1998-03-123816SENATE88901998-03-12The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid) took the chair at 9.30 a.m., and read prayers.88910001CLERK ASSISTANTThe Clerk—Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows:88933656Forshaw Sen MichaelTo the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate assembled in Parliament.The petition of certain citizens draws the attention of the House to the damaging impact of the Government's changes to post-secondary education. Upfront undergraduate fees; increased HECS fees and charges; cuts to student places; cuts to Austudy and Abstudy and decreased Commonwealth funding for universities are denying students fair access to university education. Your petitioners therefore ask the House to return post-secondary education to a system which is fair and accessible for Australians.Senator Forshaw656Senator Forshaw(from 33 citizens)88934656Forshaw Sen MichaelTo the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate assembled in Parliament:This petition of certain citizens of Australia, draws to the attention of the Senate the fact that members of the Royal Australian Navy who served in Malaya between 1955 and 1960 are still the only Australians, sent overseas on active service, whose service has not been recognised in three important areas:1. R.A.N. casualties are not yet included on the Roll of Honour at the Australian War Memorial alongside Army and R.A.A.F. casualties;2. R.A.N. service has not yet been recognised with the visible signs of service to Australia; the Returned from Active Service Badge and the Naval campaign medal; and3. R.A.N. service is still not acknowledged as eligible service for the Australian Service Pension, while service by Commonwealth and allied veterans from 55 other countries is.Members of the Army and R.A.A.F. who served during the same period in Malaya had their service fully recognised 24 hours after arriving in Malaya.In the 1997 Budget the Government partly recognised that R.A.N. service was `operational' and accepted responsibility for disabilities resulting from that service. Those affected appreciate the belated, partial recognition. However, government departments are still resorting to old, and inventing new excuses, to deny the above 3 points.Your petitioners therefore request that the Senate acts to help remove the injustice of 40 years and fully recognise R.A.N. service by providing the same recognition and benefits for that service. The cost will be minuscule, being mainly a transfer of pensions from `age' as paid by the Department of Social Security, to `service' pensions, paid by the Department of Veterans' Affairs.Senator Forshaw656Senator Forshaw(from 34 citizens)Petitions received.Notices889889889O'Chee, Sen BillSenator O'CHEEEU4QLDNP10—Pursuant to notice given at the last day of sitting and on behalf of the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances, I now withdraw business of the Senate notices of motion Nos 1 and 2 standing in my name for the next day of sitting.889889Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the Senate—(a) notes: (i) the endorsement by the Senate of the United Nations (UN) Commission on Human Rights Resolution 1997/63 on East Timor in November 1997, (ii) the commission will sit from 16 March to 24 April 1998 in Geneva and will again consider a European Union draft resolution on human rights in Indonesia/East Timor, (iii) the recommendations of Resolution 1997/63 included clarification of the Dili massacre, release of political prisoners, access to East Timor for human rights organisations, progress on the establishment of a UN human rights office in Jakarta and cooperation with special rapporteurs, and (iv) the Indonesian Government has not implemented any of the recommendations of Resolution 1997/63 and has cut off negotiations with the High Commissioner for Human Rights on the establishment of a human rights office in Jakarta; and(b) calls on the Australian Government to: (i) give support to the principle of a further motion on Indonesia at the 54th session of the commission, and (ii) urgently press the Indonesian Government to implement Resolution 1997/63 and to resume negotiations with the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights regarding the establishment of a human rights office in Jakarta.890890O'Chee, Sen BillSenator O'CHEEEU4QLDNP10—On behalf of the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances, I give notice, that 15 sitting days after today, I shall move:That the Therapeutic Goods Regulations (Amendment), as contained in Statutory Rules 1997 No. 400 and made under the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989 be disallowed.That the Therapeutic Goods Regulations (Amendment), as contained in Statutory Rules 1997 No. 401 and made under the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989, be disallowed.I seek leave to make a short statement about the committee's concerns with these regulations.Leave granted.EU4O'Chee, Sen BillSenator O'CHEE—I thank the Senate. The committee's concerns with these regulations include an unclear definition, an unclear provision, an unfair provision and matters which may be more appropriate for parliamentary enactment. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a short summary of the matters raised by the committee.Leave granted.The summary read as follows—Therapeutic Goods Regulations (Amendment) Statutory Rules 1997 No 400These Regulations establish a pre-clearance scheme for advertisements to be published in mainstream print media about non-prescription drugs, herbal remedies and the like.The definition of mainstream media in r.5B is unclear. For one thing, it refers to any magazine or newspaper for consumers but does not indicate what class of person is included within the notion of consumers. The definition might also be regarded as unnecessarily broad.New rr.5K and 5L permit the Secretary to vary the conditions of an approval, or to withdraw an approval. The Committee notes that those decisions are subject to review by ministerial and AAT review. Subregulation 5M(6), however, provides that a request for a review of the Secretary's decision does not affect the operation of that decision. Neither rr.5K or 5L prevent the Secretary from issuing a notice of variation or withdrawal with immediate effect, which could have unfair financial implications for the intending advertiser of the relevant product.Regulation 19 provides for the fees that are to be charged on an application for approval of an advertisement, but the Explanatory Statement does not indicate the basis on which those fees have been set. Furthermore, paragraph (c) of the regulation refers to an advertorial, which is presumably something other than an advertisement, and for which there is no warrant in the regulations for charging fees since advertorials do not need approval under r.5F.Therapeutic Goods Regulations (Amendment) Statutory Rules 1997 No 401These Regulations prohibit anyone from claiming that any therapeutic goods are drug free.The two sets of regulations provide for important matters affecting the general administration of therapeutic goods. These appear to be of sufficient importance that it may be more appropriate to address them through amendment of the enabling Act, where the changes would be subject to full parliamentary debate.890890Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSONLI4VICLP10—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the Senate—(a) notes that: (i) the week beginning 15 March 1998 is Seniors Week in Victoria and New South Wales, (ii) Seniors Week will be celebrated in all other States and Territories later in 1998, and (iii) the theme for the week is `Age of Discovery';(b) commends the theme as acknowledging the potential of older citizens to learn and explore new ideas and activities, which is too often denigrated by the outdated stereotypes of ageing employed by the mainstream media;(c) recognises the important opportunity Seniors Week provides to reflect on the achievements and contributions older Australians make to our community; and (d) commends all State and Territory Governments for their commitment to Seniors Week and calls on them to support the Year of Older Australians in 1999.Business891891Motion (by Senator Carr) agreed to:That business of the Senate notice of motion No. 1 standing in the name of Senator Carr for today, relating to the disallowance of the Workplace Relations Regulations (Amendment) as contained in Statutory Rules 1997 No. 314, be postponed till 25 March 1998.891Motion (by Senator George Campbell) agreed to:That business of the Senate notice of motion No. 2 standing in the name of Senator George Campbell for today, relating to the reference of a matter to the Economics References Committee, be postponed till 25 March 1998.891Motion (by Senator Ian Macdonald) agreed to:That the following government business orders of the day be considered from 12.45 p.m. till not later than 2.00 p.m. this day:No. 4— NRS Levy Imposition Bill 1997Telecommunications Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1997891Motion (by Senator Ian Macdonald ) agreed to:That the order of general business for consideration today be as follows:(1) General business notice of motion No. 967 standing in the name of Senator Mackay, relating to industrial relations and employment policies; and(2) Consideration of government documents.891Motion (by Senator Patterson) agreed to:That business of the Senate order of the day No. 1, relating to the presentation of a report of the Environment, Recreation, Communications and the Arts Legislation Committee, be postponed till a later hour. 891Motion (by Senator Chris Evans, at the request of 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 the next day of sitting.Committees891891891Motion (by Senator Jacinta Collins) agreed to:That the following matter be referred to the Committee of Privileges:The unauthorised disclosure of a draft report of the Economics References Committee referred to in the report by the committee of 10 March 1998.891Motion (by Senator Ian Macdonald, at the request of Senator Ian Campbell) agreed to:That senators be 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 cutsEmployment, 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.Miscellaneous891Motion (by Senator Lees) agreed to:That the Senate—(a) notes: (i) the high degree of public concern about the Government's regulation of alternative and complementary medicines, as evident from the large amount of correspondence received by Senator Lees on this issue, including a petition signed by 5 000 people, (ii) that there is some degree of confusion among consumers about the role and responsibilities of the Government in the regulation of complementary medicines;(b) recognises the need for consumers, small business owners and others involved with the complementary medical products industry to have access to clear information about the laws and regulations governing the manufacture, retail and promotion of complementary medicines; and(c) requests that the Government produce a plain English guide to the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989, and accompanying regulations, to enable consumers, manufacturers and retailers to obtain clear and concise information about the role of the Government in the regulation of complementary medicines and the rights and responsibilities of all parties involved with this sector of the therapeutic goods industry.Business892892Motion (by Senator Carr) agreed to:That general business notice of motion No. 965 (relating to the funding of vocational education), No. 971 (government responses to Employment, Education and Training References Committee reports) and No. 980 (the Common Youth Allowance), standing in the name of Senator Carr for today, be postponed till the next day of sitting.Business892892892892Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT5F4TASLP10—On behalf of the respective chairs I present additional information received by the Environment Recreation Communications and the Arts Legislation Committee in response to the 1997-98 additional estimates hearings and additional information received by the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee in response to the 1997-98 budget estimates hearings.Miscellaneous892892892892Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT5F4TASLP10—On behalf of Senator Sandy Macdonald, I present the 15th report of the Senate Standing Committee on Publications.Ordered that the report be adopted.892892892Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT5F4TASLP10—On behalf of Senator O'Chee and the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances, I present a statement on developments in the past year on scrutiny of instruments made to implement national uniform legislative schemes, and I seek leave to incorporate the statement in Hansard and to take note of the document.Leave granted.The statement read as follows—The Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances would like to report on developments in the past year on scrutiny of instruments made to implement national uniform legislative schemes. These schemes present particular challenges for scrutiny committees, because they usually deal with important matters and follow complex making procedures involving Commonwealth, State and Territory governments. These procedures are sometimes used as a reason to attempt to lessen or exclude parliamentary oversight. The Committee, however, does not accept this dilution of the role of Parliament and applies its usual strict standards to these instruments. The legislative scrutiny committees of the Commonwealth, States and Territories cooperate in their scrutiny of national legislative schemes, which are discussed at conferences and meetings of Chairs. During 1997 the Committee wrote twice to the Chairs of our sister Committees on this matter and then presented a paper to the conference of Australian legislative scrutiny committees. Following that conference and further correspondence most of the committees wrote advising that the Committee's suggestions could form the basis of a coordinated approach by all Commonwealth, State and Territory committees. The Chairman pursued this at a meeting of Chairs yesterday. Also, the Legislative Instruments Bill 1996 included a provision which would dilute the effect of the Bill in respect of parliamentary disallowance of instruments providing for uniform national legislative schemes. The Committee reported to the Senate on the Bill on 21 November 1996, 6 March 1997 and 23 June 1997.In respect of the activities of the State and Territory committees, the Committee received a very encouraging letter from the Chair of the Queensland Committee on delegated legislation, Mr Tony Elliott MLA, describing its experiences in scrutinising the important Electricity-National Scheme (Queensland) Bill. Unfortunately 1997 also saw advice from the A.C.T. Attorney-General, Mr Gary Humphries MLA, a former Deputy Chairman of the A.C.T. Committee, that there seemed no prospect of advancing our views through the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General. This was disappointing but the Australian legislative scrutiny committees will continue efforts to coordinate our activities and to give our usual close attention to individual instruments implementing national scheme legislation which are tabled in our separate legislatures. By dint of circumstance, however, a particular package of regulations made under a national scheme gave the committee the opportunity to demonstrate how co-ordinated national scrutiny could be achieved.The Road Transport Reform (Dangerous Goods) Regulations, Statutory Rules 1997 No.241 , were made under express provisions of theRoad Transport Reform (Dangerous Goods) Act 1995 to apply as laws of the Australian Capital Territory and the Jervis Bay Territory, with the intention that they will be incorporated into the law of the States and the Northern Territory by adopting legislation. As is often the case with regulations implementing a uniform legislative scheme, the Regulations are much longer than the enabling Act.The Explanatory Statement for the Regulations advised that they provide for duties and obligations of participants in the transport of dangerous goods by road and for related administration and enforcement. These participants included prime contractors, consignors, drivers, loaders, packers, importers and manufacturers. The Regulations were developed by the National Road Transport Commission (NRTC) under two intergovernmental agreements, in close consultation with the Commonwealth and State and Territory authorities and major stakeholders. The Regulations were made publicly available for comment and approved unanimously by the Ministerial Council for Road Transport.The Committee then scrutinised the Regulations in the light of its high standards of personal rights and parliamentary propriety and found a number of deficiencies which warranted an approach to the Minister. These deficiencies were as follows. Firstly, the Committee noted that the Light Vehicles Agreement 1992 required the NRTC to develop and maintain national standards as a matter of priority. The present Regulations, however, were not made until five years later. This delay appeared to be a breach of parliamentary propriety.Secondly, one single provision provided for 68 strict liability offences. The Explanatory Statement did not advise of the need for these offences. The Committee always questions unexplained strict liability offences, which may breach personal rights.Thirdly, the Regulations provided for a system of administrative infringement notices for offences. The Committee has no objection to such systems provided that they include propersafeguards. In this case an official who serves an infringement notice was given the power to extend the time for payment, apparently forever, with no indication of when the discretion could be exercised, which the Committee noted could be at the time the notice was issued, within the time provided in the notice for payment, or at some later time.Fourthly, the Regulations did not include the essential safeguard that infringement notices must notify persons affected of their rights. In particular, an infringement notice was not required to include the vital information that if a person pays the administrative penalty then any liability of the person for the offence is discharged, the person may not be prosecuted in court for the offence and the person is not taken to have been convicted of the offence. This appeared to be a clear breach of personal rights.Fifthly, the Regulations provided for reconsideration and review of specified decisions. This was appropriate but the Committee felt that it should receive an assurance that all legislative instruments in the Regulations are subject to disallowance and all administrative decisions are subject to reconsideration and review. The Committee also wanted to be assured that previously existing approvals, determinations and exemptions which the Regulations continued in operation remained subject to any disallowance or review.The Committee accordingly wrote to the Minister asking for comments on the apparent deficiencies and noting the helpful cooperation which it had received in respect of related instruments. The Minister replied in considerable detail.With respect to the possible delay in making the Regulations the Minister advised that the previous law was poorly expressed and possibly unenforceable in a number of areas. The Regulations involved therefore a significant exercise to restructure the law and the necessary extensive consultation took time. With respect to strict liability, the Minister advised that the offences related to matters where a contravention could give rise to serious injury to people, property or the environment. Assuch the offences conformed to Commonwealth criminal law policy. The Minister stated that each strict liability offence was carefully considered and was of a regulatory nature which would not result in a lessening of the offender's reputation. Strict liability would allow for easier enforcement, including the use of infringement notices. It was argued that persons who consign dangerous goods or are driving a vehicle transporting dangerous goods are strictly liable on the basis that the improper transport of such substances may have far reaching and devastating effects. It was stated that if one part of a process does not comply with the Regulations that dangerous situations could occur later.The Minister advised that the discretion to extend the time for payment of a penalty could be exercised at any time up until a summons was served on the person for the offence. He undertook that the Regulations would be amended to provide that infringement notices must include the usual safeguards.The Minister assured the Committee that all legislative instruments made under the Regulations were disallowable and that all administrative decisions are subject to reconsideration and review, except for those decisions which are not the ultimate decision affecting a person's rights and interests. No discretions were exercisable under the instruments continued in effect.The Committee thanked the Minister for his advice, which in general met its concerns. The Committee, however, still had reservations about nine of the 68 strict liability offences and asked the Minister for further advice. Five of the nine offences involved drivers and the Committee was particularly concerned that strict liability might operate harshly against them. The Committee suggested that it may be more appropriate to provide that these offences must be knowingly or wilfully committed, especially given that parallel strict liability offences existed in respect of prime contractors. Two of the other four strict liability offences involved transferors, one an owner and one an occupier.The Minister replied with a very detailed explanation of the offences, which met its concerns about five of the nine offences, but which still left the Committee with concerns about theremaining four. By this stage however, the protective notice of disallowance in respect of the Regulations had almost expired and the matter had become urgent. Accordingly the Chairman had two separate meetings over two days with the Minister and his advisers, following which the Committee obtained an undertaking that three of the four strict liability offences would be amended in respect of strict liability for drivers. The Minister persuaded the Committee that the fourth offence was acceptable. The Committee therefore withdrew its notice of disallowance on what by then was the last day on which it was able to do so, giving notice pursuant to standing order 78 that it would be withdrawn at a later hour of the sameday. The Committee is pleased to report to the Senate that the position with respect to these Regulations is now acceptable.The Committee is particularly grateful for the personal attention which the Minister for Transport and Regional Development, the