate, but that does not lead us to the conclusion which Senator Harradine draws, which is that we ought to oppose the cut-off.We have decided to support the motion to exempt this bill from the cut-off motion because, firstly, we see that the cut-off motion was not designed for a circumstance such as this. The bill has been in the public arena for some time now. We have had a full debate in this parliament previously, and the government is reintroducing the bill in almost exactly the same terms as the original draft bill. That is a point I will come to in a minute. I do not think the normal good reasons that supported the introduction of a cut-off motion apply in this case. There is no argument to sustain the proposition that we are not ready to debate this.The argument Senator Harradine makes that we should try to ensure that people come to their senses about the bill is a good one, but I do not know that the cut-off motion is the way to do that. We ought to keep the pressure on the government to see sense. I think the assertions of the Prime Minister, Mr Howard, that there will be no amendments to the bill reflect a very inflexible personality and a political decision that I think is self-serving rather than in the interests of the nation. I think the Senate has every right to consider the bill in detail, and to seek to make amendments to improve the workability and the fairness of the bill. We ought to take that responsibility seriously, as I think we did on the first occasion. I think it was a debate that was positive for Australian politics and did the Senate great credit, even though there was a range of matters on which the Labor Party was defeated in terms of the detail of that bill.I want to make the point which I think Senator Harradine was attempting to make that the government is not being serious in dealing with the legitimate concerns about their bill. It is interesting, as I understand it, that the Attorney-General, Mr Williams, has introduced the bill into the House of Representatives and now into the Senate in almost exactly the form that it took when it was first introduced into the House of Representatives last year. That is, it does not include, to the best of my knowledge, Senate amendments that the government accepted when we debated the bill the first time.The government have chosen to go back to the original bill with some minor variations, as I understand it, and present that to the House. That is for one very good reason: they are concerned about their legal advice as to whether or not they could justify a double dissolution if they were to introduce the bill in another form. Rather than proceed with the amendments they accepted in the Senate and introduce the bill in that form in the House of Representatives and then push it through to the Senate again, they have gone back to the original bill for one reason and one reason only: they are concerned about their ability to achieve a double dissolution trigger. What that establishes, if anyone was in any doubt, is that this debate will not be about getting a workable Native Title Act. This debate will be about the government securing an election trigger. That is what this is about. They are not after a solution; they are after an election.The government have sought to minimise the legal risk which has been articulated by the Clerk of the Senate, Mr Harry Evans, and which I think is based upon an original legal opinion by that great `socialist' Sir Garfield Barwick. They have been concerned at the criticism of their legal advice, which we are not able to see. They are not prepared to share it with anyone. So they have decided to take the safe route. While they were prepared to accept amendments which they said would make the bill more workable in the Senate the first time round, they are not prepared to introduce the bill in that format for fear that they will not get the result they want out of the Senate.The result they want is an excuse for an election, not a solution to the problems of constituent groups in terms of the workability or the fairness of the Native Title Act. That is an important issue for us to put on the record. It is important that we understand what the motivation of the government is in this matter. I think Senator Bartlett's comments were most unhelpful and a little unkind—and I would have expected better of him when questioning the Labor Party's motives on this matter. I think it is fair to say that the Labor Party has worked very hard to try to improve the bill to achieve a more just and fair outcome and to improve the real problems of workability that exist in the current act.Having been part of that process, I think, did the Labor Party great credit. I also think it was to the credit of the minor parties, Senator Harradine and others who participated in that debate. Therefore, I do not think we need to degenerate into name-calling when discussing this motion today, nor do we need to be too self-righteous.I think it is important that we signal we are prepared to debate the bill, but also that we remain committed to the objectives of getting a fair and just outcome for all constituent groups when we re-debate the bill. The Labor Party has made it very clear that we will not be accused of refusing to debate the bill. We stand ready to debate it, and we stand ready to improve the bill. Our interests are in getting a better Native Title Act than presently exists—certainly one that is much better than the bill put forward by the government.I believe that the Senate can do this job. The real test in all this is whether the government is truly committed to improving the Native Title Act—or whether it is committed to an early election strategy.18:08:00870Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAYUI4VICALP00—I think, according to the whip, I am the last opposition spokesman on this particular matter, and I am under starter's orders not to go too long. But I do want to make a few points about the cut-off resolution. I have listened, I think, to Senator Margetts today, Senator Harradine inferentially and some Democrats who have gone to the rationale of the cut-off motion. I must say that those points in the past had passed me by because, as I recall it—and it could be a faulty recall—the reason for the cut-off resolution was to give senators a chance to read the legislation in detail; whereas the reason advanced today, albeit a valid reason—DX5MARGETTSSenator Margetts—And proper community consultation.UI4Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAY—Yes, I was about to say that I do not recall that aspect of the debate when this was in contemplation. But I have no doubt that it is your genuine view, Senator Margetts.But we always approach the cut-off motion in terms of: will the Senate have sufficient time, in fact, to consider the ramifications of legislation? Remember, the cut-off motion originally was not a continuing order; it was an ad hoc thing moved from time to time. It later became a continuing order. I suspect that it was not a continuing order when it was first moved, because no such concept was properly ever entrenched in the Senate. It just became a practice that suddenly grew into continuing orders.So that was my view of why the cut-off exists. Clearly, if it is my view—and I do not in any way disparage Senator Margetts's view, or the validity of it—that that was the reason for it, I cannot really argue for the cut-off motion to apply to this legislation.After all, we knew about this legislation several months ago. We spent many days here in December going over it in intricate detail. So it is not as though we are getting fresh legislation that we are going to find difficulty in understanding. I suspect that all the arguments will be the same; all the votes will be the same in this particular chamber—maybe not; but I suspect that that is the case.If you believe that the cut-off motion was essentially there so senators could be properly informed and not be rushed by the government of the day into passing legislation, not be ambushed on it, then we should support here the government's—AW5CARRSenator Carr—We spent 56 hours on it.UI4Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAY—Yes, as Senator Carr says, we spent 56 hours on it. So we should support the government's motion.Whilst I have acknowledged that I think some of the minor parties in the Senate have supported the cut-off motion for valid reasons, it is rather ironic now to have a coalition government fighting this particular thing and seeking exemption from it—because they supported the cut-off resolution. But, Senator Margetts, they did not support it because they wanted more time to consider legislation; they did not support it because they wanted more community group consultation. They supported it to disrupt the government program as much as they could. That is why they supported it then.It is a long road that does not turn, isn't it? Suddenly, here is the cut-off resolution that this government wants to axe. So what was principle in opposition becomes opportunism in government. Of course, I would have liked to have heard Senator Campbell's explanation of this road to Damascus conversion. But the silent