Hon Mark Vaile MP, gave to the Committee's concerns. The Minister's actions have ensured that the Regulations will comply with high standards of parliamentary propriety and personal rights.As noted earlier, the Regulations form the central plank of the uniform national legislative scheme providing for the transport of dangerous goods. They are also an important part of the wider national scheme for regulation of road transport. The Committee will therefore inform the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills and the State and Territory legislative scrutiny committees of its actions, which are another instance of the capacity of legislative scrutiny committees to bring about desirable change.5F4Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT—I move:That the Senate take note of the document.09:40:00894Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I think the issue of national uniform legislation schemes is important. We are going to see a great deal of controversy on some legislation. We are seeing a situation also where the Commonwealth is getting out of a great deal of their responsibilities, especially in relation to the environment. It is interesting that, considering the amount of public concern on issues like the environment, the environment seems to be the particular area where the Commonwealth is choosing to remove themselves from responsibilities.One of the major problems here is that there should be some sort of oversight function. In my opinion, the Commonwealth should be able to have some kind of scrutiny to see that the standards, whatever kind of agreements have been set, actually take place. That does not seem to be the situation at the moment in relation to such things as the environment and social issues.I believe that in many cases when the Commonwealth is getting out of areas of scrutiny it is a means of just getting it out of the way rather than having any better forms of legislation. That is a pity. I think it is necessary for the community of Australia to make sure that the Commonwealth are in fact maintaining their levels of responsibility and that they do not just pick out particular areas to shovel off to the states on the basis that the states will act responsibly.There are areas that the Commonwealth are involved with, particularly in international agreements and international responsibilities, and it will be very difficult to find out what is going to happen if we do not have the Commonwealth actually playing their part. We have had announcements from the government that they are going to move out of everything in the environment except those areas of national significance, but they have given no indication of what that might be in relation to international significance and whether it includes things like greenhouse gas emissions which require a concerted approach from the Commonwealth government.I wish to put the government on notice that, in relation to any national uniform legislative schemes, we are looking very closely. We know there have been efforts to make these kinds of moves not disallowable. We know there are moves to put major parts of the native title bills into schemes that the states operate rather than the federal government. We know the issues of human rights, social justice and, obviously, environmental integrity are likely losers.I think, in the end, it is going to bring a much wider debate within the community about what is or should be in the constitution. I certainly believe there was a deliberate effort not to include any wider issues in the Constitutional Convention. But I think there is going to be greater and greater disquiet within the community if the Commonwealth continues to act in the way it has to date. I seek leave to continue my remarks.Leave granted.895895895Denman, Sen KaySenator DENMANFY5TASALP00—I present the annual report for 1997 of the Committee of Senators' Interests.Ordered that the report be printed.895895895Denman, Sen KaySenator DENMANFY5TASALP00—I present the procedural rules for the declaration and preservation of gifts received by senators for the Senate and the Parliament.Ordered that the document be printed.FY5Denman, Sen KaySenator DENMAN—I seek leave to make a short statement.Leave granted.FY5Denman, Sen KaySenator DENMAN—On 26 August 1997, the Senate agreed to procedures for the declaration by senators of gifts received by them but intended for the Senate as an institution. The resolution applies to all senators but may particularly affect Senate office holders and senators leading delegations overseas. A gift is taken to be institutional rather than personal if the donor expresses that intention; or if the identity of the donor or the circumstances of the donation are such that it is reasonable to assume the gift is institutional rather than personal; or if the gift is from an official source like a government and is valued at over $500, or is from a private person and is valued at over $200.The Senate has resolved that it is a serious contempt to knowingly fail to declare such gifts. The Senate resolution empowers the Committee of Senators' Interests to formulate and table procedural rules for the declaration, registration and preservation of such gifts. It is these rules which I now wish to table. The committee will recommend to the President how such institutional gifts should be displayed, for example, in Parliament or in a senator's office or elsewhere.I draw senators' particular attention to the paragraph in the procedural rules which states:It should be borne in mind by all senators that as a matter of history, culture and practice, and while respecting the traditions of other countries, Australia does not favour or encourage political gift giving or political gift receiving. There are, however, occasions of significance which governments, parliamentarians, parliamentary institutions or others may wish to mark by giving a gift to another Parliament. The Senate resolution and the procedural rules are designed to accommodate such occasions.Business896896Motion (by Senator Carr)—by leave—agreed to:That the following motion be considered during general business today in lieu of general business notice of motion no. 967:The Senate notes, with concern, that:(a) despite coming to office pledging to reduce youth and long-term unemployment by boosting economic growth, the policies of the Howard Government have in fact delivered: (i) a 15 per cent increase in long-term unemployment since March 1996, (ii) a fall in employment growth from 2.9 per cent per year during the last term of the Labor Government, to 1.4 per cent per year under the Coalition, (iii) an increase in the youth unemployment rate from 27.4 per cent to 28.4 per cent since March 1996, and (iv) a fall in economic growth from 4.7 per cent to 3.6 per cent since March 1996;(b) the Government's response to this disastrous employment picture has been to contract out the responsibility for its failures by abolishing the Commonwealth Employment Service and introducing a `market-based' approach to employment services, without parliamentary scrutiny and excluding many hundreds of community-based employment service providers with excellent track records and priceless intellectual property;(c) the Government has introduced this fundamentally flawed employment policy with a tender process which has been secretive, has demonstrated no link between resource allocation and need, and fails to deal with ongoing issues such as performance monitoring and purchaser/provider dispute resolution; and(d) the Government's policy, despite being promoted as more flexible and effective, is no more than a cynical measure designed to artificially deliver a lower long-term unemployment rate by actively excluding from the employment services market 400 000 unemployed people who are not on benefits, people over 50 and people who have been in case management for more than 39 weeks.Committees896896896896Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT5F4TASLP10—On behalf of Senator Gibson and the Joint Committee of Public Accounts, I present report No. 356 entitled An advisory report on the Tax Law Improvement Bill (No. 2) 1997 . I seek leave to have the tabling speech incorporated in Hansard and I also seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted.The speech read as follows—Madam President, on behalf on the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, I present the Committee's Report No. 356: An Advisory Report on the Tax Law Improvement Bill (No. 2) 1997.Madam President, this is the third occasion that the Committee has reported on a bill arising from the rewrite of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936. The first tranche of rewrite legislation was reviewed during 1996 with the Committee tabling its findings in August of that year. The second tranche was reviewed in 1997 with the Committee reporting in March 1997.The Committee looks forward to reviewing further rewrite legislation as it is introduced to Parliament.The rewrite is being undertaken by the Tax Law Improvement Project (TLIP), situated in the Australian Taxation Office, and has the aim of simplifying and restructuring the existing law to make it clearer. This should reduce compliance costs to taxpayers. This Bill has attracted considerable interest from stakeholders as it contains the important capital gains tax provisions.The Committee, because of its long involvement with the rewrite of the 1936 Act, has recognised recurrent themes that have arisen during the review of this Bill, and has commented on these matters in the report.Firstly, stakeholders have been frustrated for some time with the inability of TLIP to address issues of a small `p' policy nature. The Committee has acknowledged this and in Report 348 —the review of the second tranche of legislation—recommended that TLIP's mandate be extended to encompass the consideration of small policy issues. Although the Government has not agreed with this recommendation, the Assistant Treasurer has put in place a separate mechanism involving stakeholders by which such issues can be addressed. The Committee welcomes this initiative and believes this may satisfy the thrust of its recommendation.A second recurrent theme observed by the Committee, is the continuing perception among some stakeholders that TLIP defers to an Australian Taxation Office view when translating the existing law into new law. Several submissions have focused on this issue and the Committee notes that the perception is strongly held by some stakeholders and has been rigorously defended by TLIP.The Committee has discussed this matter in the report and provided some of the evidence as an appendix.The Committee notes that if individual stakeholders strongly disagree with the stance taken by TLIP on a particular matter, there are various other avenues to seek redress. This is entirely appropriate and forms a keystone of our system of government.A third recurrent theme, and one which appears to have had a critical impact on this review, relates to the time available to review the Bill.The Bill contains the important and complex capital gains tax provisions, but unfortunately the time allowed for stakeholders to respond to exposure drafts of the legislation has been truncated, and the time for the Committee to review the Bill after its introduction has been short, especially when compared to the complex issues upon which the Committee has been expected to report.As well, there is evidence of undue haste in preparing the Bill because it was incomplete when introduced, and one division and several transitional provisions have yet to be released.The truncated consultation process and incompleteness of the Bill have led witnesses to express a lack of confidence in their ability to adequately review the proposed legislation and identify unintended consequences. They have called for the implementation of the Bill to be delayed or for a no-detriment clause to be added.The Committee in reviewing the Bill has found itself in a similar position to the stakeholders. The incompleteness of the Bill and the short time for review has prevented the Committee reviewing the legislation with the thoroughness it would like.The Committee has therefore recommended that the implementation of two Divisions and one Subdivision of the Bill be delayed pending its review by the Committee. These provisions were released too late for the Committee to review them or have not been released at all. The Committee also notes that transitional provisions relating to twelve areas have yet to be released.The Committee considers it inappropriate to go further and has not agreed with calls to delay the entire Bill. The Committee acknowledges the imperative to maintain momentum in the progressive introduction of clearer law to replace the 1936 Act and is encouraged by the fact that witnesses have commented favourably on the clarity of the Bill. Taxpayers should not be denied recourse to legislation which is designed to be clearer and which should reduce compliance costs.The alternative to delaying the Bill advocated by some witnesses—the introduction of a no-detriment clause—has also not been supported by the Committee. Such a clause would prevent closing off the existing law. In reviewing previous rewrite legislation, the Committee supported the view that the rewritten legislation should replace the provisions of the 1936 Act and should not operate in tandem with that Act. The Committee has not changed its view and believes it is more appropriate for taxpayers to rely on the existing section 1-3 and the traditional avenue of legislative amendment to protect against unintended consequences.The Committee in reviewing the individual clauses of the Bill has made a number of recommendations which relate to. policy issues which are outside TLIP's mandate;. major technical issues which are sufficiently weighty to require substantial review which may be beyond TLIP's capacity to undertake, or be sufficiently broad in scope to impinge on policy matters; and. minor technical issues of a non-policy nature which TLIP can address.The report also contains as an appendix, comments on individual clauses of the Bill made in submissions and by witnesses, together with responses by TLIP. The Committee believes this will be a guide to the evidence and assist the debate on the details of the Bill.In conclusion and on behalf of the Committee, I would like to thank all those who have contributed to this review. Many have provided submissions to the Committee and appeared as witnesses at the Committee's public hearings. In particular I would like to thank the private sector representatives on TLIP and TLIP's private sector consultative committee.I would also like to thank members of the secretariat, Dr Margot Kerley the JCPAA secretary and Dr John Carter and Ms Tiana Gray who were involved with inquiry. I also thank Mr Gary Martin who was seconded to the secretariat to assist the Committee and its secretariat with the review. Madam President, I commend the Report to the Senate.Debate adjourned.Bills898r370Billsr371898898Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT5F4TASLP10—On behalf of Senator Patterson, I present the report of the Environment, Recreation, Communications and the Arts Legislation Committee on the provisions of the National Transmission Network Sale Bill 1997 and the National Transmission Network Sale (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1997 together with submissions and the Hansard record of proceedings.Ordered that the report be printed.5F4Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT—I seek leave to incorporate the tabling statement in Hansard .Leave granted.The statement read as follows—The Committee has inquired into the bills and it is recommending that the Senate should pass the bills. The bills provide both the ABC and SBS with the opportunity to have a direct commercial relationship with transmission service providers a relationship they have been seeking for a long time.In evidence to the Committee, both organisations welcomed the greater flexibility that the new arrangements would give them. They told the Committee that the sale of the National Transmission Network to a private entity would provide them with an opportunity to achieve control of their transmission services, an objective that they had been pursuing for many years.Both public broadcasting organisations told the Committee that they had been thoroughly consulted during the development of the bill and that they were confident that the compact that they were negotiating with the government would be satisfactory and would enable them to fulfil their current obligations.The government has ensured a smooth transition to the new regime by providing the public broadcasters with the opportunity to enter into a 5 year contract with the NTN and subsequently with the new owners to obtain transmission services which the government is committed to fund fully. In addition, the broadcasters have the option of renewing this contract for two further 5 year periods when the initial contract expires.The bill ensures that after the sale, the public broadcasters will be able to maintain and develop their commitment to rural and regional areas. Through the development of a new access regime to transmission services, the government has been particularly careful to ensure that community service obligations continue to be met.Community broadcasters who sent submissions to the inquiry acknowledged that the government is providing direct budget supplementation to Radio for the Print Handicapped broadcasting groups to enable them to pay access fees. Other self-help retransmission services and remote commercial television services will also receive concessional pricing arrangements. Those emergency service organisations, largely manned by volunteers, which operate services relating to the preservation of human life will also benefit from concessional pricing and the opportunity of renewing their contracts for two further 5 year periods substantially under the same terms and conditions.The Committee was concerned that certain ancillary services such as closed captioning for the hearing impaired might suffer if they are not considered a `protected service' under the new regime. Accordingly, it has recommended an amendment to Clause 15(2) so that closed captioning should be a protected service included in the new access regime.I commend the report to the Senate.Bills898r381Billsr407Billsr392Billsr377Billsr410898Bills received from the House of Representatives. 899Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALDYW4QLDLP10—I indicate to the Senate that those bills which have just been announced are being introduced together. After debate on the motion for the second reading has been adjourned, I will be moving a motion to have the bills listed separately on the Notice Paper . I move:That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills read a first time.89909:52:00899Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALDYW4QLDLP10—I table revised explanatory memoranda relating to the Customs and Excise Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1998 and the Crimes (Superannuation Benefits) Amendment Bill 1998 and move:That these bills be now read a second time.I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard .Leave granted.The speeches read as follows —HIGHER EDUCATION LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 1997This Government is one committed to expanding the number of places in higher education, to improving the resources of higher education, and to creating a higher education system that is flexible enough to meet the needs of Australian students, employers and the community and to continue to attract large numbers of students from overseas.The bill legislates funding levels for the years 1999 and 2000. It provides new funding of $3,783,052,000 in 1999 (in addition to the existing $8,247,000 already legislated) and $3,581,640,000 in 2000. In legislating funds for 1999 and 2000, the bill confirms to higher education institutions the overall funding levels that are expected to be published later this year in the Higher Education Funding Report for the 1998-2000 Triennium . This will assist the institutions in their planning for the next few years.I want to take this opportunity to set the funding decisions embodied in this bill in the context of the Government's policy to promote access to higher education in Australia and to build quality. The Government is pursuing a quite deliberate strategy to expand both places and resources for the universities at the same time as it changes the mix of public and private funding.Under this Government there has been strong growth in the number of undergraduate student places. In 1997 there were over 17,000 more undergraduate places than there had been in 1996, an increase that will, according to the universities' estimates, still be in place in 1999.These figures are even better news for educational opportunity than they first appear, since the 17-24 year old population, from which 70 per cent of undergraduate students are drawn, will decline by 3 per cent over the period 1996 to 1999. The result is that a greater proportion of young Australians will have the opportunity to continue with their studies.If postgraduate students are included, the increase in numbers is even greater. On the universities' estimates, there will be in the year 2000 in excess of 453,000 domestic students in the higher education system, an increase of over 27,000 on 1996.In every year currently legislated, and in the years legislated by these amendments, there is an increase over 1996 in the number of Commonwealth funded undergraduate places. In the year 2000 there will be over 14,000 more Commonwealth funded undergraduate places than there were in 1996.In implementing the efficiency cuts to forward estimates the Government has been careful to maintain fairness. The universities have wherever possible accommodated the changed financing at the postgraduate course work level. This maximises the number of students who will receive a first degree and all the opportunities that can flow from that.The universities will from 1998 be paid the equivalent of the minimum up front differential HECS payment for each HECS liable undergraduate they enrol over their target level. For institutions with low costs this is an opportunity to offer additional places without charging fees.Further opportunities to participate in higher education have been created by the Government's decision to allow universities, from 1 January next year, to offer undergraduate fee-paying positions once they have met their target enrolment levels. These are all extra places that would not otherwise have existed. As students take up the fee paying positions, this has a flow-on effect, creating new opportunities for students who would otherwise have missed out on a HECS funded place. It is a win-win policy. Students who would have missed out on their first preference course will now get to do it, and students who would have missed out on higher education entirely will now get to enrol. Over time, this policy could greatly increase the number of places in Australian universities. Up to 25 per cent of course numbers can be fee-paying once the institution has met its target enrolments, so the potential numbers of new undergraduate students on a Commonwealth-funded base of over 360,000 is very large indeed.Another important point to recognise is that this policy shift ends the previous government's discrimination against Australian undergraduate students and ensures that Australian students have equal rights of entry to Australian universities with overseas students. Under the Labor Party, if you were from overseas you could invest in your future via education. But not if you were Australian. Under the Labor Party, if you were a postgraduate you could invest in your future via education. But not if you were an undergraduate. This was a very unfair policy. Yet it is a policy Labor plans to bring back. Their draft platform released last week promises the abolition of this new opportunity for students to invest in their futures. This is a very backward step.As higher education numbers expand we must make sure that opportunities to participate are widespread. The Government wishes to increase opportunities for groups that have been under-represented in higher education. People with disabilities, people from disadvantaged socio-economic backgrounds, women in non-traditional areas of study, people from rural and isolated areas, people from non-English speaking backgrounds, and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders are all the beneficiaries of the merit scholarships introduced in 1997. These scholarships provide exemption from the HECS charge to an additional 1000 effective full time student units each year. By the year 2000 the scholarships will provide exemptions of 4000 equivalent full time student units, which means that well over 4000 students will benefit each year.These groups of people also benefit from the Higher Education Equity Program, which assists the universities in developing appropriate programs to improve educational outcomes. Additional measures costing $72 million over three years were announced last year by Senator Vanstone for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander higher education.The distribution of growth places is designed to ensure that potential students do not miss out because of where they live. Between 1996 and 1999 Queensland's Commonwealth funded undergraduate places will increase by approximately 14 per cent, and Western Australia's by around 5 per cent.The higher education system cannot just be assessed by the number of students within it at any given time. A high quality education is essential if the potential present in Australia's students is to be realised, and if our universities are to remain competitive in the world market.The universities, and many dedicated individuals within them, have already taken steps to maintain and improve teaching standards. The introduction of first overseas and now Australian fee-paying students means that the universities have strong financial incentives to deliver a high quality product. Since it is in most cases impractical for the universities to differentiate between fee-paying and non fee-paying students, the policy of liberalising access to the education system produces spin-off benefits for non-fee paying students.The Government has taken other measures to help improve the quality of teaching. The Committee for University Teaching and Development was established in July 1996 with a budget of $20 million over three years. It makes recommendations for grants to encourage practical improvements in teaching and provide for staff development projects.The status of teaching within the universities is being enhanced by the Australian Awards for University Teaching, announced in the Great Hall last Monday night. These Awards recognise and reward excellence in teaching, in the way that the grants administered by the Australian Research Council recognise and reward the many outstanding researchers in our universities.Funding for higher education research through the targeted higher education research programme has been increased over the 1997-99 triennium, with additional funding totalling $129.3 million including the $90 million for research infrastructure. The quality of research training is being enhanced through an additional $9.3 million in support for Australian Postgraduate Awards. Funding for collaborative research grants, now re-aligned in the Strategic Partnerships with Industry—Research and Training Scheme, has been increased by $30 million. This collaborative funding forges stronger links between industry and universities, providing mutually beneficial opportunities for researchers in both sectors and helping universities diversify their funding sources.It is important to look at the overall impact of higher education funding decisions taken by the government. The government's financial commitment to higher education remains, of course, very substantial indeed. Despite the efficiency cuts to the forward estimates total Commonwealth expenditure on higher education will remain higher under this Government than it was under the former Government.In considering higher education funding it is important to look not just at Commonwealth funding, but at the total revenues available to the higher education sector. These are the figures that represent the true resources available to higher education. They show that substantially greater funds are available to the universities.About a third of all university revenue now comes from non-government sources. These revenue sources have the potential for growth. Total funding from all sources to the universities is estimated to have increased by around $460 million between 1995 and 1997. By 1999 it is estimated that the universities will have revenues around $650 million greater than in 1995.While the Commonwealth government will remain the largest single source of funds for higher education, significant growth in higher education funding will be coming from the entrepreneurial activities of the universities themselves.To spread the burdens of fiscal restraint fairly, the Commonwealth has phased in the reductions in the growth in the amount of money for higher education. On top of that we provided the opportunity for the sector to expand and become less dependent on Commonwealth money by creating the opportunities for the universities to raise revenue in other ways.Australian universities have been very successful in capturing a sizeable portion of the overseas student market. Despite the currency difficulties in some parts of Asia the prospects for the Australian education export industry are positive and our universities should still be able to derive a substantial income from overseas students.Growth in higher education overseas student numbers in 1997 is approximately 16 per cent.Our ability to sustain growth in the overseas student market is because so far studying in Australia is still comparatively cheap. The United States and the United Kingdom are still more expensive study destinations than Australia.Demand for study abroad is likely to be somewhat dampened by the current economic downturns in Asian economies. Nevertheless, currency devaluations may in some countries have worked in our favour by widening the cost gap between us and our major competitor countries, strengthening Australia's position in the education export market.The most recent evaluation of the situation is that, due to relative movements in exchange rates over recent months, Australia's competitive position against the US, the UK and Canada has improved in all our major markets—Malaysia, Indonesia, Hong Kong, Thailand, Taiwan, Singapore, South Korea, Japan, Vietnam, China and India.Overseas educational qualifications will continue to be strongly valued in Asian economies and the longer term demand for skilled labour will persist. Australia has a good reputation for providing a quality education and therefore I expect that Australia also continue to capture a significant share of the overseas higher education marketThis Government will assist where it can. In order to more fully understand the situation facing the Australian international education and training industry I have commissioned Professor Raoul Mortley to undertake an investigation and report to me by 15 December 1997.It is important that the higher education sector, and all other sectors of education and training, meet the needs of the community and employers as well as those of the students. This leads me to the important theme of lifelong learning.Gaining skills is now much more complex. In the higher education sector this means that education and training does not necessarily happen at one institution in a continuous block of time. This allied to the increase in student numbers and the diversity of student backgrounds has placed greater demands on universities.As the notions of lifelong learning—and the need constantly to update skills—take greater hold the education and training sector must develop appropriate delivery systems at a reasonable cost.The ramifications of lifelong learning will go across boundaries. Schools, universities and vocational education institutions traditionally have different missions. It is already apparent, however, that the boundaries between the sectors are becoming blurred.We have higher education institutions which offer sub-degree programs and some TAFEs now offer degrees. Considerable attention is now paid to articulation arrangements. I expect this trend to intensify.An increase in flexible arrangements in the post-compulsory education and training sector will help to achieve one of this Governments priorities—to ensure that every young person wanting to pursue education or training after the compulsory years of schooling, can do so.The fact is that about one quarter of 16, 17 and 18 year olds are not in any form of post-compulsory education and training. This Federal Government will do its utmost to expand opportunities for and lift the skill levels of these young people. At the same time we want to ensure that adults of all ages have good access to post-compulsory education and training at different stages throughout their lives. This Government intends to progress this agenda with the cooperation of all education and training sectors.I will now turn to other specific measures in this bill. The bill is designed to improve and streamline the operation of the higher education program, and will also provide increased funds to the sector over existing legislated amounts. In addition to legislating for the major funding amounts I have already mentioned the bill amends the Higher Education Funding Act 1988 to provide supplementation for price movements, covering items such as superannuation expenses, teaching hospitals, special capital projects, grants to open learning organisations and the total limit for certain grants. The total increase on existing amounts in 1998 will be $165,000.The bill also builds on the streamlined arrangements for applications for remission of debt under the Higher Education Contribution Scheme (HECS) and the Open Learning Deferred Payment Scheme (OLDPS), introduced by the Higher Education Funding Amendment Act (No.1) 1997. It introduces provisions to streamline the administration of the remission arrangements, by deeming applicants to have received notification of a decision on their application within a reasonable period. The amendment also places the emphasis on the applicant to advise the Secretary of the Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs of a change of address. The amendment will streamline the remission process for students and simplify the administration of the process.The bill also amends the Maritime College Act 1978 to ensure that the Australian Maritime College's (AMC) ability to charge fees is linked to the conditions of grants specified in the Higher Education Funding Act 1988. Unlike the statutes of other institutions, the Maritime College Act 1978 currently does not contain any provision to link the charging of fees to the conditions of grant under the Higher Education Funding Act 1988. The amendment will ensure that the Government may take action against the institution for any breach of the arrangements for charging fees to students. This is consistent with conditions already applying to other institutions.This bill reflects the Government's commitment to a higher education system that is efficient, relevant and of a high quality, striving for excellence and innovation in teaching and research.I commend the bill to the Senate.CUSTOMS AND EXCISE LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL (No. 1) 1998The Customs and Excise Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1998 has three main purposes:1.to amend the Customs Act 1901 (the Customs Act) to clarify that the Customs Act does not extend to the Australian external Territories,2.to amend the Customs Amendment Act (No. 1) 1997 to remove the reduced entry threshold for goods imported by the post, and 3.to amend the Australian Postal Corporation Act 1989 to correct an anomaly in the exercise of Customs' powers of examination of mail arriving into Australia from the external Territories.1. Amendments to the Customs ActThe present definition of Australia in the Customs Act provides that Australia does not include the Territory of Christmas Island or the Territory of Cocos (Keeling) Islands.The definition of Australia in section 17 of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 provides that Australia excludes all external Territories except Christmas Island and the Cocos (Keeling) Islands.The combined effect of these two definitions is that, for the purposes of the Customs Act, Australia does not include any of the external Territories.The purpose of the new definition of Australia in section 4 of the Customs Act is to state this position with greater clarity than at present. This definition will provide that Australia does not include the external Territories.The Ashmore and Cartier Islands are a group of islands and reefs 500 nautical miles west of Darwin and 80 nautical miles south of Timor. They are uninhabited islands but are an external Territory of Australia administered by the Department of Transport and Regional Development.In recent times, there has been an increase in the number of landings by illegal immigrants on Ashmore and Cartier Islands.Previously, there were very limited legislative powers to deal with these landings under customs, immigration and quarantine regimes.Amendments were recently made to the Customs Act, the Migration Act 1958 and the Quarantine Act 1908 by the Environment, Sport and Territories Legislation Amendment Act 1997 to enable certain powers under these regimes to be extended to these islands.The Customs Act presently states that, subject to subsection 6(2), the Customs Act does not extend to the Territory of Ashmore and Cartier Islands. Subsection 6(2) provides that regulations can be made to extend the whole or a part of the Customs Act to these islands.The present wording of subsection 6(1), however, does not make it clear that the Customs Act also does not extend to all the other external Territories. It is therefore proposed to amend subsection 6(1) to state that the Customs Act does not extend to the external Territories.In combination with the new definition of Australia, these two amendments will make it clear that the Customs Act does not apply in, or in relation to, the external Territories. 2. Amendments to the Customs Amendment Act.The Customs Amendment Act (No. 1) 1997 was one of three Acts which introduced the cost recovery regime for the provision of certain import related services.Under the regime, an amendment was made to the Customs Act to reduce the value limit of goods imported through the Post which require an import entry and which therefore attract an import entry processing charge.This value was reduced from $1,000 to $250 and this amendment was originally to take effect on 1 April 1998.A significant number of representations have been received by Government concerning the impact that the decrease in the threshold will have on small to medium business. At present, the Joint Committee of Public Accounts (JCPA) is also conducting the inquiry into internet commerce. Customs is working closely with the Committee to ensure that all relevant data is available on these issues to enable a full consideration of the implications of adjusting existing entry thresholds.In light of the reporting timeframe of the JCPA, it is therefore not considered appropriate to proceed with any proposed changes to existing entry thresholds until Government has had sufficient time to consider the Committee's findings on this issue. Therefore, it is proposed to remove the original amendment to section 68 of the Customs Act so that the current $1000 entry threshold will continue.3. Amendments to the Australian Postal Corporation Act 1989Under the Customs Act, officers of Customs have the right to examine goods imported into Australia by Post. However, a restriction is placed upon Customs' power to examine mail by section 90S of the Australian Postal Corporation Act 1989 (the Postal Corporation Act).The effect of section 90S is that certain conditions must be satisfied before Customs can examine an article of mail which is in the Post between Australia, and a place outside Australia.A difficulty has arisen in the application of this provision to mail from the external Territories due to the definition of Australia in the Postal Corporation Act. Under the Postal Corporation Act, Australia includes the external Territories except Norfolk Island.Under the Customs Act, Australia does not include the external Territories. The effect of this difference in the definition of Australia is that mail that is in the course of the Post between any external Territory and Australia cannot be examined by Customs. Section 90S does not apply to this mail because the external Territories are not a place outside Australia under the Postal Corporation Act. It is proposed to introduce the new subsection 90S(1A) into the Postal Corporation Act which states that in section 90S, Australia does not include the external Territories.This will be the same as the definition of Australia in the Customs Act and will enable Customs to examine postal articles from any external Territory where the conditions in section 90S have been satisfied.4. Minor AmendmentsThis bill will also make several minor technical amendments to the Customs Act and the Excise Act 1901. These are explained in detail in the explanatory memorandum.CRIMES (SUPERANNUATION BENEFITS) AMENDMENT BILL 1998This bill amends the Crimes (Superannuation Benefits) Act 1989 and the Australian Federal Police Act 1979. Those two acts make provision for the making of superannuation orders against corrupt Commonwealth employees, which have the effect of cancelling those employees' Commonwealth funded superannuation benefits. The bill improves the operation of superannuation orders and makes provision for a more efficient recovery of benefits that have been paid by Commonwealth schemes.The bill allows superannuation benefits that have been rolled-over or transferred from Commonwealth schemes to be traced and recovered from roll-over institutions. That closes a gap in both acts which has allowed some roll-overs to escape the operation of superannuation orders.The bill also provides a mechanism by which Commonwealth employees charged with or convicted of corruption offences may have their employer-funded superannuation benefits temporarily suspended. Those amendments bring the Crimes Superannuation Benefits Act in line with the Australian Federal Police Act which already makes provision for the suspension of benefits of AFP members and staff members.Where a person has been charged with or convicted of a corruption offence, the Minister may make a written direction to the accused's superannuation fund, the effect of which is to temporarily suspend the accused's employer-funded superannuation benefits. The suspension prevents the dissipation of superannuation benefits which may later become the subject of a superannuation or recovery order. Suspension or "freezing" of employer benefits preserves the benefits in the Commonwealth scheme until the finalisation of superannuation order proceedings. A person's own contributions are not affected by the suspension and may be withdrawn or cashed in accordance with the cashing restrictions of the superannuation law. The suspension expires after 12 months, or sooner, for example, if the person is acquitted of the offence or if the charges are withdrawn or otherwise not proceeded with.The bill also authorises the Official Trustee to take charge of and sell restrained property in satisfaction of a superannuation recovery order. Those provisions are modelled on similar provisions in the Proceeds of Crime Act 1987. The Crimes Superannuation Benefits Act has always made provision for restraining orders but until now, there has been no mechanism to dispose of restrained property to discharge superannuation order debts.The bill simplifies the way in which information is provided to a court that certifies the extent of a person's superannuation benefits in superannuation order proceedings. It seeks to relax the rules concerning the admissibility of certain documents.Finally, the bill facilitates the provision of information by superannuation entities concerning Commonwealth employees to the Commonwealth.The extension of superannuation recovery orders to roll-overs, the suspension of employer-funded benefits of persons charged with or convicted of corruption offences, and the new role of the Official Trustee, fortify the operation of the two acts and ensure that corrupt Commonwealth employees either do not receive or retain the benefit of Commonwealth funded superannuation. That is consistent with the underlying policy of superannuation orders that a Commonwealth employee who discharges his or her duties in a corrupt way has failed to fulfil a fundamental condition of employment and by doing so, forfeits his or her entitlement to publicly funded superannuation. Under the two acts, a person is entitled to a refund of his or her own contributions and interest and these amendments do not disturb that position.The amendments are expected to have a minor and unquantifiable financial impact on Government revenue.I commend the bill to the Senate.AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY (PLANNING AND LAND MANAGEMENT) AMENDMENT BILL 1997The purpose of this Bill is to increase the attractiveness of the Australian Capital Territory to potential investors by removing the perceived disincentive to business and other investment, brought about by the limit of land tenure to 99-year estates, as distinct from freehold title enjoyed elsewhere in Australia. The strengthening of land tenure security in the ACT for