senator said nothing after moving this motion. He gave us no justification. He advanced no reasons whatsoever. He is lucky we are thick skinned, because we are not insulted by this attitude from him. We have still seen the logic of the proposed resolution, even though he has treated the Senate with absolute contempt by not putting any reasons forward.One of the questions that probably will not have to be resolved now, given where people will vote in this, is: if this cut-off resolution came into force—that is, if we did not support Senator Campbell's motion today—would it be a failure to pass under section 57 of the Constitution? I think the answer from any Governor-General, especially one with High Court training, would be no; that you could not actually argue that, if Senator Campbell's motion is defeated today, it is a failure to pass, because any High Court judge would look back at the history of the continuing order and find all sorts of names dotted across here of those who trooped into the division that imposed this on the Senate, having voted for it as a principle in the past. So I do not think that will particularly come up.I was fortunate that I was not eating my tomato and onion sandwich when I heard Senator Woodley's contribution this morning. I think I had completed the sandwich, which was just as well. We got a long dirge on: we have got to be more consultative; we have got to have more time; we have got to be more democratic. For `Woodley the gagger' to come in here and make that particular statement was very galling; it almost made me reach for the Dexsal, I have to say.We hear these pleas about the Democrats and how democratic and open they are. But this morning they did not even wait until we could get our fourth speaker up to balance off the government before they sleazed around—and I do not think it was to Senator Campbell's office; I think it was to Senator Hill's office on this occasion—and struck the deal about gagging a censure motion. And this was several hours short of the debate that we had on the Senator Baume resolution.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—I was having a tuna and onion sandwich; they didn't come to my office.UI4Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAY—No, I am sure they did not come to your office, Senator Campbell; I am sure even they draw the line somewhere in the sand. But it just spoilt the ambience of the place to hear Senator Woodley's contribution—someone who normally gets to some degree of consistency in his contributions here. But Woodley the gagger came in here—no, I am sorry, I could be wrong. He may have been impersonated. I did not look carefully on the other side. I thought I saw a saintly looking gentleman over on that other side there, voting for the gag, but it could have been an impersonator. So if it was an impersonator, Senator Woodley, let me apologise to you.On that particular issue, Senator Harradine has made the point that he thinks the debate may be assisted with some more time. I think there are two ways of arguing that. I can see his point of view but I can also see the opposite—that delaying this issue will just make the situation worse. I can see both sides of the argument.Let me conclude on this point. I do not know whether the cut-off resolution as it currently exists as a continuing order should stay forever, but again I have to be a bit political here. I will promise the Manager of Government Business in the Senate (Senator Ian Campbell) that if they ever happen to be in government that long and if the continuing order as it applied to the Labor government applies to the Liberal government for as long as it applied to us, we will contemplate getting rid of it; and I am sure we will get your votes on that. But you should never whinge about the cut-off resolution.Let's have a look at what this government has got so far. In the winter session of 1996, the first time it applied, 34 exemptions were granted by the Senate. In the spring of 1996, 30 exemptions were granted—a total of 64 for the year. In 1997, 21 exemptions were granted to this government in autumn; 14 in the winter session; and a staggering 57 in the spring session—a total of 92. If we vote for this motion today, it will be the 157th time in the life of this government that the cut-off motion has been granted.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—Out of 302 bills in toto.UI4Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAY—Out of 302 bills in toto. Thank you. I hope your statistics are right. I know these are; they were researched by a very competent Senate officer. It is worth putting on the record that those numbers are there. So granting an exemption is nothing unusual. But we are talking about granting an exemption to a bill that has already been debated in the House of Representatives, has come to the Senate with 56 hours' debate and has gone back to the House of Representatives—not, incidentally, returned here as it should have been. Nevertheless, most people know what the issues are.Our decision to support the government on this is based on the precedent that there have been 156 exemptions, that it has been in the House of Representatives and that it is a rejection, but not a demolition, of the argument that there should be more community consultation. The argument that has been put forward by Senator Bartlett, Senator Margetts and Senator Woodley is not demolished; it has just not given enough weight for us to oppose Senator Campbell's motion.18:17:00872Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I will be as brief as I can. I have been accused of holding the Senate in contempt but that is something that I would never willingly do; I probably hold the institution in the highest regard of all institutions that I have come in contact with.There are a number of things I could respond to, which I will not, but I think it is important that particularly those who take an interest in these matters know that we do not, as a matter of course, make the case for the cut-off when we move it. In fact, we distribute the case for the cut-off and the need for the cut-off in writing and in quite some detail; as you would know, Madam Acting Deputy President, because you would have received those documents and I know that you read them carefully when you do receive them. We circulated a document to all honourable senators quite a few days before this session began, so it gave honourable senators the opportunity to read a detailed statement. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the statement that was circulated.Leave granted.The document read as follows—STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR INTRODUCTION AND PASSAGE IN THE 1998 AUTUMN SITTINGSNATIVE 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)H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—I will make only one further point. The government sought to have this matter resolved. It has, of course, been a matter of some controversy. We thank those senators—particularly those on the other side of the aisle—who will be supporting this motion. It will ensure that there is certainty for all senators about when we will be able to deal with this Wik bill. I think everyone recognises that it is important to have it dealt with. There has been significant discussion as to the contents of the bill, but at least all honourable senators and the people of Australia will know that this matter can be dealt with by the Senate during these current sittings. Dealing with the cut-off today ensures that there is that certainty, and honourable senators know that, when they come back for the three weeks leading up to Easter, they will be able to deal with this legislation. Had this matter not been resolved today, there would have been continuing uncertainty. Question put: That the motion (Senator Ian Campbell's ) be agreed to.18:24:00The Senate divided. (The President—Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid)40Bishop, M. Boswell, R. L. D.Calvert, P. H. *Campbell, G.Carr, K. Collins, J. M. A.Conroy, S. Coonan, H.Cooney, B. Crane, W.Crowley, R. A. Denman, K. J.Eggleston, A. Evans, C. V.Ferguson, A. B. Ferris, J.Forshaw, M. G. Gibbs, B.Gibson, B. F. Hogg, J.Knowles, S. C. Macdonald, I.Mackay, S. McGauran, J. J. J.McKiernan, J. P. Minchin, N. H.Murphy, S. M. Neal, B. J.Newman, J. M. O'Brien, K. W. K.Patterson, K. C. L. Payne, M. A.Quirke, J. A. Reid, M. E.Reynolds, M. Schacht, C. C.Sherry, N. Tambling, G. E. J.Tierney, J. Watson, J. O. W.10Allison, L. Bartlett, A. J. J.Bourne, V. *Brown, B.Harradine, B. Lees, M. H.Margetts, D. Murray, A.Stott Despoja, N. Woodley, J.Question so resolved in the affirmative.Bills873r346873Consideration resumed from 9 March.