both residential and business purposes will deliver on an important election commitment.Section 9 of the Seat of Government (Administration) Act 1910 provides that no crown lands in the Territory may be sold or disposed of for freehold estates.The Australian Capital Territory (Planning and Land Management) Act 1988 provides for land in the ACT to be National Land or Territory Land. National Land is land so declared by the Commonwealth Minister as land used or intended to be used by or on behalf of the Commonwealth. Land that is not National Land is Territory Land. The ACT Government manages Territory Land on behalf of the Commonwealth and may grant, dispose of, acquire, hold and administer estates in Territory Land.The ACT Government has sought an amendment to the Australian Capital Territory (Planning and Land Management) Act 1988 to enable it to issue leases for a maximum term of 999 years. The Chief Minister, Mrs Carnell, has cited the 99-year limit as antiquated and unduly restrictive. ACT business representatives have supported the proposed amendment.Effect of the BillThe proposed amendment will increase the maximum permissible limit for the grant of new estates in Territory Land to 999 years. The Bill will not provide for automatic extension of existing estates. A leaseholder seeking a term longer than 99 years will need to apply to the ACT Government for a new grant.The ACT Government has indicated that only a modest administrative charge will apply to the grant of new leases to existing leaseholders, provided no terms of the lease, other than the lease period, are changed.The proposed amendment removes the reference to `or such longer period as is prescribed' so that no terms of estate greater than 999 years will be possible.The regulations currently applicable which relate to 999-year leases granted for tertiary education or church purposes prior to the introduction of self government in the ACT, will be unaffected by the proposed amendment.The Act is proposed to take effect upon receiving the Royal Assent.Financial impactThe proposed amendment will have no direct impact on Commonwealth revenue or outgoings. However, it is intended that the amendment will bring positive effects to the ACT economy by increasing the Territory's attractiveness to investors. LAW OFFICERS AMENDMENT BILL 1997This bill seeks to amend the Law Officers Act 1964 to vary the terms and conditions of service for the occupant of the office of Solicitor-General for the Commonwealth.The terms and conditions of service for the Solicitor-General are similar to those for a judge of the Federal Court of Australia and include eligibility for a judge's pension and payment in lieu of unused long leave on the same basis as for a judge.Section 16 of the act applies the Judges' Pensions Act 1968 to the Solicitor-General as if he or she were a judge, albeit with some modifications as to entitlements.Section 16A of the act provides for a payment to the Solicitor-General on retirement in lieu of unused long leave. The Government does not consider it appropriate that these arrangements apply to the occupant of the office of Solicitor-General.The term of appointment of the former Solicitor-General expired on 31 December 1997 and it is proposed that the new Solicitor-General receive superannuation and leave entitlements similar to those applying to a senior member of the Australian Public Service, rather than those applying to a judge.It is proposed, therefore, to amend the Law Officers Act to remove the current entitlement to a judge's pension and payment in lieu of unused long leave for future appointees to the office of Solicitor-General.Entitlements already accrued by the former Solicitor-General will be preserved under the bill.Over time, the amendments will also realise some savings to the taxpayer as a result of a reduction in benefits paid from the Consolidated Revenue Fund.I commend the bill to the Senate.Debate (on motion by Senator Chris Evans) adjourned.Ordered that the bills be listed on the Notice Paper as separate orders of the day.Bills905r346905Consideration resumed from 11 March.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Watson)—The committee is considering the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Youth Allowance) Bill 1997 and Democrat request No. 4 on sheet 860, which was moved by Senator Woodley.09:53:00905Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEYHX5QLDAD00—I moved this request for an amendment as a fall back position from the previous requests, which, as I pointed out, were supported by the current government when they were in opposition and we had a very extensive inquiry into this matter of the assets of farmers being counted for Austudy eligibility and the problem that created in that farmers find themselves to be income poor but asset rich so often. I thought we would move requests for amendments which fitted in with that report as it had been such a longstanding debate going back over many years. I had moved similar requests previously. As a matter of fact, it was Senator Patterson, Senator Lees and I who agreed on the occasion we had moved, once again, that same request for amendment—that it should go to an inquiry. Having agreed to that we held the inquiry—and I was very pleased that the coalition members of that inquiry signed the report—which agreed that farm assets should not be counted.That refers to the first three requests I moved. As you know, they were defeated. However, in the lead-up to the 1996 election the coalition released its higher education policy. I want to put that on the record again because we were almost onto the adjournment debate when I began to make this explanation last night. It is important that the Senate know what the coalition said in its pre-election policy because in this particular request all I am trying to do is help the coalition actually fulfil its pre-election promise.B36NEALSenator Neal—It must have been a non-core promise!HX5Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEY—I do not know whether it is core or non-core. It does not say, so I will just read what the policy stated: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 actual 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.That is a very clear policy and this is a chance for the coalition to implement what they themselves recognised first of all in the inquiry we had and then in their own policy.As a matter of fact, when I pressed Senator Brownhill prior to the election he told me that I would be pleased with the coalition policy on this issue. When I saw it I said, `It's not the 100 per cent the inquiry recommended but it is a first step.' I thought that it would not be long before we saw the coalition bringing this matter into this place so that they could implement it because of their representation of farmers. When this legislation came forward I thought it would be the first opportunity to do so. I was surprised that it was not there. So I thought that we would help the coalition to fulfil a very important promise to give access to education to farm families affected by the nature of farming.I was pleased that the coalition had extended that beyond simply farm assets to other business assets where there is a similar situation obtaining. I think that we all agree that access to education is a fundamental right and children from farming families must have the same opportunities and should have government encouragement to continue the same studies that other children receive. For these reasons I believe that we should have support for this amendment. I look forward to that.09:59:00906Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEALB36NSWALP00—That statement having been made by the Democrats, I would appreciate it if the minister could advise the chamber whether that is, in fact, the coalition policy.09:59:00906Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—Thank you, Senator Neal. It is very good of you to give me a chance to have a word. Senator, you would be well aware that there have been concerns for a long time in the farming community about issues to do with assets testing. As a result, as soon as we came into government we set up a rural task force, headed at that time by my Parliamentary Secretary, Senator Rod Kemp, and latterly by my next Parliamentary Secretary, Senator Grant Tambling. They went around Australia and they met with organisations and individuals and came up with recommendations as to what needed to be done to best help the farming community in response to issues related to the assets test. As a result, the triple A package, which was announced in September or thereabouts by the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, Mr Anderson, has been very well received in the farming community as going to the special needs of farmers having difficulty on the land.An important element of that triple A package was the retired farmers adjustment scheme, which has in fact allowed for the orderly gifting of farm assets from one generation to another where a family farm is not viable to keep two families. That has meant that farmers who have a personal interest of up to $500,000, debt free—and that in itself is quite something, but their personal share in the farm is up to $500,000—are enabled to gift the farm to their family who are working the farm and move onto age pension, provided they meet the criteria. That is really substantial because the average age of Australian farmers is 58, which is way too high. We need a younger generation of farmers coming on and we need to be able to keep our young farmers on the farm, and one of the problems has been the lack of succession planning and the limitations which the gifting provisions have put on people who leave it to the last minute. So the window of opportunity that that legislation will give to struggling farm families who may in fact be asset rich but getting little reward from their farm is going to be a major benefit, not to a wide range of farmers; I do not want to suggest that—B36NEALSenator Neal—Something like 60, I think you said.BE4Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMAN—Nothing like that; it was 2,100. Those are people who fit the criteria of having real financial difficulty because there is more than one family being fed off that farm. It is an expensive measure to help them; I think it is something like $70 million of public funds to help those farmers who may on paper have what looks like substantial assets. I think we have honoured our commitment to farmers. When you take into consideration in addition to that the substantial benefits that this youth allowance legislation is going to mean for country kids in terms of being able to afford to go away to study, you would have to agree that, as a package of measures, it has meant that we have been very focused on helping farm families.10:03:00907Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEALB36NSWALP00—I take on board the minister's description of the provisions that allow farmers to pass on their farm and receive the pension, but that is not what I was asking. I was asking whether the statement made by Senator Woodley relating to the discount on the asset value of a farm was in fact the policy of the coalition; I suppose I should say of the coalition government. It did not relate to the matters that you just raised. Did you miss what Senator Woodley said?BE4NEWMANSenator Newman—I missed what he said.10:04:00907Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEYHX5QLDAD00—The Democrats support the triple A package. It is a very good package, and particularly the measure that Senator Newman was talking about is a very good one. In fact, I wrote a private member's bill on this some time ago and then discovered that the government were taking it up. I will say, though, that we are going to have to amend it fairly heavily because it is far too exclusive, particularly the intergenerational transfer. From round the country financial planners are telling me that they are not able to find farmers who are able to fit all the criteria. So we are going to have to fix up the government's package when it comes into this place, but we have not seen the legislation yet. What I am trying to do is not simply to help the transfer of older farmers out of farming so that younger farmers can come in and take over but to help the families of those younger farmers, particularly the children of those younger farmers, to be able to get education. That is the issue, and it relates particularly to this common youth allowance legislation. That is why I want to press this amendment. While commending the government on the triple A package and giving notice that that will also need to be amended, I want to press this amendment, which is about another matter altogether, as Senator Neal has already indicated.10:05:00907Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—I would like to point out to Senator Woodley that the legislation was actually introduced into the House of Representatives yesterday, so he will be able to spend the next week studying it carefully. I have been doing my best to ensure that accountants, lawyers and farm leaders around the country understand the fine print as well, because one of the things that has not been well understood is that it is not only the net value of the farm but it is the net value of the farmer's interest in the farm that has to be under $500,000. That, for most farms in Australia, is pretty reasonable. But this is not the occasion to be debating farmers. I am glad you think it is a worthy measure. I look forward to that debate and your support. By that stage I hope that you see that the fine print is very good. There have been something like a thousand or more expressions of interest so far in it and I think 400 or 500 have put their names down to apply as soon as the legislation goes through.10:06:00907Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEALB36NSWALP00—Maybe I missed it yesterday, but has the government indicated whether they will be supporting this amendment?10:06:00907Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—No, the government will not be supporting it.10:07:00907Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—Because Senator Newman did not actually answer the question asked by Senator Neal, can I just clarify with the minister that you are confirming that you are going to be voting against your own policy? Question put: That the request (Senator Woodley's ) be agreed to.10:11:00The committee divided. 0Allison, L. Bartlett, A. J. J.Bourne, V. *Brown, B.Lees, M. H. Margetts, D.Murray, A. Stott Despoja, N.Woodley, J.0Abetz, E. Bishop, M.Brownhill, D. G. C. Calvert, P. H.Campbell, G. Carr, K.Collins, J. M. A. Cook, P. F. S.Coonan, H. Crane, W.Crowley, R. A. Denman, K. J. *Eggleston, A. Ferris, J.Forshaw, M. G. Gibbs, B.Hill, R. M. Hogg, J.Kemp, R. Lundy, K.Mackay, S. McKiernan, J. P.Murphy, S. M. Neal, B. J.Newman, J. M. O'Brien, K. W. K.O'Chee, W. G. Parer, W. R.Payne, M. A.Quirke, J. A.Ray, R. F. Reid, M. E.Reynolds, M. Sherry, N.Synon, K. M. Tierney, J.Watson, J. O. W. West, S. M.Question so resolved in the negative.10:15:00908Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEALB36NSWALP00—by leave—I move:That the House of Representatives be requested to make the following amendments:(12) Schedule 2, item 8, page 172 (after line 9), third flow chart box on the left, omit "$230", substitute "the person's ordinary income free area".(14) Schedule 2, item 8, page 174 (lines 3 to 9), omit "$230" (wherever occurring), substitute "the person's ordinary income free area".(15) Schedule 2, item 8, page 174 (lines 10 to 17), omit "$230" (wherever occurring), substitute "the person's ordinary income free area".The general thrust of these three amendments is to extend the provision presently contained within the legislation for the benefit of students to another group—the young unemployed. You might recall that, previously, the social security legislation for students had provision for a yearly income test which had similar effects to this, but this is the first time the income test as such—as an income bank—has been included in the legislation. I think it is a very good move.In most cases students are allowed to earn $230 a fortnight before their Austudy, or youth allowance in this case, is affected. If they earn a larger amount, they can extend it, over a longer period, to allow them to still access the allowance. In the normal lifestyle of a student, that would allow them to work intensively during the vacation period and earn in excess of $230 per fortnight but then to earn nothing, or very little, during the normal studying period and to even out their income over the year so that it is not detrimentally affected. That obviously gives a lot of benefit to students. It ensures that they can maximise their income earning capacity during the vacation periods and maximise their time for studying during the semester periods. I really have to say it is a very positive step. The effect of our amendments is to try to extend this mechanism to unemployed young people—of course, that would include those young people who are presently being case managed.The provision now for young people is that they can only earn $30 a week before their youth allowance is lowered and, for many people, $30 a week is not a great deal of money. I suppose there may well be an acceptance in the community that if you are earning more than that amount your reliance on the community should be reduced.What I am concerned about and what the amendments are aimed at is that, with the way that work practices are and with the present level of unemployment, sometimes access to employment may only be in very short bursts. I do not believe that it is unusual for a young person to be offered employment for, say, a short period of one or two weeks. That person would obviously earn substantially in excess of the $30 a week. What I am concerned about is that we, as a community, want to maximise the possibility of that young person ultimately being employed—hopefully in a career that they enjoy—and that the best way of ensuring that they eventually enter full-time and ongoing employment is that they obtain some sort of work experience. It is really not a very unusual story to hear from young people that their biggest impediment to getting work is that, when they apply for the job and are asked what experience they have, their answer is none. I do not think that is through any fault of their own. You have to start somewhere.By allowing the income bank to be applied to those young people, I am not suggesting in any way that their income-free area should be extended beyond the $30 a week but they should be able to average it out over time. If they, say, get a couple of weeks employment but then are unemployed for a substantial period, their income should be evened out so that their youth allowance is not affected. I think this would be a very useful mechanism to emphasise to young people that they should take up work, even if it is only for a very short period, and to encourage them to gain that sort of short-term experience in the hope that, ultimately, that will serve them in good stead in getting long-term work. It is unfortunate but, with our present levels of unemployment and in particular our levels of unemployment for young people, it is often extraordinarily difficult for young people to get work, and we should be assisting in any way we can.I suppose what the minister may say in response is that we cannot be too lenient—that if they are earning above the $30 a week, their youth allowance should be reduced. But, in terms of encouraging young people to get that work experience, I am prone to lean on the side of leniency and to say that it is more important to get them back to work in the long term than it is to apply strictly an income-free zone without exception in the short term. One of the great problems that has been developing—only in the last three to five years, maybe less, it seems to me—is that of long-term unemployment. I do not mean that in the technical sense of over two years. I am talking about people who are unemployed, with few skills, little experience and a limited expectation of ever being employed. This group starts at 18—not at an older age—and, with each passing year that they remain unemployed and without work experience, the chances increase of their ultimately becoming one of the entrenched long-term unemployed. I plead very strongly with the Senate to consider these requests for amendment care fully, to vote for them and for giving unemployed young people a better opportunity of gaining experience and of ultimately being gainfully employed.10:22:00909Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—The Greens (WA) thought this was such a good idea that we also had this in our amendments. But, because we knew the ALP were moving it, we dropped it off our sheet. Naturally, we will be supporting this. One of the issues that is very prevalent amongst young unemployed people is the level of indebtedness. It is not unreasonable to suggest that seasonal work of some nature hardly delivers a sovereign's ransom. It would be unfortunate if they were punished for trying to get a Bankcard debt down or trying to get on their feet and cover some other costs in their life by utilising those kinds of seasonal work opportunities or, as Senator Neal suggested, other potential work opportunities.A work opportunity could arise from somebody in an office going on leave and an unemployed person then has an opportunity to fill that position and get some real experience. We should try to find ways to deal with that transitional time: from the point of being unemployed to the point of gaining the confidence to go out into the workplace and earn a real living. Unfortunately, the government is not doing a lot about that, so the very least it can do is assist young people to get that experience, to utilise seasonal work where it exists, and to have the potential to stay out of debt.10:24:00909Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—I caution the Senate against accepting this opposition amendment. One of the most telling things is that, as I am advised, it would cost around $27 million a year to extend this provision to the young unemployed from being given just to students. I remind the Senate that Department of Social Security statistics show that on average young people now remain on unemployed payments for five months. That would not seem to be an enormous problem when you compare their ability to take up opportunities for part-time work with the situation of students, who may be on a youth allow ance—Austudy, as it is now—for a number of years.There are differences in this element between students and the young unemployed. Students have a much more constrained opportunity to take work because of the nature of their studies and their time commitments. It is much more difficult for them to take part-time work during the year, but they can take it during semester breaks and the long break in the summer. That is why we have tried to make special arrangements for students. The current income test for unemployment benefits is a fair balance. It is one for which I give credit to the previous government, as I have done before in this place, for having introduced in 1995 a better arrangement for people trying to get some part-time work while they are on benefits. As Senator Neal has said, that is $30 a week without losing one dollar of benefit; for the next $40 a week they lose only 50c in the dollar; and beyond that it is 70c in the dollar. It is a long taper for income testing, which I do not believe is unfair.The current system gives people an incentive to find work. When the Labor Party introduced that tapered means test, the argument was very strongly put that that was in order to give a real incentive to find work and to reward people for finding work. We agree with that; it was the right thing to do. It certainly has proved its worth. More and more people are taking up part-time or casual work opportunities when they arise.Also, they are not likely to be unemployed or to be on income support for as long as students are and do not have the same constraints on when they earn their income. But, if you extend the student income bank, you would effectively be undermining means testing for young people. That is why the Senate should recognise that the result of that would be extra expenditure of around $27 million a year and that would be totally unacceptable to this government.10:27:00910Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—Considering the minister has not answered any of my questions I asked yesterday about her costings, it is extraordi nary that she is so confident of this one. Even if it were the case that it would cost $27 million a year, it would be $27 million a year well spent.It seems to me that the government's priorities are all wrong. We have committed ourselves to billions of dollars to bail out Western speculative banks in South-East Asia for taking out unsecured loans—billions of dollars! Here we are talking about giving our kids the chance to gain confidence, self-reliance and an ability to make their own decisions, to meet some of their own needs and potentially to get out of some disastrous debts by using opportunities that often are only available through seasonal work for people who have no other skills. The government is being mean-spirited. It is forgetting that $27 million a year to the young people of Australia is a great deal and would be very much appreciated by them, rather than it being in the pockets of governments who simply are prepared to give billions of dollars away to Western speculative banks for unsecured loans.10:29:00910Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—The Australian Democrats will be supporting the opposition's requests for amendments just as we would be supporting the Greens (WA) amendment, if that were being put. We support the extension of this income bank. But I was quite curious to hear just then the minister's comments in relation to the differences between the circumstances of young people—specifically young unemployed people—and students.I might put on record that many of those differences, financial or legal, are of the government's own making. Many of them are manufactured by governments themselves. I include in that the disparity, until recently, in benefits if you were a student accessing student financial assistance as opposed to a young unemployed person getting the dole.Of course, as to job opportunities, while I recognise the particular constraints, certainly time wise on young people who may be students or mature age students, I do not think job opportunities are particularly good for any young Australian at the moment. And why would the government then, conscious of these differences, conscious of the difficulties that face students in particular, seek to perpetuate the differences—and the unfair differences at that—by insisting on an age of independence of 25, which is at least four years different from that for a young unemployed person?Many of the constraints to which the minister referred that affect young students are there because the government has made it very difficult for young people—be they students or not—not only to obtain work but to have money in the bank.10:31:00911Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEALB36NSWALP00—I have a question to put to the minister. She has mentioned the figure of five months as being the average time. What is the mean time that young people are on unemployment benefits?10:31:00911Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—We will have to come back, Senator, and give it to you shortly—as soon as we can.10:31:00911Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEALB36NSWALP00—Minister, I am still waiting for those figures that you promised me shortly—I think about a week ago now. It just reminds me that you might provide me with those figures I have requested.10:31:00911Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—You did say median, didn't you?10:32:00911Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEALB36NSWALP00—Yes, I did—basically the average point. The trouble with averages is that, if there is a large number of young people who get work almost immediately, that may well bring the average down. I suspect—and I would seek some guidance from the department on this—that there is a large number that get work virtually within one or two weeks, but then there is another group that waits for substantial periods of time before actually becoming employed. This particular policy is aimed at that second group. I suppose that the first group, which works almost immediately, would be largely unaffected.I think that sometimes averages can be misleading in that this putting together of two groups—one which waits a long time, and one which gets employed almost immediately—gives you an average of five months. But, really, as a representation of how the group operates, it is not terribly helpful. Can you give me any guidance on the profile of young people's period of unemployment?10:33:00911Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—As I have said, we will do what we can for you.10:33:00911Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEALB36NSWALP00—Bearing in mind that obviously this is fairly crucial to the debate, I think it is important that we wait for that information to be provided. I was a little startled by the minister saying that $27 million was an unacceptable amount to pay for getting or assisting young people to get back to work.I know that we sometimes get a little cynical in this chamber when we talk about that side and this side of politics. But is it really too much, from an annual budget the size of Australia's, to spend $27 million on a provision that potentially may mean in the long term that young people—and eventually they become middle-aged people and older people—do get into the work force? I do not know whether that is true. I do not think that sort of money to encourage people into work is that huge.I listened to the minister's comments about the tapering of the income-free zone, how that was a great measure and that it encouraged people to look for part-time and casual work—and I am sure that is true, and I appreciate her comments. But I do not believe that in the fight against unemployment—and, in particular, youth unemployment and long-term unemployment—making one change, putting in place one measure and saying, `Well, that's fair enough; we're quite happy with the levels of unemployment, and we're not going to do any more' is really a satisfactory position to take.BE4NEWMANSenator Newman—I am not saying that, and you know it.B36Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEAL—If that is not what the minister is saying, I am very pleased to hear it. I think the fact that we did introduce a longer tapering of the income-free zone was a good thing. The provision proposed in our amendment of having the income bank for young unemployed people can also assist. The fact that the minister is leaving her mind open to that possibility, that her mind is not closed to making further provisions to get the unemployed back to work, is very pleasing to hear.BE4NEWMANSenator Newman—The government is focused on getting young people into jobs.B36Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEAL—If you go out into the community—both at the local and national level—overwhelmingly the community's view is that the reduction of unemployment should be this government's, and any future government's, absolute first priority. It certainly will be a very difficult thing for this government. They have relied very much on predictions of economic growth which obviously appear to be very inaccurate, and will continue to be even more inaccurate as the impact of Asia's deteriorating economic climate comes into effect.So, if the policy of fighting unemployment that this government has been pursuing is by way of economic growth—and I think it is fairly well accepted that you need economic growth of at least four per cent, and probably closer to 4.5 per cent, to really reduce the level of unemployment—then certainly the levels of growth this government is creating are not coming anywhere close.If the government is failing in that area, what else is it doing to deal with unemployment—not just over the next week or next fortnight or the next six months but for many years to come? As I say, the seeds of long-term unemployment—sometimes for generations—are sown by a failure to do everything possible to get young people into work. This is why the opposition has moved these requests for amendments. Again, I hope that the minister will consider the matter very carefully. Maybe the minister has some information for me now about the length of employment of young people.10:38:00912Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I would also like to ask a question about the so-called long taper. I cannot imagine in a tax regime going from $30 a week to $31 a week and having half of your allowance taken off you as a result of going from $30 to $31. That is extraordinary. It might be better than what it was—I am not sure—but that is not a long taper. Basically, if you go from $30 a week without having your youth allowance affected to $31 a week and having it halved, that is not a long taper. That is extraordinary.BE4NEWMANSenator Newman—It is nothing of the sort.B36NEALSenator Neal—It is only for the dollar above the $30.DX5Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTS—Oh, it is for your marginal rate. But it is quite extraordinary and it is more than you would have in a taper on a tax system. Can the minister guarantee that it is the marginal rate above that? How does that work? It is not going to affect a person's income; it is going to affect their youth allowance, is it not? How does that actually work? That does seem to be a fairly steep taper, not a long taper.10:39:00912Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—The answer is yes.DX5MARGETTSSenator Margetts—That is no answer. Can you explain how it works, please?BE4Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMAN—I do not think this is the occasion, after we have been debating the youth allowance for two weeks, to give Senator Margetts a lesson on how the system works.B36NEALSenator Neal—You raised the issue.BE4Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMAN—No, you do expect a certain basic level of knowledge about the subject under discussion, Senator.10:40:00912Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—This is an outrageous response. We are actually dealing with the item on student income bank. The minister said this is a very generous taper. The minister said after $30 a week the effect on the student allowance is 50 cents in the dollar. On the record I would like the minister to explain how that works. That is not unreasonable. The minister brought up the subject. It is reasonable to have this on the record.10:41:00912Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—The withdrawal rate is 50 cents in the dollar on the marginal rate, Senator. You obviously cannot have got a briefing on how it works when the Labor Party were in government. I would have thought they would have offered you a briefing. I am sorry about that. I did not realise that you had that problem, and I am happy to offer you a briefing after this has all finished.10:41:00913Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—The problem I think, Minister, is you at the moment, because you do not seem to understand the impact that your policies are having on the young people of Australia.10:41:00913Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEALB36NSWALP00—Does the minister have available the information that I requested?10:41:00913Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—It is coming, Senator. I am afraid the officers have had to get back to the department for it.10:41:00913Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEALB36NSWALP00—I must confess that this happens more and more regularly, Minister. You have a group of six people there and none of them have any idea about that fairly obvious issue. I find that quite extraordinary. I also find it quite extraordinary that so often when information is requested in a debate you seem to make no effort to access it before the issue that it relates to is actually dealt with. In fact, I would go so far as to say that in some cases it is a strategy because the information that has been requested might not necessarily assist your case.BE4NEWMANSenator Newman—We are bringing it forward as fast as possible.B36Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEAL—When we were in government the information requested was dealt with in a much more responsive and responsible fashion. The minister seems to hold the view that the information is to be used solely in support of her and her government's arguments rather than it being a resource available to the whole chamber so that we can properly assess what our response should be to questions we have to decide. I do not think it assists decision making in this chamber for the minister to be so slow and, frankly, uninterested in providing information requested. 10:43:00913Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—I obviously have to defend myself against that because it is untrue. Senator Neal knows that every time she has asked for information I have done my utmost to get it for her in a speedy fashion. As she was in government—although not as a minister—only relatively recently, she would realise that this can be a problem for ministers in debates, no matter what the political colour, no matter which department we are talking about. If oppositions or minority parties want additional information to what is available to the officers who are present in the chamber, then sometimes it can take some time to get.I am sorry, Senator, if you do not feel that you have had speedy enough service. I have done my utmost to accommodate you. I understand that you would like more information on this, but I have given you the information that was very relevant to this debate. It is that on average young people between the ages of 18 and 20 are on unemployment payments for five months. That is very relevant to this question about incentives and questions about young people taking up work, because it means that they then go either into work or into study after that period of unemployment. You are asking for additional information on that. I do not have that yet, and I am sorry about that, but you have enough to be going on with because, quite clearly, the issue is one of incentive.Your government—obviously Senator Margetts did not realise this—introduced what I think was a very good change to the Social Security Act which did provide for much greater incentives for people of any age to take up available work, and I have commended you for it. That remains. It is not something we have introduced, but it is a good thing. Therefore, I think the young unemployed people who do have more available time to look for work and to take up opportunities for work do not need the income bank provisions which are provided specifically for students because they do not have those same opportunities to take up job opportunities of one kind or another during an academic semester. You would recognise that is the case. I cannot believe that you would be prepared to spend $27 million per annum extra in order to extend the income bank provisions to a group of young people who, because of your own government's actions, already do have substantial incentives to take up what work is available.Before I sit down, I point out to you that the whole purpose of youth allowance—there are several, but a very primary purpose of youth allowance—is to make sure that young people by the time they are 18 are much more employable than they are now, because too high a proportion of them are offering themselves on the job market without skills. When this measure is introduced, we will start to see young people acquiring the skills up to the age of 18 that they will need to offer employers. Hopefully we will not have the big pool of unemployed young people that we inherited when we came into government.10:46:00914Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEALB36NSWALP00—I do not wish to take up the time of the Senate on this issue for much longer, in terms of access to information. I will make two points. The first is that averages can always be misleading. Although the average is five months, it may well be that there is not one single young unemployed person who gets a job after five months. I am sure that is a matter you understand fully. That is why it is not always the most indicative statistic. The second thing is about the information I requested, I think on Monday, in relation to numbers accessing youth allowance. Is that likely to ever appear?10:47:00914Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—I understand that the difficulty my officials have had is that, as I said on whichever day it was that I was asked for these, it was not information that was particularly held in Social Security. A lot of them are assumptions that are held in Treasury and the Department of Finance, which I said at the time. I said that we would endeavour to get them. I understand that all governments have kept their projections on such things as future employment as a confidential matter, and yours was no different.10:48:00914Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEALB36NSWALP00—I asked for a huge amount of informa tion. If there are some aspects of it that the government is claiming confidentiality on, I am quite happy for you to advise me of that. But there are large proportions of the information that are not within that range. I would appreciate your giving me the numbers that can be given and indicating which figures the government is claiming confidentiality on rather than just not responding at all, which is what seems to be an increasing trend. Could I have the courtesy of some sort of formal response from you or your office at some stage?BE4NEWMANSenator Newman—Yes.10:49:00914Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—That is interesting. We have had commercial in confidence. What would be the basis of holding in confidence the number of unemployed people, which should be available to the taxpayers and to the people of Australia?10:49:00914Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—It is a long-held practice that projections of all sorts of things by Treasury are not necessarily on the public record.10:50:00914Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEALB36NSWALP00—The only projections that would be part of the information I requested are predictions of the level of youth unemployment. I would have thought it rather necessary and important for the community to be aware of what level of youth unemployment the government is predicting. I must say that it has been a fairly general criticism of the government by the opposition that it seems unwilling to indicate on the record that it has even a particular level of employment or unemployment that it is aiming at. It seems quite extraordinary to me, and I think probably to most of the opposition, that the government believes the level of unemployment that is expected and the level that the government is aiming at with its policies are matters that cannot be disclosed to the public, who are totally affected and interested in knowing what the outcomes will be. Question put: That the request (Senator Neal's ) be agreed to.10:55:00The committee divided. (The Chairman—Senator S. M. West)31Allison, L. Bartlett, A. J. J.Bishop, M. Bourne, V.Brown, B. Campbell, G.Carr, K. Collins, J. M. A.Cook, P. F. S. Cooney, B.Crowley, R. A. Denman, K. J. *Evans, C. V. Forshaw, M. G.Gibbs, B. Hogg, J.Lees, M. H. Lundy, K.Margetts, D. McKiernan, J. P.Murphy, S. M. Murray, A.Neal, B. J. O'Brien, K. W. K.Quirke, J. A. Reynolds, M.Schacht, C. C. Sherry, N.Stott Despoja, N. West, S. M.Woodley, J.31Abetz, E. Alston, R. K. R.Boswell, R. L. D. Calvert, P. H.Campbell, I. G. Chapman, H. G. P.Coonan, H. Crane, W.Eggleston, A. Ellison, C.Ferguson, A. B. Ferris, J.Gibson, B. F. Harradine, B.Heffernan, W. Herron, J.Lightfoot, P. R. Macdonald, I.Macdonald, S. MacGibbon, D. J.McGauran, J. J. J. Minchin, N. H.Newman, J. M. O'Chee, W. G. *Parer, W. R. Patterson, K. C. L.Payne, M. A.Synon, K. M.Tierney, J. Vanstone, A. E.Watson, J. O. W.Bolkus, N. Reid, M. E.Collins, R. L. Tambling, G. E. J.Conroy, S. Hill, R. M.Faulkner, J. P. Knowles, S. C.Mackay, S. Kemp, R.Ray, R. F. Troeth, J.