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Knowles)—The committee is considering the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Youth Allowance) Bill 1997 and Democrats' requests 1, 2 and 3 on sheet 860, which were moved by Senator Woodley.18:27:00873Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—The costs associated with the youth allowance measure have been used by the government as their fallback position at every stage of this debate. If the bill is demonstrated to be unfair to young people, the Greens (WA) point out that young people will be worse off under the bill. Senator Newman has invoked her mantra that the bill is a spending measure, not a savings measure. On the other hand, when the Greens propose measures to lower the age of independence or raise the parental means testing threshold to average weekly earnings, Senator Newman would cry poor as her advisers handed her a note saying that the Greens' amendment would cost $X million and could not be afforded.So just how much faith can we put in Senator Newman's financial figures? When the bill was first introduced, the whole initiative amounted to a cost of $27.78 million for 1998-99 and $2.95 million for 1999-2000. The bill alone amounted to a saving of $9.46 million for 1998-99 and $9.27 million for 1999-2000. When the bill was introduced into the Senate, the minister had a new set of figures in which the costs for the whole initiative had risen to $53.77 million in 1998-99 and $22.52 million in 1999-2000. The bill alone has magically transformed from a savings to a cost of $52.33 million in 1998-99 and $33.52 million in 1999-2000. In the space of six months, the government managed to turn a $9.46 million saving into a $52.33 million cost, without a single change to the legislation. This amounts to an increase of just over 650 per cent in the cost of this bill.This extra cost has been attributed to recosting based on 1998 dollar values and increased projections of youth allowance numbers in the next two years. Given that the inflation rate is very low, that student numbers are falling and that the rate of unemployment seems static, it is very hard to understand how the government arrived at a 650 per cent increase in the cost of the bill, unless it decided to undertake some creative accounting to justify the attacks on students and on the young unemployed which it has made in the youth allowance measure.Senator Newman also conveniently fails to mention that the government has already slashed the Austudy budget—by $100 million in 1997-98 and by over $50 million in 1996-97. So that this chamber—together with the many young Australians affected by the changes, and their families—can have faith in the minister's assurances that this bill will be to their financial benefit, I ask her to explain in a clear, understandable fashion how the department arrived at a 650 per cent increase in the cost of the bill.18:32:00874Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—I wish to specifically address the requests for amendment in relation to the exemption—and in relation to farm assets in particular—that have been moved by Senator John Woodley from the Australian Democrats.In 1994, the Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs received more than 250 submissions regarding this issue from a range of organisations and individuals over eight months. The conclusion that the committee came to was that the family farm should be exempted from the assets test. Evidence from the Department of Primary Industries and Energy given to that inquiry demonstrated that around 5,400 students from farming families were being denied access to Austudy as a result of the assets test. That is something the Democrats have long considered unfair, regressive and quite discriminatory to those farming families.Unfortunately, we have stood alone in most of our attempts, certainly in the 1980s, to move the amendments that Senator Woodley is pursuing. I might add that Senator Robert Bell, who was here before Senator Woodley, did not receive any support from the National Party either when it came to moving amendments that would favour and give assistance to farming families. Farming families are often assets rich but income poor and have been penalised as a result of both this government's and the former government's rules regarding Austudy and student financial assistance.I return to the committee's recommendations and conclusions. It found that the assets test was discriminatory to farming families, a conclusion the Democrats reached long ago. In its conclusion, it said:The committee considers that the assets test applied to farming families in order to determine eligibility for Austudy is an inappropriate policy instrument that does not take into account the nature of farm assets and their relationship with income. In essence, the current assets test does not acknowledge that some farmers are assets rich but income poor and that farm assets cannot readily be liquidated without diminishing the viability of the farming unit.Senator Woodley's amendments, which we are dealing with in the committee stage of the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Youth Allowance) Bill 1997 , help those farming families who, solely because of their farm assets, are currently excluded from receiving Austudy. City families in similar financial circumstances do receive Austudy.I concur with the earlier comments of Senator Dee Margetts. The Democrats remain very concerned about the passage of this bill and about the policy thrust of this government in relation to the common youth allowance. As we said on record in this debate this week and last week, we support streamlining and increased flexibility when it comes to benefit payment arrangements but we still have a number of problems with the bill as it stands.I am disappointed that attempts in the last couple of days to increase the threshold in relation to the parental means test have not been successful in this place. Similarly, the Democrats' attempts to change the age of independence have not succeeded in this chamber. I put on record my concern that the Labor Party did not support Democrat or Greens amendments to reduce the age at which students were considered independent and, therefore, eligible for the independent rate under the common youth allowance proposals. We believe the age of 25 is ridiculous. We believe the ages of independence under this bill and in the common youth allowance are concocted and are shameful ages of independence.B36NEALSenator Neal—Madam Temporary Chairman, I rise on a point of order. The matter before the chair is an amendment relating to the assets of farm families. It has nothing to do with the age of independence for a student. I suggest the senator restrict her comments to what is before us, rather than trying to make a few extra points from the other day.HX5WOODLEYSenator Woodley—I am surprised the Labor Party is so sensitive but, as you know, Madam Temporary Chair, the debate often ranges far and wide. What Senator Stott Despoja is saying is relevant to Austudy. Farm families are affected not only by the assets test but also by this age issue.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Knowles)—Senator Stott Despoja, I encourage you to address your comments to the amendments before the chair.3I6Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA—Given the time restraints, I will. The point I want to make is that this measure will increase the burden on families, particularly on those people in rural and regional areas, including farming families, who are once again going to fall through the loop. That may be due to travel requirements or to the fact that students are not considered independent until the age of 25 or to the fact that young unemployed in those areas and in those farming families are not considered independent until the age of 21. There are so many gaps in this legislation, and they mean that people, particularly those families already most discriminated against or most disadvantaged, will be adversely affected.I have made my points on the assets test and I concur with Senator Woodley's comments about the ALP being sensitive about the age of independence. I urge the chamber, especially coalition members—and especially National Party members—to support the assets test changes Senator Woodley has moved. They genuinely will assist farming families. They are backed up by research from the Democrats, from the community, from farming families and also from the Senate committee to which I referred.18:38:00875Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—Under the new youth allowance there is a family assets limit of $407,250. That is indexed on 1 January every year. The assets test does not apply to young people whose parents receive a pension, a benefit or an allowance. It does not apply for payment under the Farm Household Support Act or a full-time educational vocational training allowance, including Austudy.Farm assets are disregarded for the purposes of the assets test if the person has a drought exceptional circumstances certificate. Self-employed families can already benefit from a very generous 50 per cent discount which is applied to business assets, including farm assets. That allows families with debt-free assets of nearly $800,000 to retain full eligibility for the youth allowance.Increasing the discount to 75 per cent for all family businesses would have raised the assessable assets to $1,575,000, creating the opportunity for millionaires to receive social security payments, which, I would have thought, would have attracted considerable community criticism and it would