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the negative.11:00:00915Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—I move:That the House of Representatives be requested to make the following amendment:(1) Page 181 (after line 28), at the end of the Bill, add:Schedule 3—Newly arrived resident's waiting period for special benefit Social Security Act 19911 Subsection 23(1) (paragraph (g) of the definition of newly arrived resident's waiting period ) Repeal the paragraph.2 Subsection 23(1) (paragraph (ka) of the definition of waiting period ) Repeal the paragraph.3 Paragraph 732(1)(da) Repeal the paragraph.4 Sections 739A, 739B and 739C Repeal the sections.This amendment that I have moved on behalf of the Democrats was circulated when we first started considering this bill two weeks ago. It is an amendment to the Social Security Act relating to the two-year waiting period for newly arrived residents and it seeks to exempt those people from the waiting period simply in relation to special benefit. The reason why I am moving this—I understand the Greens (WA) have an identical amendment that they are seeking to move as well—is in response to a growing number of calls from community and charity groups, groups that work with newly arrived residents, who are seeing the impact that this measure of the two-year waiting period is having on a number of people.Those community groups are being left to pick up the pieces when our newly arrived residents find themselves in circumstances of destitution, unable to meet their most basic requirements and needs of life. That situation is a direct result of the legislation that was passed by this parliament last year which does leave a number of people finding that they cannot meet even their most basic requirements of life. These are legal Australian residents who have been invited into Australian society. They are unable to buy sufficient food to eat, unable to access safe or suitable accommodation and unable to feed their children an adequate and nutritious diet. In fact, some newly arrived residents have found that they have been left with no option but to have their children cared for by other people simply because they cannot access adequate financial resources to care for themselves. In the Democrats' view, that is a totally unacceptable situation.The two-year waiting period overall for social security benefits for newly arrived residents was introduced in March last year and passed through the parliament at that time. At that time the Democrats opposed that measure. We continue to do so because we believe that the principle that it is founded on is fundamentally flawed and discriminatory and also counterproductive, not only socially but we believe economically.A number of organisations have criticised the measure. Welfare rights groups and ACOSS in particular have said that the introduction of the social security waiting period for newly arrived migrants is basically creating a nightmare for those people and is perhaps the most serious undermining of the basic fabric of Australia's social security safety net. The Democrats believe that leaving newly arrived residents, or anyone else for that matter, without access to any income at all when they have no other alternative means of support is completely unacceptable.However, this amendment is not seeking to re-run the whole debate about the two-year waiting period. The Democrats are still opposed to it but we accept that the government is committed to that, and that is their choice. What we are really getting at today is specifically removing that solely for special benefit, which is the payment of last resort. It has traditionally been the very bottom safety net of our social security system available to people who are in desperate need of income support, are not eligible for any other form of social security benefit and have no other alternative means of support.Since last March, apart from some exemptions, such as family members of refugees and citizens, special benefit can only be paid to a migrant within two years of their arrival if they prove they have suffered a substantial change of circumstances beyond their control. That is the wording from the legislation. The government argues that that provides sufficient discretion for the department to provide special benefits for newly arrived residents who are in need. I think that was the argument they used that convinced enough of the Senate to support the measure last year. The reason why we need to re-visit this particular aspect of it now is because of the evidence that is now coming through that that is not sufficient to meet all the circumstances that people are finding themselves in.That exemption has been interpreted in a manner that still leaves a number of newly arrived residents whose funds have run out being denied special benefit despite being completely destitute. These people are then confronted with additional problems because, being ineligible for a social security payment, they are also ineligible for other assistance such as access to labour market programs and concessions that may assist them in becoming a more productive member of Australian society. Even worse, because they are unable to support themselves and their families, many new migrants are also effectively barred from participating in migrant English program courses, which again would assist them in more adequately being able to be productive members of Australian society. So it is really a catch-22 situation for these people. They are finding themselves with no way out. Many of them came to Australia with very high expectations. Many of these people are skilled migrants who have a lot to contribute to Australian society in economic terms as well as socially and culturally.Is it really any wonder that a recent study by the Ethnic Communities Council, which was done in conjunction with the University of Sydney, showed that 46 per cent—nearly half—of recently arrived migrants now wish they had never come to Australia? The government may say, `That is good. That shows that we are giving the message that we are not giving migrants an easy ride.' I think that is an unfortunate interpretation. To think that half of the newly arrived migrants in this country are now wishing they were not here does not give a very hopeful sign for the future in terms of how those people are going to feel and the many more who are going to follow them who may feel likewise. How are they likely to feel in terms of how connected they feel with the broader social fabric in Australia?I think it is important to emphasise that the government has been looking very closely at ensuring that the amount and quality of information they give to people who are considering coming to Australia is as accurate as possible. Through the immigration department they are continually searching to improve the service in that regard to ensure that people are fully informed about not only the existence of this two-year waiting period but also their prospects of getting jobs when they get here, what the cost of living is and whether their qualifications are likely to be recognised.I accept the government's efforts in that regard. I think it is important to recognise that no matter how good that becomes you will never be able to make sure that everybody knows everything they need to know in all aspects before they come here. The Democrats believe that to simply say to those people who get here and run into trouble, as people often do, that that is just their bad luck is totally unacceptable.Once many of these migrants do arrive in Australia they are finding the reality much different from what they had envisaged. That is always going to be the case with some people. Many find it difficult to get a job. We have heard a lot during the course of this legislation about unemployment and the difficulties of young people who have lived here all their lives getting a job. Many young migrants included amongst those obviously have even higher hurdles they have to try to get over to get employment. That is particularly the case for those who come from non-English speaking backgrounds.I imagine many senators have been getting letters from some of the community organisations that are dealing with this problem out in the field. It is important to emphasise the burden that that is putting on them—not just the financial burden on their resources but also the time involved and the emotional burden on those workers. These are groups like the Welfare Rights Centre, the Council of Social Services groups, a number of other groups and the migrant resource centres that are working at the grassroots level. I have had letters from the Fairfield youth workers network and the non-English speaking background youth issues network specifically addressing the impact of this measure on young people. That is partly why I think it is particularly relevant that we are dealing with this matter as part of the youth allowance legislation.There is any number of case studies those organisations have provided of the situation that people are finding themselves in which are enough to demonstrate that there are people in total and absolute need through no fault of their own. Maybe they did not get the correct information; maybe they were just naive about how well they thought they would go when they got here. From the Democrats' point of view, that really does not matter and it is not the role of departments or government or society to judge people on that matter. The bottom line is that people are being left with no means of support whatsoever and no opportunity for getting it; they are totally destitute in situations of extreme need, putting massive burdens on emergency relief operations—the Salvation Army and related services like that—which are not set up to deal with those sorts of situations over a long-term basis. I believe, and the Democrats believe, that that is totally unacceptable.I do not believe that the government intended or envisaged that that situation would necessarily occur or that the government is so harsh. I recognise they want to send a strong message out with the two-year waiting period. I have already indicated that the Democrats do not agree with that, but I do not believe the government is so harsh that they want to have a situation which now exists through the existing legislation with such harsh consequences being visited on people through no fault of their own. For that reason, the Democrats are presenting the government and all of the Senate with the opportunity to reconsider this matter solely in relation to the special benefit and address the real need that is being demonstrated out in the community.11:14:00917Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—I have listened very carefully to Senator Bartlett. I do not want to engage in a re-run of the previous debate we had on this in previous times. As a former social security staff member, he would well understand what good review and appeal processes are available to people. They are working, Senator. The recent AAT cases have shown that people can demonstrate that they fit within the guidelines for special benefit, and decisions can be overturned. That is an indication that that review and appeal process does work and is working for people in these circumstances. No doubt we will see some more. It is important to recognise and acknowledge that.Another sign that the system is working is that there are currently over 300 migrants receiving special benefit—in fact, it is about 340 at the moment. That is growing month by month, as you would expect. So we are recognising that there are cases that fit within the criteria for the special benefit and that they are receiving it. I do not make any apology for the wording of the current law. It is not something I really want to talk about now because of time constraints.If, through circumstances beyond their control, people come to this country and find that they cannot support themselves—for example, because their sponsor has died or because the job that they have been contracted to come to has gone—then special benefits step in. But we do not believe that Australians expect new migrants to come here and walk straight on to welfare without sponsors being prepared to honour their commitments. In the case of independent migrants, they should either prearrange a job for themselves or bring sufficient money with them to support themselves. If there was no particular test for migrants wanting special benefits, as we said in the previous debate, it would simply be a backdoor method to actually accessing support from the taxpayer. It would be circumventing the migrant waiting period altogether.I do appreciate, Senator, that you are well meaning in your motives in proposing it, but I think it would send all the wrong signals to people. We have been trying to say, `You come here; you are welcome; we welcome your contribution to our country, but you are expected to make proper provision for yourself in those first two years.'I do not know that there is anything additional I should put on the table except that the amendment has been costed by my department for 1998-99 at $13.3 million and for 1999-2000 at $19.5 million. It is interesting here that ACOSS claims that it would be a cost of some $30 million. One of the reasons they are wrong is that they are accessing special benefit now, as I just demonstrated.11:16:00918Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—Thank you for that response, Minister. I would just like to raise a couple of points out of it. I recognise and agree with your comments about the appeal and review processes that are available through the social security system and the appeals tribunal. I could sidetrack here about the proposed changes to tribunals and whether that is the way to go given how effective the Social Security Appeals Tribunal currently is, but I will leave that one for another time.I think there are two issues here. One is the extra difficulty that newly arrived migrants in particular would have in being aware of all their rights in that regard. It is a constant battle, as you know, for the department to ensure that people in the general community are aware of all the avenues open to them, and newly arrived residents in particular are less likely to be aware of all their rights. I do not believe it is satisfactory to expect people—particularly people who are in desperate situations, who are new to the country and who often have language difficulties et cetera—to have to battle their way up through all the levels of the appeal system just to get enough to eat. That is not satisfactory.I also think the way the department appears to be interpreting `a substantial change of circumstances beyond their control' is operating in a way where it is being interpreted very tightly, so the fact is that people have run out of money. We are not talking about people who are ignoring assistance from their sponsor or whatever. We are talking about people who have explored all of those avenues, or those avenues have dried up and they now have no other alternative.We are looking at the situation where they have no alternative means of support at all. That is a situation which applies with the special benefit in any case, and that has always been the case. This extra hurdle is something that newly arrived residents and nobody else have to jump—they have to show that the circumstances of absolute need that they are in have arisen due to things beyond their control. The provision is being interpreted, it appears to me, as something that they could not have envisaged. The problem seems to be that the department is saying to people, `You have run out of money but you should have been able to see that was going to happen because you could not have expected to get a job or you could not have expected to have survived with the amount of money that you have.'Maybe these people have made a misjudgment. I am loathe to make this look like it is all a matter of foolish migrants who have not thought through what they were going to do before they came here, because I do not think that is the case in a lot of circumstances. But, even in the circumstances where that is the case, I do not believe it is appropriate that people who are in those circumstances and have no means of support whatsoever should basically be told, `Tough luck. You should have stayed at home.'That is the message here and I believe most Australians, whether or not they support the overall principle of the two-year waiting period for migrants, would accept the reality of the situation that some people are being put in where they have no alternative means of support, whether through their own misjudgment or through being given this information or whatever, and are basically left to starve. I do not believe the average Australian would support that situation, so I would ask the minister to reconsider that.I have a couple of specific questions to try and focus some of the issues here, and I do not want to prolong the debate too much. Firstly, in regard to the cost figures that the minister gave of about $13.3 million and $19.5 million a year, what are the actual numbers of people that they represent? Hopefully that is not a secret. As for the other question, I ask: in relation to the recent appeals tribunal rulings that have received a lot of publicity, is the department likely to reconsider its directive to the regional offices about its interpretation of the clause `a substantial change of circumstances beyond their control'. As part of the wash-up of reviewing that decision, is the department likely to change its interpretation of that clause in any way?11:19:00919Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEALB36NSWALP00—I wish to harken back to that point you made earlier, Senator Bartlett. I think you quoted a figure of 46 per cent of immigrants who regretted having come to Australia. I wonder what the source of that was.DT6BARTLETTSenator Bartlett—That was from a study done through the Ethnic Affairs Commission in conjunction with the University of Sydney. It was a survey of recently arrived migrants.BE4NEWMANSenator Newman—Was it in the paper just the other day?DT6BARTLETTSenator Bartlett—I am not sure.BE4NEWMANSenator Newman—If it was the one I was thinking of, it was 95 Migrants . I am not sure if it is the same one.11:20:00919Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—I rise to express a great deal of concern about the operation of the so-called safety nets for newly arrived migrants within their period of two years of being in Australia. I well recall the discussions that have been held in this chamber over the last few years. I have pages and pages of Hansard in which there have been questions asked of the minister and expressions of concern made by various honourable senators and myself.I am personally distressed that the situation has arisen whereby people are in a situation of absolute destitution. Many are not picked up and even those who are picked up very often do not have their situation catered for by any sort of safety net. I say that personally, but I know that there is also a considerable amount of concern amongst agencies such as St Vincent de Paul, Anglicare and City Mission—organisations which are more at the coalface than we are. We do, in the course of our duties, run across very difficult situations and people in great poverty.I do not want to remind honourable senators of the reading about the rich man Dives and Lazarus but we do have a considerable responsibility to address this issue and address it urgently. I understand the point of view of the chamber at the present moment. It appears that the feeling is that maybe this is not the place to do it but I commend Senator Bartlett for raising it here. I feel so strongly about it at this time that I would like to support him in this measure.I was given certain indications, if that is the word—rather than undertakings—that there would be a satisfactory safety net in the form of a special allowance for those migrants whose circumstances change significantly for reasons beyond their personal control after their arrival in Australia. I would like to know from the minister why that is being interpreted so narrowly. Those are the issues. We really do need to have some indication from the government that the tragic circumstances of quite a number of newly arrived migrants—I cannot put a figure on it—will be alleviated. I remember that the government did have regard to a number of things that I raised, including the parenting allowance, the maternity payments and so on. Clearly they do alleviate the problems that are being experienced and about which other senators have made some comment.It has been made perfectly clear to the chamber that, without the social security payment, unemployed migrants are not entitled to access government labour market programs, transport concessions, which are rather important, particularly when looking for jobs in the larger cities, public housing, rent assistance and so on. The impact of all of this in malnutrition and the declining health of some of those migrants is there to be seen. No doubt the minister has received representations from a number of organisations. I thought that one of those organisations, the Council for Social Services in New South Wales, did present a very thoughtful and well-constructed letter which pointed out the problems. It was that letter of 9 March 1998. No doubt other honourable senators and the minister have received a copy of that letter. The minister may wish to comment on the matters that have been raised with her by a number of groups and also now in the chamber.11:27:00920Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—As I said to Senator Bartlett, the review system is working. We are seeing the AAT cases which have found in favour of the migrants. That is a pretty good example that it still works in this area and that if we make a decision that is found to be outside the guidelines then the review process works. Senator, we are also reviewing the operation of the guidelines continuously. As I said to you, something like 340 people were receiving this special benefit as at January; it has been increasing month by month. You might be interested to note that the rejection rate in the last three months has been trending down. In November last year, for example, 39 people were rejected; in December, 28 were rejected; and in January, 22 were rejected.6H4HARRADINESenator Harradine—Out of how many?BE4Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMAN—I think it was out of total claims of 173. Those figures could be due to a couple of things. There could be fewer people coming who were not adequately advised at the beginning or who did not take in the advice they got. It could be that the initial operation of the guidelines has settled down and there is greater consistency across the Centrelink system. I cannot say, Senator. Given the concerns that you have, that trend over those three months has to be more reassuring. Rejection numbers are reducing. At the same time we have a substantial number of people on the benefit and those that have been unsuccessful in getting the benefit—three cases, to my knowledge—have come through to the AAT and been successful. Other people could have been successful at earlier levels either in the authorised review officer process or in the Social Security Appeals Tribunal process. I do not have that information here with me but that system is certainly still continuing and available to migrants, many of whom had some help from the Welfare Rights Centre.11:30:00920Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I looked at those figures that the minister just gave us—39, 28 and 22. Even if that was averaged at, say, 30 a month, that looks like it is over 300 a year. The minister mentioned that there were 340 migrants receiving special benefits, and it could be extrapolated that around half were being knocked back, that is, half of the people who actually know that they can have an appeal. We know that the government has been very mean-spirited. Worse than that, I believe it has denied basic human rights of many newly arrived migrants and people seeking to be migrants in terms of access to legal advice. We know that court costs have increased, we know that costs of justice have increased and we know that to do anything in the system