have been the first thing to be criticised by the Democrats. Increasing the primary producers' assets discount to 100 per cent would create inequity between farmers and other types of family businesses, and that would be likely to lead to calls for flow-ons to all businesses. Increasing the already generous discount would infringe one of the cardinal principles of means testing, namely that people with substantial assets are expected to use those resources for their self-support and, in this case, for the support of their children before calling on the taxpayer.This government has reintroduced a range of measures, known as the triple A package, to assist farming families. I do not have time tonight to go into the details of that. There can be no doubt that this government is concerned about the plight of farm families—we very much understand them—but this is not the measure that is appropriate for their needs. It would be laughed out of court around the nation if we were to provide social security for millionaires.18:40:00876Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEALB36NSWALP00—I find this one of the most extraordinary amendments that has come before us on this bill. The only thing I can think of is that it arises from some confusion by the Democrats about where their constituency lies. Previously, they were satisfied with coffee shop yuppies and libertarian Christians but now they are extending their influence to the bush, where they think they can pick up a few votes by telling those people on the land that no matter how large or how—3I6STOTT DESPOJASenator Stott Despoja—How dare you take a point of order on me and then come up with this insulting rubbish. Address the amendments, Senator.B36Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEAL—I might say that it gratifies me to get a response. To suggest that property owners, farmers, who already get a 50 per cent discount and who, frankly, come out of this scheme extraordinarily well, should have it extended to 100 per cent—and I think there is a fallback position of 75 per cent—is quite preposterous.There is probably an argument to say that farmers in particular, because their farm is often their residence as well, should be given some equivalence with the rest of the community—they should be provided with some discount on their asset—but to say that it should be entirely disregarded no matter what the value is quite extraordinary. I do not know what the costing of this is. I am sure that if I sat down the minister and her advisers could tell us. When I weigh these up against the other groups who are very badly off, to see the Democrats putting forward this proposition as some sort of priority is quite extraordinary.18:42:00876Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I wonder whether, having given a very clear question to the minister, I can expect a clear answer sometime before the end of the consideration of this bill.18:42:00876Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEYHX5QLDAD00—I have a question for the minister, but I might say that the Labor Party has never supported this particular issue, which we have debated for many years, so I do not expect Senator Neal to change that opinion now. It is clear that she has never heard the debate before because if she had she would not have made the silly statements she has just made.Minister, the Department of Primary Industries and Energy gave evidence that 5,400 students were affected. Can you tell us how many of these come from millionaire families?18:43:00876Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEALB36NSWALP00—Minister, I did not actually frame this before as a question: I am just wondering if you could tell us what the cost would be if we extended it to 100 per cent or 75 per cent.18:43:00876Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—I was trying to get that before the debate began. I do not, unfortunately, have it with me. I cannot help you, but it would be some substantial cost.18:44:00876Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEALB36NSWALP00—It would be extraordinarily helpful if we could actually have those figures before we vote on this particular amendment. Could I suggest that debate on this matter be possibly adjourned.BE4NEWMANSenator Newman—Oh no.B36Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEAL—Just this particular amendment; we can go on and deal with the other amendments. We are not going to deal with it this evening anyway and that would give you time.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Knowles)—Senator Woodley, do you wish it to be postponed?18:44:00877Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEYHX5QLDAD00—No, I was going to ask another question. Does a motion for postponement take precedence?B36NEALSenator Neal—I am happy to let you ask a question.HX5Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEY—My question was not a frivolous one, and I was waiting for the minister to give an answer. The evidence we have is that there are 5,400 students from farming families being denied Austudy simply because of the assets test and the peculiar nature of farming. The minister in explaining her opposition to this amendment said that we do not want to give millionaires an opportunity to get Austudy. What I need to know is whether there are 5,400 farming families who are millionaires, or has she any estimate of how many of those 5,400 come from farming families that are millionaires?18:45:00877Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—I am not in possession of that information. The basis of your proposition is that there are not too many farmers who are millionaires. That is true. And that is sad, isn't it, for Australia, that they cannot do very well and that they are under such difficulties. But would you condone one millionaire getting youth allowance?18:46:00877Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEYHX5QLDAD00—No, I would not. With farming families, however, there is the income test, and the evidence given to our committee—and that is why the coalition, along with myself, actually signed off on that report—showed to us very clearly that it is actually the income test for farmers which determines whether or not they are millionaires. The assets test in terms of farming families is actually quite inappropriate.18:46:00877Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I am just wondering whether what the minister was suggesting is that, if there is a one in 5,400 chance that potentially a paper millionaire had got Austudy for their children—and, of course, we would like to think that there are means by which that can be avoided—this is a basis upon which legislative action is taken which might in fact remove Austudy from 5,000 deserving families and young people within that category. I imagine that if you utilised that logic in business legislation—that there might be a one in 5,400 chance in business legislation that somebody might receive an unfair advantage—you would be drummed out of office so quickly your feet would hardly touch the ground. Is the minister suggesting that this enormous amount of common youth allowance which potentially could go to a millionaire farmer—one in 5,400—would be the reason that the government might risk leaving 5,000 or so young people worse off than what they might have been?Requests not agreed to.18:48:00877Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEYHX5QLDAD00—I move:(4) That the House of Representatives be requested to make the following amendment: Schedule 2, item 8, page 149 (line 17), omit "50%", substitute "75%".This is a backup to the former amendments, which were defeated, and I am very said about that. Let me now move to what really is the coalition's policy, announced at the last election. I will read that so that nobody is at all confused about what that policy was. In the lead-up to the 1996 election, the coalition released its higher education policy, and in this they said:There are a number of inequities in the current eligibility requirements for Austudy. The coalition will relax the assets test for Austudy so that farmers and other self-employed people are not disadvantaged when the value of business related assets such as the family farm significantly outstrip actually income. As a first step, a coalition government will increase the discount in the assets test for Austudy from 50 per cent to 75 per cent for farm and business assets in businesses in which the parent is substantially engaged.We are actually giving the coalition an opportunity to fulfil their own policy as announced at the election. Although that is a fall-back position from what the coalition itself said in the report which I was debating before, nevertheless it seems to me that this would be an opportunity for them to fulfil that promise which they made. The amendment will increase the current 50 per cent discount available to farmers and other self-employed people to 75 per cent—no more and no less than the coalition promised.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Order! It being 6.50 p.m., consideration is interrupted.Progress reported.Documents87887818:52:00878Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEYSF4VICALP00—I move:That the Senate take note of the document.I want to make a comment on this report from the Australian Industry Development Corporation. It is a sad report for the following reason: it sets out that the AIDC Ltd has been sold to Babcock and Brown Pty Ltd and the Union Bank of Switzerland.The purpose of this corporation was, first of all, to facilitate the establishment, development and advancement of Australian industry and, secondly, to increase the participation of Australian residents in those industries. The fact that that is now no longer the task of the AIDC is tragic because I do think that the ownership of Australian industry by Australian citizens is a thing to aim for.It is said that, in this era of globalisation, it does not really matter where the money comes from or where the control of a particular company is because globalisation has made us all, as it were, of the one place. But that is not accurate because, if an enterprise is located in a country, it is pretty much able to do what it will unless the ownership and control of that company are in the particular nation concerned.That is illustrated by what is happening in America. We now have the picture of Microsoft being before the American authorities to break it up because it is nearing a monopolistic state. That could not happen to Microsoft in Australia the way it can happen in America, because Microsoft is located in America, its culture comes from America, and its whole ethos is within America. Therefore, the political power that the American government can bring is much greater than the political power that the Australian government could bring if something had to be done about Microsoft in Australia. There has to be a measuring of the economic power of a company by the political power of government. The contrast between the power that the parliaments in Australia have compared with the power that international companies have is getting more and more out of synchronisation. The power that the company has is growing, to the detriment of the political power that government has in Australia.We have people in this parliament who have been associated with big Australian companies. Senator Parer is a person who comes to mind—a person of high reputation and a person who has had much to do with the mining industry. It is clear that the power that the Australian government has over that industry is greater than the power it has over, say, the vehicle making industry or any other industry where the ultimate control is held overseas.It is a matter of regret to read the AIDC Australian Industry Development Corporation Annual Report 1997, which announces the taking away from Australia of a vehicle whereby investment could be made in Australian industry and shared amongst Australians, and that that control is going to seep away overseas more than it should. That takes away the political control which Australian parliaments should have over industry—a control which is essential.Question resolved in the affirmative.Adjournment87810000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Knowles)—Order! As consideration of government documents has concluded, I propose the question:That the Senate do now adjourn.87918:57:00879O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—I rise in the adjournment debate this evening to respond to some matters which were raised by Senators Tierney, Ellison and Abetz today, firstly in question time and then in taking note, in relation to a question I asked during question time last Monday. Last Monday I asked questions relating to the government's new employment services contract arrangements. In a supplementary question, I referred to Allhands Hire Pty Ltd which, as I said then, was selected to provide employment services when it had financial problems with unprofitable contracts and was put up for sale only days after DEETYA informed the company of its success in the tender process.In answer to Senator Tierney's question about this matter today, Senator Ellison said:The allegation was that that company was going to be sold and that there was some financial difficulty thereby and also casting doubt on the government's Job Network process. Let me tell the Senate that that company is not for sale.. . . . . . . . .As a result of that, it has lost two clients.. . . . . . . . .A member of the family who contacted the department today has said that approaches were made to the company for the sale of it and that there was no aspect of it being sold.Following that, I went back to the primary documents that have been conveyed to me which relate to the very question I asked last Monday. The first was a copy of a letter which has been sent to a business in Queensland. That business has forwarded that document but has removed its name from it. It is a letter from Lloyds Business Brokers dated 16 February 1998 and it is signed by Mr Rudy Weber. The letter has a reference `Re: business for sale' and says:Thank you for your expression of interest, and for completing our `Confidentiality Agreement'. The business we have been appointed to sell is ALLHANDS HIRE. A copy of the Business Profile is enclosed for your perusal. I do not want to attempt in any way to mislead the Senate in this manner. I seek leave for this letter to be incorporated in Hansard .10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Knowles)—Is leave granted?YW4MACDONALDSenator Ian Macdonald—No, not at the moment, Madam Acting Deputy President. I have just come on duty and I have not had a chance to look at it.8O6O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN—We did deal with it and I thought that there was no problem with it. I am happy if it needs to be considered further.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—We will come back to it later.8O6O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN—Enclosed with that was a copy of the first page of a letter from the Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs headed `commercial in confidence' and addressed to Mr Lance Allen Long, Allhands Hire Pty Ltd. I will not recite the address. I am also seeking leave to have this document incorporated in Hansard . The purpose of drawing this to the attention of the Senate is to say this: the business was for sale shortly before the minister publicly announced the successful tenders; it was certainly for sale at a time after this particular company became aware that it was a successful tenderer in the government's employment services contracting process.We rang Mr Rudy Weber, who is the signatory to the letter from Lloyds Business Brokers, who advised that they had been contacted around Christmas time with a view to marketing this company on a selective marketing basis; that is, they would seek particular companies to buy it. I am concerned, firstly, because Senator Ellison says:A member of the family who contacted the department today has said that approaches were made to the company for the sale of it . . .That is clearly not the case according to Mr Weber. He is saying that they received instructions from the company. And, secondly, he said:.. that there was no aspect of it being sold. Clearly, every aspect of it was available for sale on 16 February, and probably later than that.Further information as to when the business ceased to be for sale, if indeed that is the case, is in the Australian Financial Review on Tuesday, 10 March on page 9 in an article by Michelle Grattan entitled, `Job contracts attract more fire'. The article reports a Mr John Leach as saying that the business was no longer for sale. He also refers to the documents that I have referred to. In an article in the Sydney Morning Herald of the same date by Tony Wright there is a quote in the third column which I will read:Mr John Leach, a partner of the company that had offered Allhands for sale last month, Lloyds Business Brokers, told the Herald yesterday that Allhands had been withdrawn from sale, but would not comment on the suggestion that this had occurred during the past two days.I will accept from Mr Leach that the company was withdrawn from sale. Whether it was withdrawn from sale on the day I asked the question in the Senate is not clear. It was clearly up for sale shortly before all material times and I think most likely up to the time we asked questions in the Senate.In relation to the second document, it is clear that this document was forwarded to a prospective buyer of the company on 16 February 1998. That document reveals that Allhands Hire Pty Ltd was a successful tenderer in the process. It was going to get a contract of some substance. Notwithstanding what Mr leach might have said to the media, it is beyond belief that successfully obtaining a $1 million contract from the Commonwealth, someone who is very likely to meet their commitments and pay the bill if you perform the contract, does not add value to the company. That is absolutely beyond belief.We are suggesting, and indeed I was suggesting in the question, that there is a coincidence between the awarding of the contract to this company and the sale of the company and that that is a matter for concern. I also talked about the financial situation of the company and it is clear from the material which was distributed that at the time the tenders closed this company had problems with part of its operation and was not achieving its business plan. That is contained in other documentation that is in circulation. But in fairness to the company I do not think that that should be put on the public record at this stage. But I reserve my right to include that matter in further debate if this matter is to go further.I in no way apologise, as was suggested by Minister Ellison, or withdraw any of the aspects of my question or remarks I have made on this matter. I suggest, indeed, that the minister ought to look carefully at this matter and come back into the Senate and make it clear that his comments about the company not being for sale might have related to the particular time he made his statement. But it is not clear that, immediately prior to question time on Monday, this company was not for sale.