when you do not know that you have rights is almost impossible. I really think that these figures of 340 migrants and growing could indicate a growing problem that is perhaps massively more than the figures actually portray.I think the signal this government basically is giving is that it is all right to come to Australia if you are rich. If you have got resources behind you, a big fat bank balance or some rich relatives, that is just fine. But, if you are an ordinary person who has come to Australia for a variety of reasons and have been accepted on the normal basis—and that is fairly restrictive these days—you are going to have a really hard time from this government if you are not rich or if you are not immediately able to access jobs. We know it is going to be really difficult if you do not have access to language classes and other support and employment services. So it is all stacked against you from this government's point of view.I believe the reason is that it is really very useful to have a group of people or several groups of people that you can blame for the current economical woes. The government does not actually come out and say that, but that is exactly the effect that it has. If you target migrants, refugees, unemployed and Aboriginal people, you have a way of directing the anger of people of Australia who have had such a hard time over the past few years because of the current economic situation—not just about their levels of income but what is happening with the things they can buy and the things they cannot buy, and what is happening with their own job security—towards those people who are not in a position to fight back. That is called scapegoat politics. This is, unfortunately, what we see, and what the Greens (WA) and the Democrats are trying to do here is to redress some of the worst aspects of scapegoat politics. We know that this six-month waiting period was started by the previous government, but that is no excuse. Senator Harradine, the Democrats and the Greens were on all of those occasions standing up strongly against that level of cheap politics, scapegoat politics, which was intended basically to direct attention from the economic and social outcomes of government policies towards those people who cannot easily fight back.11:33:00921Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—Briefly, I put in a plea to the government to support the not unreasonable amendment that has been moved by Senator Bartlett. I thank the minister and the government for accepting one of my earlier amendments in relation to the waiting period for newly arrived residents, particularly in relation to what we consider the retrospective aspects of that provision as it relates to the common youth allowance. This amendment relates to special benefits. Senator Bartlett has outlined, as have other honourable senators, many good reasons for the government accepting this, but I think that when we are talking about special benefits those arguments apply even more so.The Democrat opposition to the two-year waiting period has been put on the record squarely and many times. At the time we expressed our concern at the original inclusion of benefits from disability wage and carer's pension through to the common youth allowance and, of course, parenting, maternity and special benefits. Senator Harradine is right in saying that some of those concerns were taken on board by the government when the issue was re-debated, and it was a number of times. But special benefits are the payment of last resort for those people in the most anxious and dire straits, and we know that people are in dire straits.As Senator Harradine pointed out to the chamber, we are all receiving correspondence from various community and advocacy groups, in particular the Welfare Rights Centre, who have described cases of individuals and families who are really unable to get shelter, to feed themselves properly and to attend AMEP classes. This is a reality. I share Senator Bartlett's hope that the government is not so harsh that it will reject this amendment, because it is in relation to those really special cases. I thank the government again for taking on board one of my amendments, though not quite our ambit claim amendment in relation to the two-year waiting period, and I hope that they will extend that logic and that concern to accepting Senator Bartlett's amendment before us.11:36:00922Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEALB36NSWALP00—You may recall that we had this debate earlier about the extension of benefits generally during that two-year waiting period for immigrants. Clearly the opposition have made a decision in that regard. Special benefits are in a special category in that special benefit is a payment of last resort, it is not an entitlement. Whatever other requirements must be satisfied, it is essentially discretionary. It is a payment where all else fails. I suppose there is a general feeling in the community that it should not be the Australian taxpayer who supports people who decide to emigrate to Australia and intentionally come here knowing that they have no support and believing that they are unlikely to be able to obtain support for themselves while they are here.What is less clear and what is of concern to the Labor opposition is whether it is acceptable that, if people who do not immigrate with that intention but rather with the intention of supporting themselves by being employed or who have sufficient assets to look after themselves until they are employed find themselves in circumstances where they cannot support themselves or their families, we should wash our hands of them as a community and say, `We will do nothing. We will allow you to remain without any support at all.'At the moment there is some provision that says that if circumstances have changed you can, at the discretion of the secretary to the department, have access to that special benefit, even if you are an immigrant or an immigrant family, within that two-year period. It appears that that definition of changed circumstances has been expanded somewhat by interpretations of the AAT. If you check with your adviser you will find that is the case, Minister. The question that we need to determine here today is whether the provisions for special benefits that already exist are a sufficient safety net for immigrants who do come here and who do, in most circumstances, come here in very good faith.Minister, you have said there have been a number of applications and in the last six months there have been some refusals. I would be interested to know if you have any information about the basis of those refusals and whether there were a large number of refusals on the basis that their circumstances had not changed. I would also be interested to know—as all sensible people making these sorts of decisions would like to know—the cost involved in the extension of special benefits. Really, what we are saying is that the change of circumstances provision is no longer required. Maybe the minister could provide us with that information.11:40:00922Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—In response to Senator Neal, I understand that the rejections of people have been, I think almost entirely but certainly mostly, because there has been no evidence of a change in circumstances beyond their control, which is the basic criterion. Essentially people have come here without adequate means to support themselves.I do not know how the family category can possibly cause a problem for people coming here because they are coming with a sponsor. If the sponsor dies or goes bankrupt, those are considered to be circumstances beyond their control and they are eligible for the special benefit. It tends to be more of a problem for people in the skilled migrant class, some of whom are coming regardless of the fact that, on any reasonable understanding—and they are given information about the cost of living and also the employment circumstances in Australia—they come with a totally unrealistic idea of how they could keep themselves for more than a week or two. Some people are coming hell or high water, as I understand it from some of the cases that I have been reading about. Does that answer what you were getting at?B36NEALSenator Neal—Yes.11:42:00923Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—I did ask a question of the minister to which I have not yet got a response, although I can understand that, given that she has had people throwing all sorts of requests and questions at her over the last half an hour or so. The question I asked was about the number of claims represented by the $13.3 million and the $19.5 million annual costs that she provided earlier. Perhaps this is part of what the minister was just saying in terms of this probably not relating much to the family reunion and being more to do with skilled migrants coming here without adequate means of support or adequate funds.I understand that recently the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, Mr Ruddock, indicated finetuning of the skilled migrant program to put a higher requirement on the amount of funds people would need to have before they could come to Australia. One question I would ask is whether the minister can confirm that that is the case, without going down another sidetrack about the appropriateness of the direction of the immigration policy of the government. That is another issue we could talk about, but I will refrain. I would also ask the minister whether, assuming that my understanding is correct, those likely changes coming into effect would possibly reduce the cost of the measure that the Democrats are proposing here today.Again, it comes down to a basic situation of people who have arrived legally in this country and whom we have welcomed here. It is not a matter of people migrating here and walking straight down to the dole office; it is a matter of people who migrate here and find themselves, for whatever reason, without any means of support. That is what the special benefit is about. It is a discretionary payment. It is about helping people who do not have a sufficient livelihood and who have no alternative means of support. The basic principle here is that we have people who are legal Australian residents and to whom we have said, `Yes, come to our country.' Using phrases to describe people being determined to come here `hell or high water' I think gives a bit of a strange signal about people we are legally allowing into the country. If we do not want them to come in then we should not let them in. Again, that is another debate on immigration policy about which there would different views.If we are going to allow people in through all of the appropriate processes and expect them to, and indeed insist that they, contribute as much as they can to Australian society and our economy, if they find themselves with no means of support whatsoever—no options, total destitution—then surely it is a fundamental principle in those circumstances that those people have the same right to the last resort safety net as anybody who was born here or who is a legal resident of this country. It astonishes me that such a discriminatory principle can be defended in a situation that does not apply to a large number of people. It applies to people who have fallen through all of the nets available and who are in dire straits.We need to recognise that, if we are going to allow these people into the country, we have a duty as a civilised society to assist them. It gets back to what appears to be too tight a definition or interpretation of the legislative provision about requiring a `substantial change in circumstances beyond their control', and that hurdle having to be put on new migrants and nobody else. One of the examples among many—and there are any number of case studies that have been provided by organisations that have had to deal with this situation—which perhaps highlights more than most the way the application of that provision is too tight is the example of a man who came here as a skilled migrant—an engineer—from Bangladesh. His qualifications and employment background had been closely scrutinised by the Australian authorities before he came here. He did not bring a large amount of money with him, which was obviously a bad idea, but that was all he had left of his savings after all the costs of migrating.He was not able to find work quickly, did not have adequate funds, et cetera, and ap plied for a special benefit. He did not succeed initially. It went to the Social Security Appeals Tribunal, and this is one case where the appeals tribunal worked in an applicant's favour and paid a special benefit. The minister may say that that again proves that the system is working but, according to the Welfare Rights Centre who assisted this client at the tribunal, the reason why he won his appeal on the grounds of changed circumstance was because he had become so destitute that he was suffering from malnutrition and depression. That was determined by the tribunal to be the circumstances beyond his control—that it was unreasonable for him to have perceived that he would get here and become malnourished. If we are getting into a situation where people have to become malnourished simply to be able to qualify for assistance then, surely, that is a situation that is totally unacceptable. I would urge the minister to look at that sort of situation and recognise that, because of the way this legislation is being interpreted, it is not catching everybody and also recognise that, as a civilised country, we have a duty to that small number of people—and I hope we eventually get those numbers—who are in situations where they have no opportunity at all to support themselves.It is probably worth bringing to the attention of the Senate and the minister some of the case studies—and, as I said, there are a number available, and I will not go through all of them—that the Welfare Rights Centre has provided not only of the people who have gone through the Welfare Rights Centre but also those which they have provided on behalf of a wide range of organisations, mainly in the Sydney and New South Wales region. We have heard from the Migrant Resource Centres of Illawarra and Newcastle and different parts of New South Wales, the Ethnic Community Councils, the Canterbury Bankstown Migrant Resource Centre, et cetera. Some of the case studies that have been provided relate specifically to people who were sponsored migrants and then found themselves in situations where they were not able to be adequately supported.One case study that was provided was of a woman who was sponsored by her sister for permanent residence and, upon her arrival, it then became apparent that she had basically been brought here by her sister to work as an unpaid housekeeper and to care for the mother who was suffering from dementia. It became a fairly abusive situation which involved being subjected to domestic violence, et cetera. According to that case study, that client claimed a special benefit but was refused and there was no investigation into the domestic situation. That is another situation where the department's processes fell down somewhat, but those sorts of things are going to happen.As I mentioned before, in terms of the attempts of the immigration department to be as efficient and as clear as possible, I am sure they do try as hard as possible and I know that Social Security tries as hard as possible, but you are never going to get it perfectly right. You are going to get people who are in desperate situations coming in to apply and the officer at the counter will tell them, `Look, you came here less than two years ago. You're not eligible. Don't bother applying,' rather than saying to them, Well, put it in, we'll test it out and we'll see.' That sort of situation can happen and, in those circumstances, the person is not going to appeal because they have not applied and are not aware of the opportunity to test their case. Quite reasonably, if they go to a government department and the person who represents the department at the counter tells them that they are not eligible, they will take that on good faith and go away.Those sorts of situations can happen and they are hard to track officially because they are not ones that enter the system. It is only when they come to the attention of specific community organisations that they can actually be measured and addressed, and I think it is important to emphasise that point. Apart from all those who are coming to the attention of these groups, how many others are there who are perhaps going into the underworld or illegal activities out of a need to support themselves? They will not be picked up by these other organisations and they will not be contributing in a positive way to Australia if they have to get into illegal or exploitative situations to be able to survive. Again, I ask the minister for the figures about the number of cases.11:52:00925Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—The answer to Senator Bartlett is that the number of cases is 1,100 and 1,800.11:52:00925Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEALB36NSWALP00—Minister, I am not quite sure what you said then.BE4NEWMANSenator Newman—There were two figures: 1,100 and 1,800.B36Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEAL—Were they the number of applications?BE4NEWMANSenator Newman—They were the number of cases that were underpinning the dollar numbers that I gave you some time ago—$13.3 million and $19.5 million.B36Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEAL—Is that on an annual basis?BE4NEWMANSenator Newman—For 1998-99 it was $13.3 million; for 1999-2000 it was $19.5 million. The number of people was 1,100 and 1,800.B36Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEAL—Minister, one of the pertinent issues is what happens to those people who do not have any means of support who seek the special benefit and do not get it.11:53:00925Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—Firstly, some people will have family here. Even if they are not sponsors, one would expect that families will support their own. Secondly, as happened under your government, substantial payments are made by the Department of Health and Family Services, I think, to the welfare organisations by way of emergency relief payments of some many millions of dollars. We have increased that since we came into government. As I recall, in the first year of government we worked with the agencies to improve the formula on which that funding is based. I am out of my own territory here, but I think the funding is driven by demand. Those are two sources by which people are assisted here.If some of them do not have family here, they have close friends here who have been urging them to migrate. In one of the cases that I was reading recently, it was the urging of friends that persuaded a couple to come with what anybody would have thought would have been totally inadequate funds to last them for any length of time at all. They were hell-bent on coming. They acknowledged that what they were told about employment opportunities and costs of living here did not deter them. They came anyway. Their circumstances were hardly changed for reasons beyond their control.11:55:00925Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEALB36NSWALP00—My concern ultimately is that, if you take away special benefits—the safety net; the second net—from people who do not have any family or friends who are prepared to support them—I do not think that that would be entirely unusual—the outcome appears to be that either they have no support at all, and essentially they are unable to buy food or shelter and eventually they will pass away and die, or they find illegal means of supporting themselves.Despite the obvious deterrent from not providing special benefits to people who have been silly, stupid, thoughtless or irresponsible, neither the proposition that some people will be entirely without support, in what is a reasonably affluent country, nor the proposition that they will find alternative support by being involved in some sort of illegal income producing activity—criminal activities—is a particularly attractive outcome. Do you see any other answer for that group of people besides those two answers and apart from the alternative that you suggested, which is the support of some groups. I was not sure exactly which groups you meant, but you must mean the Salvation Army, Barnardos and people like that.BE4NEWMANSenator Newman—Organisations that get government funding for that purpose.B36Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEAL—My understanding of those sorts of groups, though they do a very good job of providing supplementary type help, is that most people would not be able to survive solely on that. Normally they provide things like limited food parcels and, in some cases, emergency accommodation refuges. I am not certain how a person could exist indefinitely on the sorts of provisions that are made by those organisations.11:57:00926Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—Those organisations provide the sort of support you are talking about as well as monetary assistance through this emergency relief fund. I wish I could remember how much it was; it is a very substantial amount of money. That is not to suggest that there is not always going to be needy people who need that help. I am not suggesting that it is a bottomless pit, but quite a lot of money goes in that direction for these sorts of circumstances.In the discussion that we have had today I have referred a couple of times to circumstances beyond somebody's control—for instance, the sponsor dies or becomes bankrupt or the job is not there. In fact, there is a very long list of criteria which are not binding on the secretary but are indicative of the sorts of circumstances which it would be reasonable to say were beyond people's control. The secretary is not limited to that list. If the secretary believes the circumstances are beyond a person's control, then the secretary can exercise discretion. It is not something I have any discretion over, of course, but the secretary does. That is how it has been operating.11:59:00926Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—I sense around the chamber a good deal of concern that maybe we do not have a grasp of all the situations of which we have been advised. For example, it would be disconcerting if you have people who are in desperate situations—and we know that there are, such as new migrants. We have that information not only from very good sources, such as the Welfare Rights Centre, but also from other excellent sources. I have gained the information independently as well, as no doubt have other honourable senators.I have listened carefully to what Senator Neal has been saying, and she also has been indicating the opposition's concern about the prospects of persons living in destitution because of the administration, I suppose, or interpretations that have been given to certain words in the