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Is leave granted to incorporate the document in Hansard ?H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—I do not want to give leave and I would like to explain why. We would refuse the first document, notwithstanding Senator O'Brien's comments, because it is not addressed to anyone. It is just a piece of paper. It is not really a document that means anything that we could allow. The second document is quite clearly from the Commonwealth and marked `commercial in confidence'. For that reason we certainly would not allow that to be incorporated. The matters you raised will be referred to the minister and he may have other views in due course and may countermand my refusal. But at this stage I could not let either of those be tabled.Leave not granted.19:06:00880O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—by leave—If that had been made clear earlier I would have used part of my time to make a further statement. In relation to the matter, I categorically state that the letter that is marked commercial in confidence does specify that Allhands Hire Pty Ltd is being offered the chance to sign a contract with the Commonwealth. I believe that that has not been and is not in question. The statement that I read from the document earlier is in fact a quote from the document and will now be in Hansard .88119:07:00881Synon, Sen KarenSenator SYNONFQ6VICLP10—I would like to take the opportunity to speak this evening for a few minutes on National Down Syndrome Awareness Week. All over Australia from 15 March to 21 March people will be celebrating the three As: ability, attitude, achievement. This is the slogan of Down Syndrome Awareness Week 1998: celebrate ability, attitude and achievement. The message is a positive one. It supports the recent publicity of the Down Syndrome associations in our country which emphasise `my ability plus your attitude equals our achievement'. Next week we celebrate the ability of people with Down Syndrome and their achievements both big and small.We will be celebrating the fact that people born with Down Syndrome are now being offered their rights and privileges as equal citizens of Australia. Australians who have Down Syndrome, their family and friends are faced with many challenges. The Down Syndrome Association of Victoria provides a top class support structure to people who are born with Down Syndrome and their families, as do Down Syndrome associations throughout Australia. The Victorian association, by maintaining a home page on the World Wide Web, also provides readily accessible information on Down Syndrome.I will mention some of the facts and insights that bring a contemporary and realistic focus to Down Syndrome. Down Syndrome is one of the most common genetic birth conditions. Approximately one in every 600 to 700 babies is born with Down Syndrome, which means that about 100,000 babies are born with Down Syndrome around the world every year. Babies born with Down Syndrome are born to parents of every age, social class and race. Although the incidence of babies born with Down Syndrome increases with the age of the mother, most babies with Down Syndrome are born to mothers under the age of 30.The syndrome was first documented in the mid-19th century by an English physician by the name of Dr Langdon Down. But it was not until the early thirties that genetic researchers began to surmises that Down Syndrome might be caused by a chromosomal abnormality. Further research shows, as most people now know, that Down Syndrome is the result of an extra chromosome—21 in every cell. Despite recent advances in genetic research, the cause of this extra chromosome is still largely unknown.In countries with developed health systems, such as Australia, the average life expectancy of a person born with Down Syndrome is more than sixty years. Like many conditions which people may not fully understand, there are many perceptions which should be challenged. For example, people do not suffer from Down Syndrome. It is a condition, not a disease. There is no pain or distress involved, although many people experience other associated medical problems.Nothing done before or during pregnancy causes a baby to have Down Syndrome. The intellectual and physical abilities of people with Down Syndrome vary with each individual, as does the individual's range of achievement—the only difference being, as we would all agree, achievement is so much more meaningful to someone who faces severe obstacles. As the Down Syndrome Awareness Week slogan says: they are achievements worth celebrating.I would like to take a minute to read to the Senate a piece written by a family who have a baby with Down Syndrome—a family who were aware in the early stages of pregnancy that they would be expecting a child with Down Syndrome. Emily Pearl Kingsley likened the experience of having a child with a disability to planning for a holiday to Italy only to find that plans have changed mid flight and the destination is now Holland. Emily wrote:It's just a different place, it's slower paced than Italy. Less flashy than Italy. But after you have been there a while and you catch your breath, you look around and you notice that Holland has windmills, Holland has tulips, Holland even has Rembrandts.But everyone you know is coming and going from Italy. And they're bragging about the wonderful time they had there. For the rest of your life you may say "Yes, that's the place I was supposed to go. That's what I had planned.' And the pain of that will never go away because the loss of that dream is a very significant loss.But if you spend your life mourning the fact that you didn't get to Italy, you may never be free to enjoy the very special, very lovely things about Holland.Resilience and courage like Emily's are things many people who share their lives with Down Syndrome discover. The achievement of families of those with Down Syndrome should therefore also be celebrated. Those who share their lives with Down Syndrome have much resilience, courage and, of course, love. Their work in assisting an important group in our community to live their lives as citizens and with human dignity should be acknowledged gratefully by the rest of us.Next week Australians have an opportunity to recognise not only the individuals and families who live with Down Syndrome but also the hardworking groups in our community who are working to provide support to families and public awareness to Australians. I encourage all of us to join in those celebrations in whatever way we can. Ability, attitude and achievement and the acceptance of people with Down Syndrome as Australians with equal rights like every other Australian are things we can recognise in National Down Syndrome Awareness Week 1998.88219:14:00882Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT4J4SAALP00—In the adjournment debate I wish to speak on an issue that arose in question time in the Senate today. In response to a question by Senator O'Chee, the Minister for Communications, the Information Economy and the Arts (Senator Alston) made comments about a report from the National Competition Council that was tabled today regarding further deregulation of Australian postal services. The minister made a few comments about the report and then spent most of the time making intemperate remarks, as he usually does, about other senators and generally abusing the forum of the parliament at question time.When I got back to my office I found a copy of a statement that the minister and the Treasurer who is responsible for the National Competition Council, had put out in response to this report that was made available today. It says:The Government welcomes the National Competition Council's final report of the Review of the Australia Postal Corporation Act 1989.The Government will develop a formal response to the National Competition Council's recommendations.It is clear from what is further stated in this statement and from the minister's own remarks, and even from Senator O'Chee's question, that the government are favourably disposed to accepting many of the recommendations of this report. I find it very strange that any senator who represents rural or regional Australia would accept any of these recommendations.The National Competition Council recommends that Australia Post lose its reserve services for business mail. This is overwhelmingly the bulk of their business. This no longer will be reserved as a standard letter. If it is a business letter, it will be open to competition. That means Australia Post will be cherry picked in its most profitable areas by private competition but will still be expected to provide services to the non-profitable and loss-making areas of regional and rural Australia.Today I found it astonishing that the government did not, when they received the report, hit it right on the head straight away—especially since they claim to represent most of regional Australia in the seats of federal parliament—and say they would have nothing to do with this report as they understand the need for Australia Post to provide these services and to have the revenue base assured by having the reserve services of the standard letter provided to regional Australia. But, no, this minister and the Treasurer said they welcome the report.I say on behalf of the Labor Party that we reject the report. We find it unimaginable that those opposite would adopt this report. Australia Post, over the last 15 to 20 years, has reorganised itself to be one of the most successful postal services in the world. It makes a substantial profit. On the radio tonight Mr Samuel criticised Australia Post for making too much profit. That was one of his objections. The profit is used to cross-subsidise regional areas.A further astonishing recommendation is that, instead of the profitable areas cross-subsidising the unprofitable regional areas under community service obligations, he recommends that cross-subsidy be paid by the Treasury. We all know what that means: it might be okay for the first year but by the second and third years the Treasury will be recommending that we get rid of the cross-subsidy payment and make it a complete cost recovery operation.That will lead to only one thing: this country will have a two-tier letter mail service with one price for the delivery of city letters and a much higher price for the delivery of letters in country areas. Country people will end up with a second-rate service and pay higher prices than their city cousins. I am astonished that the minister would not make any comment on these very serious recommendations other than to welcome them and the final report from the National Competition Council.The minister today said that I and other members of the Labor Party are doing this at the behest of the trade union movement. We certainly do support Australia Post employees who happen to be members of their union—and most of them, if not all, are members. Not only do Australia Post union members want to maintain their jobs; they are very proud of the service they provide to the community. In country towns Australia Post staff are honoured members of the community because they play a very important role. The minister bagged those staff in his remarks earlier today.As the next election approaches the Labor Party looks forward to campaigning on this issue against the coalition, against the minister for communications and against the Treasurer if they consistently leave open the opportunity for these recommendations to be adopted. I tell the minister now, we will be delighted to campaign on this issue all over regional Australia. I have to say, particularly to National Party members, that I would be very surprised if they copped this report because we will certainly make it a major issue against National Party members, who claim to represent the best interests of regional and rural Australia. This report should be immediately dispensed with by the government and rejected, as it is by the Labor Party.88319:20:00883Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALDYW4QLDLP10—One of the first tasks that I had the honour to perform upon my appointment almost 18 months ago as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment with responsibility for, amongst other things, the Bureau of Meteorology, was to officiate at the celebration of the 75th anniversary of the establishment of the weather bureau station at Willis Island in the Coral Sea.At the time, I was invited to visit Willis Island but difficulties with itinerary and the fact that the island is some 500 kilometres north-east of Townsville and about 500 kilometres directly east of Port Douglas made getting there rather difficult for that occasion. So we did the celebration at the time by remote control, by telephone, from the Thuringowa City Council Chambers. But I did commit myself to visit the island at the first available opportunity. Just prior to last Christmas I was able to honour that commitment by visiting the island as part of the half-yearly supply and changeover of bureau staff at Willis Island.Willis Island has a unique, high quality climate record dating from its establishment by Commonwealth navigator Captain John K. Davis in 1921. Coincidentally, Australia's main base in the Antarctic, Davis Station, is named after that very same Captain John Davis.After the cyclones which devastated Mackay and Innisfail in 1918, agitation for a station in the Coral Sea grew. Between June and November 1921, a wireless hut and an 87-foot wireless mast were constructed on Willis Island, with the first weather reading being at 9 a.m. on 8 November 1921. The island has been continuously manned since that time.Over the years there have been periodic upgrades of both the technical equipment and the staff facilities. The Willis Island program continues to be a key component of tropical cyclone warning systems in Australia as well as the basic observation network for the Queensland weather forecast. The more accurate positioning and tracking of cyclone centres provided by Willis Island radar and the data provided by the six hourly upper air soundings contribute materially to the accuracy of tropical cyclone forecasts—a matter of major importance to the safety of life in North Queensland, to say nothing of the economy.The climate record from Willis Island is virtually unique in the world in its length and representativeness of an undisturbed oceanic trade wind regime. The island is manned by a staff of three or four, usually consisting of two or three technical officers, observers, one of whom is the officer in charge, and a technical officer, electronics, who is responsible for the maintenance of electronic and mechanical equipment on the island. The island measures about 500 metres by 150 metres and is in the middle of the Coral Sea.At the time of a changeover, a team of contractors descend upon the island, spending an intensive two days repairing, maintaining and renovating very sensitive equipment as well as the base buildings. On the time of my visit prior to Christmas, I was accompanied to the island by the Regional Director of the Bureau of Meteorology in Queensland, Mr Rex Falls, and the ingoing party, consisting of the officer in charge, Graham Taylor; an observer, Mr Brendan McMahon; and the technician, Mr David Hughes. The outgoing party consisted of the OIC, Rob McFarlane; Robyn Paton; Geoff Smith; and the technician, Chris Hughes. The trip to the island from Townsville took about 36 hours in the supply ship Pacific Conquest in what was said to be, mercifully, one of the calmest recent resupplies of this Coral Sea island.As the bureau's recent newsletter says, I was given a memento of my visit by the outgoing team. I was presented with what is nicely described as `a heavily weathered Australian flag'. In fact the flag, from being flown in that unprotected spot for more than six months, was worn almost halfway through and was covered with the droppings of the plentiful inhabitants of the island, the booby bird and the terns. During the visit I took part in some trials to obtain temperatures and pressures which all form part of the science attempting to understand and determine the El Nino impact on Australia. Willis Island was battered last year by Cyclone Justin and was again earlier this year the subject of some very severe weather when the most recent cyclone on the east Queensland coast was roaming around the Coral Sea area.Madam President, the highest point on Willis Island—and you will recall that I said it was about 150 metres by 500 metres in length—is about 10 metres above sea level, and this island is right in the middle of the Coral Sea. But I am told that at no time has the island ever been awash. The staff are reasonably well accommodated on the island in airconditioned comfort in their sleeping quarters. The weather predicting area, the bureau office, is also airconditioned.The rest of it is fairly open and quite a pleasant place, but it can be quite dangerous with heavy winds around. Whilst the staff are looked after in good times, there is a safety bunker constructed on the island which will keep safe the staff and those who might happen to be there at the time in the case of an unthinkable event ever happening, such as a major tidal wave—although I am told that because the island is in the middle of the Coral Sea dangerous tidal waves rarely happen.The Willis Island weather station is an essential part of the Australian weather observing and predicting system and has a long, proud record and a very colourful history. The dedicated bureau people who have staffed the station over the years continue to do marvellous work. The isolation is difficult for the bureau personnel. The dedication of the people and others at equally remote places on the mainland and in Antarctica demonstrate very clearly what a dedicated and professional group it is who watch over Australia's weath er 24 hours a day, seven days a week and 52 weeks a year.88519:28:00885Parer, Sen WarwickSenator PARERKI4QLDLPResources and Energy10—Today in question time a number of issues were raised by the Labor Party in respect of a company called Investment Management Pty Ltd, which is the company that looks after my own family trust. That trust has been in operation for 28 years. It is a genuine family trust. The Labor Party, in its normal scurrilous fashion, distributed a piece of paper to the press gallery simply in an attempt to blacken my name and my integrity. I object strongly to that.As everyone in this place knows—and that is not just people on our side; I know there are people on the other side, because some of them have phoned me already—I have always worked in a manner of great integrity. I do hold shares in Investment Management. I have never hidden that. That has been in my disclosure ever since we were required to make disclosures. I suppose I could have gone off and done something secretive, like hand it to somebody else, which I did not do.UNKNOWNGovernment senatorGovernment senator—Like Paul Keating did.KI4Parer, Sen WarwickSenator PARER—Yes, like Paul Keating. My wife and I have been and are the two directors of Investment Management Pty Ltd. That company holds 16 non-voting shares in a private company called Queensland Coal Management Pty Ltd. A number of issues were raised today. One was whether I had disclosed this to the Prime Minister, and I would like to address that.The Prime Minister has just made a statement in the House of Representatives. As part of that statement he says quite categorically in the beginning that I have not breached ministerial guidelines. He goes on to say that my own return which provided full disclosure was referred to the Secretary to the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet on 7 May for consideration, as is the procedure with all ministerial declarations. The secretary advised his office that my statement was in accordance with the guidelines.The Prime Minister further says that the secretary advised him that in forming his view he took into account the following points. The family trust vehicle has been in operation for a considerable period of time, well pre-dating my appointment as a minister—in fact, as I mentioned earlier, 28 years. The shares held by the trust are non-voting. As the company itself is a private company whose shares are neither listed nor traded, there is just no scope for public disinvestment, as is the case with listed shares. That might be a little bit difficult for people on the other side to understand because they do not understand the business sector.Another point is that basically the trust has been run by my wife, who has relied on the advice of accountants. It was pointed out that in a report early in the piece when I was appointed as a minister the question was raised as to whether I or the trust had any listed shares in public companies. I mentioned that, while I was not big on shares, my wife had got the trust to divest itself of any shares that might have indicated they were involved with a mining company. The accountant has advised me—because, as I said, the distribution within the trust is something that is advised from him to my wife—that neither I nor my wife received income from the trust holdings in the company, in QCMM, in either 1995-96 or 1996-97, which is more than the whole period that I have been a minister in this government.AW5CARRSenator Carr—You gave your income to charity, did you?KI4Parer, Sen WarwickSenator PARER—It is alleged by some, particularly some of the more grubby people on the other side—Senator Carr interjecting—KI4Parer, Sen WarwickSenator PARER—I might say that Senator Carr could well listen to what Senator Robert Ray said. At no stage did Senator Robert Ray question my own integrity and the fact that there was a conflict of interest.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—But, Senator, you would acknowledge that many questions were asked.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senators on both sides will cease interjecting and allow Senator Parer to speak. There are only four minutes left on the adjournment debate before the Senate rises.KI4Parer, Sen WarwickSenator PARER—It was alleged by some that there was a potential conflict of interest. As I indicated, from what I heard Senator Ray say, he made a point of saying that he did not believe that. I have not sought to advance the interests of that company that I used to chair and of which I was a director and of which I resigned in all cases on being appointed to the Senate.LI4PATTERSONSenator Patterson—To the ministry or to the Senate?KI4Parer, Sen WarwickSenator PARER—To the ministry. I have not sought to advance my interests in any way whatsoever, and I have not made any direct representation in support of that company either within government or to any overseas purchasers.The question was raised—I think it was a lead-in question from Senator Cook—about what we have done for the mining industry. I am very proud of what we have done for the mining industry as to the business of export controls. Let me point out that this was an election commitment formulated prior to my having any portfolio responsibility. I was not even on the backbench committee when we were in opposition with regard to resources and energy. The Prime Minister has made it very clear that in no way have I committed any breach of ministerial guidelines.Let me now address the register of interests. Until question time I had not been informed in any way of the requirements to disclose shareholdings of a trust.AW5CARRSenator Carr—What did Jim Short go for?KI4Parer, Sen WarwickSenator PARER—I beg your pardon?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Parer, I suggest that you concentrate on what you want to say and ignore interjections.KI4Parer, Sen WarwickSenator PARER—If you want to question me, Senator Carr—AW5CARRSenator Carr—I asked a straightforward question. What did Jim Short go for?KI4Parer, Sen WarwickSenator PARER—I was not advised. What I did was do exactly what I had done for the years gone by. The requirement, I understand, was introduced in March 1997. I do agree that, as that requirement is there, technically you could say I was in breach. I am happy to correct that. I might also say that the Parer trust does have shares—other shares—which are publicly listed which are not in any way involved with the mining industry. That was a deliberate position taken by my wife, who controls that trust. I will be happy to correct that. I checked with my staff both here and in Brisbane and they have no record of that change to the liability requirements.The only thing I would say, which shows how scurrilous the Labor Party can be, is that the member for Hotham from the other side in another place produced a piece of paper. What he tried to indicate in quite a deceitful way was that somehow, on being appointed to the ministry, I involved myself in a complicated structure simply to avoid disclosure.That is the sort of sleaze that we have been used to from the other side. This has been in existence for many years. I think I have explained the difficulties. On my appointment, we did have some publicly listed shares. If my memory is correct—and it might not be that good—I think they were BHP, and they were immediately sold.19:38:00886Senate adjourned at 7.38 p.m.Documents886886The following government document was tabled:Australian Industry Development Corporation Act—Australian Industry Development Corporation (AIDC)—Report for 1996-97The following documents were tabled by the Clerk:Australian Communications Authority Act, Radiocommunications Act, Radiocommunications (Receiver Licence Tax) Act and Radiocommunications (Transmitter Licence Tax) Act—Radiocommunications (Definitions) Determination No. 2 of 1993 (Amendment No. 9).Defence Act—Determination under section 58B—Defence Determination 1998/9.Lands Acquisition Act—Statement describing property acquired by agreement under section 40 of the Act for specified public purposes.Radiocommunications Act— Radiocommunications Licence Conditions (MDS Licence) Determination No. 1 of 1998. Radiocommunications (Transmitter and Receiver Licences) Determination (Amendment No. 1 of 1998).Radiocommunications (Receiver Licence Tax) Act—Radiocommunications (Receiver Licence Tax) Determination No. 1 of 1996 (Amendment No. 1 of 1998).Radiocommunications (Transmitter Licence Tax) Act—Radiocommunications (Transmitter Licence Tax) Determination No. 1 of 1996 (Amendment No. 1 of 1998).Veterans' Entitlements Act—Instruments under section 29—Instruments Nos 1 and 2 of 1998.