statement that was made by the minister last year. I am also aware of the AAT decisions and their significance.But what I believe we all need is more information, more detailed information, which is not readily available to us. I would like to see, for example, an opportunity for these organisations—welfare organisations and other organisations—and individuals to come before a committee to give that committee the evidence and information upon which we can make a valid decision, together with the information that we will receive from the various departments—Immigration, Foreign Affairs and the Department of Social Security.I do not know whether the committee would consider this possibility. Obviously, we cannot adjourn this requested amendment because that would hold up the legislation, and I do not think it is in anybody's interests to do that. I just wonder whether Senator Bartlett might consider withdrawing the request at this stage—and he has other options, of course—and that would be on the basis there is an understanding around the chamber that the issue will be referred to a committee for a short hearing enabling this matter to come back to us in time to deal with it in some legislation.I personally would like to see it dealt with in the consequential legislation that comes back. But I understand from the minister that that would cause a great number of difficulties with putting into place the legislation that we are passing now. But, as has been indicated to me, there are other measures coming forward—the Social Security and Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Budget and Other Measures) Bill 1997 —which can deal with this particular matter. There would be no problem; that is an appropriate peg to hang such amendment on.If we have the benefit of the work of a committee on this particular matter—and I would hope that it does not go for very long—if we have all the information, then we can make a better judgment on a motion such as this that is before us. I would hope that perhaps Senator Bartlett might consider that. If he does not and chooses to go ahead with his request now, that is entirely up to him.12:04:00927Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—I thank Senator Harradine for his attempts to try to progress the matter to an eventually positive outcome. I think the suggestion he makes about getting the issue more thoroughly examined, getting some of the people together who are involved in this issue out in the community to address a Senate committee, as well as departmental people, would be a very helpful thing in terms of clarifying and giving us some more of the specific detail of what the situation is out in the community.Nonetheless, I might respectfully decline his kind offer and proceed with moving the amendment. I do not want to delay the debate any further on this, but I do think the bottom line is, as Senator Harradine himself said in his most recent contribution: we do know that there are people in desperate need in the community now. For that reason, I believe that this is an urgent matter that needs to be addressed now. It is not one that is going to go away. Regardless of whether this request goes down, as it may well—and I recognise that the government is not disposed to accept it—or returns to the lower House, I think it is important to at least signal the strength of concern about the situation as it stands now.As I have said, this matter is not going to go away anyway. Hopefully, there will be an opportunity—whether through the budget and other measures bill, another social security bill or a specific reference—for this situation to be examined in a bit of detail by a Senate committee. But I think at the moment, because of the fact that there are people in need now in the community, it is incumbent on the Senate now to signal its position on this issue.It is the view of the Democrats that it is one where we should be recognising the need that people have. It is not a situation where charities should be picking up the pieces. They are there for emergency relief; they are not there to support people for one or two years. It is those groups who are pushing the need for change because of the burden that is being placed on them, the drain on their resources, so that they cannot then utilise those resources for other members of the community who are in crisis need.So I would like to proceed with my requested amendment. I do thank Senator Harradine for his suggestion, but I think this is an issue that we will need to keep looking at in any case.12:06:00927Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—That puts us in a bit of an awkward position. I should have said, for the benefit of Senator Bartlett and his colleagues, that I was going to move, at the appropriate stage, to add to the motion for the adoption of the committee report something like `and that the following matter be referred to the Legal and Constitutional Committee for inquiry and report'—by a certain date—`matters arising from the committee's consideration of the request for amendment, moved by Senator Bartlett'—you see, you are there up in lights, Senator Bartlett—`relating to newly arrived residents' waiting period'.Senator Bartlett perhaps was not aware that that very firm intention is there. I hope that it would get the unanimous support of the committee when the time comes—and I hope that is in 10 minutes time.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Watson)—At a later time.12:07:00927Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEYHX5QLDAD00—This might give Senator Bartlett a few minutes to consider that. Yesterday the Senate passed a motion requiring the government to produce certain documents by 12 noon today. Has the government produced those documents?10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—The Senate is in committee at the moment in relation to this bill.12:08:00927Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—The documents, I understand, are here. But if we table them right now we will interrupt the committee stage of this bill coming to finality.AW5CARRSenator Carr—You could table them by leave.BE4Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMAN—I cannot table them in the committee stage, I understand, Senator. I would if I could.AW5CARRSenator Carr—But you will table them?BE4Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMAN—Yes, I will table them. I give you that undertaking.HX5WOODLEYSenator WOODLEY—I am happy to accept that.12:09:00928Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I want to remind the chamber briefly that earlier I gave examples where, on issues like the age of independence, committee after committee came up with very solid suggestions about what that age of independence should be. Governments have ignored that. So I would like to emphasise that it would be good if this were advanced in a committee, whether or not this chamber votes on an amendment. We have had amendments before. It should not make any difference to whether the government is willing to bring this up in a committee.I would not like to think there was a gun to anyone's head not to move amendments because the government will not look at things in a committee if they do put amendments, because that would be a breach of the separation of powers and it would potentially be the minister interfering in the role of the Senate. I am sure the ministry would not do such a thing. But I am sure that, if there is a willingness to look at things further in a committee stage, this chamber and the community would be very grateful. I would like to think that, unlike things like the age of majority, the age of independence, whatever positive outcome came from that committee would be taken on board and brought in in a positive way to amending legislation in that regard.12:10:00928Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—To respond briefly to Senator Harradine's further elaboration and try to give it due consideration in the short space of time available, I understand what he is suggesting in referring the matter to a committee via a motion at the end of the committee stage. I understand that can be done anyway and, as I said in my previous contribution, I think that would be a good idea. I would still like to proceed simply because I think there is a clear situation of need now and I would like to indicate the Democrats' position at this stage of how serious we think this matter is.If other senators feel they still need more information before they are convinced that it is a situation that should be changed, that is fine for them to express. I can understand that situation. Hopefully, a committee inquiry would provide that extra information. Whilst I am loath, with my minimal degree of experience in this chamber compared with Senator Harradine's, to back my judgment against the reasoning he has put forward, I still feel it appropriate to proceed with the specific request for amendment that I have moved. Question put: That the request (Senator Bartlett's ) be agreed to.12:16:00The committee divided. (The Chairman—Senator S. M. West)32Allison, L. Bartlett, A. J. J.Bishop, M. Bourne, V.Brown, B. Campbell, G.Carr, K. Collins, J. M. A.Conroy, S. Cooney, B.Crowley, R. A. Denman, K. J.Evans, C. V. *Forshaw, M. G.Gibbs, B. Hogg, J.Lees, M. H. Lundy, K.Mackay, S. Margetts, D.McKiernan, J. P. Murphy, S. M.Murray, A. Neal, B. J.O'Brien, K. W. K. Quirke, J. A.Reynolds, M. Schacht, C. C.Sherry, N. Stott Despoja, N.West, S. M. Woodley, J.33Abetz, E. Boswell, R. L. D.Brownhill, D. G. C. Calvert, P. H. *Campbell, I. G. Chapman, H. G. P.Coonan, H. Crane, W.Eggleston, A. Ellison, C.Ferguson, A. B. Ferris, J.Gibson, B. F. Harradine, B.Heffernan, W. Hill, R. M.Kemp, R. Lightfoot, P. R.Macdonald, I. Macdonald, S.MacGibbon, D. J. McGauran, J. J. J.Minchin, N. H. Newman, J. M.O'Chee, W. G. Parer, W. R.Patterson, K. C. L. Payne, M. A.Reid, M. E. Synon, K. M.Tierney, J. Vanstone, A. E.Watson, J. O. W.Bolkus, N. Knowles, S. C.Collins, R. L. Troeth, J.Cook, P. F. S. Tambling, G. E. J.Faulkner, J. P. Alston, R. K. R.Ray, R. F. Herron, J.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the negative.12:20:00929Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—I seek leave to reconsider a request moved by Senator Neal that has been agreed to and to move a Democrat amendment to it.12:20:00929Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—I advise Senator Allison that the government is not intending to oppose her amendment.Leave granted.12:21:00929Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—I move:That the House of Representatives be requested to make the following amendment:(1) Page 2 (after line 2), after clause 2, insert:2A ApplicationSubsection 543A(2) does not apply to a person who last left school more than 12 months before the commencement of this Act.Thank you, Minister; it is good to know that the government will support this amendment. It will go a long way to addressing the problems that schools foresee in this legislation. The effect of the Democrats' amendment is to remove the obligation of 16- and 17-year-olds who had already left school at the beginning of this year to return next year in order to be eligible for the youth allowance. So it takes that away. This effectively is a phasing in approach and removes the retrospectivity of the measure. We also welcome the government's move to defer the implementation of this bill from July this year to January 1999. The difficulties that schools would face in taking back 13,000 students—and I think that is a conservative estimate—two-thirds of the way through the school year has been recognised. I think that is much to the relief of principals, parents and teachers.Next year, 1999, would have been a particularly difficult year. Young people who left school at the beginning of this year in year 10 or 11 and who might have been looking for work—many of them living independently—would be forced back into a school that they left 12 months earlier. This would have been an one-off situation next year and something of a nightmare for schools. As a former teacher I can tell you that students who do not want to be in school can make it very difficult for those who do. There are students who some years ago would have left school at year 10 or 11 and taken on a proper apprenticeship or gone straight into jobs—jobs which are largely non-existent these days.As governments have wound back spending on education and adopted a return to basics approach to schooling, the sorts of alternative programs that were once available in technology, the arts, outdoor education and that kind of thing have largely disappeared too. Principals will tell you that the alienation, particularly of boys, in senior secondary school is a huge problem, in fact the biggest issue that they face. These young people do much better in the TAFE system, where they are surrounded by adults, but that is not an option for 16- and 17-year-olds whose families are on low incomes. The fact is that most of them would have to go back to the school that they left. For those who have already left and no doubt think themselves adults, to return to school uniforms, a timetable and no real change in the programs would not necessarily be a happy experience.It goes without saying that the Democrats support the idea that young people should stay in education for as long as possible, but this bill effectively raises the school leaving age to 18 and will cost state governments—according to my calculations—an extra $52 million every year. That is what it will cost those governments to accommodate the extra 13,000 students. Of course, this will have to come out of federal assistance grants. No doubt the states are not pleased with this arrangement, especially coming on top of the EBA cut of $11.9 million this year and higher EBA cuts each year thereafter.The federal government is tipping in $22.66 million over four years for special programs related to the return of these students. That works out to be just $435 per student. The reason I wanted to speak to this amendment, even though the government is supporting it, is that I wanted to get the minister's assurance that this money will not be reduced at all by this amendment.The federal government will pay a $550 per capita grant on average to these students who are in schools, but the rest will have to be found by state governments. That is, of course, if they find it at all and do not expect the schools to simply do more for less. As we know, it costs around $4,500 to educate a student in a government school. However, the principals estimate that the cost to provide worthwhile programs for returning students is more like $7,500. Instead of providing $435 per student for the so-called full risks or at risk programs, the Commonwealth ought to be providing around $3,000 extra for this measure.Another matter I wanted to raise was the fact that there is no money in the proposed budget for capital works. There will be another 13,000 students in the school system. By my calculations, if that is 30 students per classroom as it is in Victoria by and large, that is an extra 400 classrooms and there is no money here for capital works.I have concerns about the process for distribution of this money. This $22.66 million over four years is a very small sum of money. Schools must put in bids to a state board committee which will somehow be gathered at a regional level, and that is not entirely sorted out yet. Schools will not necessarily get the funding. They will have to go through a bidding process and they may well lose. Questions arise about what happens to the schools that do not get any funding. What happens if they end up with two extra classrooms full of students? What happens if that school does not get the funding? Is it intended that the students would go elsewhere where the program was in place? How will those schools cope with that? Is it expected that students will travel to other schools? Is there a special allowance for that? Apparently not.The government says it will not give the money to schools on a simple per capita basis. That is unfortunate. Presumably, the schools cannot be trusted to manage that money. This idea of schools having to bid for the money, regardless of how many of these students they have, is fairly ridiculous, given that this kind of project does not lend itself to that competitive ethos, especially when there just simply is not enough money around. Presumably it will be a question of who writes the best, most sparkly application which will determine which school gets the money.I have those reservations. The Democrats are pleased that the government is supporting this, but I needed to get on the record those other serious concerns that schools have about having inadequate funding for what will be very necessary programs for these students who would otherwise have left school and be looking for jobs at 16 or 17.12:28:00930Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—The opposition supports this amendment. In doing so, I draw the attention of the Senate to some concerns we have about these proposals put by the government. I emphasise that our fundamental concern is that this government is introducing a policy here without proper consideration of its practical implications for our education system in particular, and of course for families in terms of their requirement for families to meet additional expenditure, many of whom will not have the money available to fulfil that additional commitment. Our concern also is for the schools and TAFE systems of this country which we require to take on additional responsibilities without adequate resourcing.There may well be quite significant damaging effects to a much greater number of students and their opportunities in life as a consequence of not providing the resources necessary to adequately provide for the additional students that are being required now to rejoin the education system.I say this because we must bear in mind the nature of the particular students we are talking about in this bill. The Department of Employ ment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs and, I expect, the Department of Social Security would have by now appreciated that the students who are affected by this measure—that is, people who have been unemployed for some period of time and are being forced back into the education system—will have particular learning difficulties and social disadvantages which have a profound effect on the capacity of those people to actually do well at school.The very fact that students were forced out of the education system is all too often a reflection on the failure of the education system to actually provide for the special needs of students, many of whom are often described as at risk—that is, in educational jargon, they are students who leave school early because of their low levels of school achievement. That is due to their low literacy levels, often because of their low numeracy levels and because they have particular learning difficulties which are the result of a range of factors, including social and physiological or economic factors which relate to the capacity of students to do well at school.The very fact that these particular students will often come from families who have suffered family dislocation, itinerancy, violence, abuse, poverty and homelessness; have a record of truancy and may well have a record of substance abuse. These are the sorts of issues that the Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs drew to the attention of the government and which this government has failed to respond to. It has failed to respond to those fundamental questions about providing the necessary resources for students, particularly those at risk of educational failure. Failure is a word that I do not like using but I think it often explains in simple terms the consequences of people not being able to achieve well educationally.The fact is that people leave the school system as a result of a range of factors. We cannot simply say that it is because they do not want to be there. They do not want to be there because of the social, economic and often physical conditions that they have to endure. It seems to me that if the school system is to be more effective, it has to be able to provide more relevant experiences for those students. That inevitably means that there are additional requirements upon school authorities, particularly teachers, which have to be met in terms of providing that service to those particular students with learning difficulties. This government has not provided the resources to back up this initiative in that regard.The government talks about expanding educational opportunities. It says, `We will have VET in schools. We will provide $20 million out of ANTA funds and give that to the schools.' It does not explain what moneys are provided to back that up in terms of in-service training, curriculum development or the provision of resources. Equally, it says, `We have to get the industry more involved in the delivery of specific programs.' Again, it does not address the practical problems. These expressions are easy to draw attention to but they are not easy to develop programs around without the necessary funding to back them up.This is a position that the states have identified. The states have identified their concern only too clearly. Senator Allison has given figures which show a $53 million shortfall in the states' resources—that is, an additional demand on the states to meet the requirements of the 13,000 extra places. She bases her figures on a calculation of about $4,500 per place. That is a very modest view of the cost of educational places. It is certainly not the costs that the states themselves have put to the Commonwealth with regard to various submissions through the Commonwealth-state educational forums. The Victorian government, for instance, calculated an amount of $7,000 per spot and argued that they were some $40 million short in Victoria alone as a result of this government's initiatives and requirements by this government to meet those matters.A similar pattern emerges with the TAFE colleges. It is often the case that the schools themselves will not be able to cope with these particular students. This amendment points to the fact that they are not excluded from TAFE colleges. Here again, you will see very sub stantial sums of money being withdrawn from the TAFE system by this government and demands by the states to meet additional requirements in terms of Commonwealth programs, yet no additional money has been provided by the Commonwealth to meet the requirements under their new ANTA arrangements. In fact, we have no new ANTA agreement to meet these particular initiatives that are being proposed by the government. What we do have though is the government announcement on 28 January that it will provide some $42 million. I say that that is $100 million short on what has been proposed by the Department of Employment, Education, Training Youth Affairs through its cabinet processes. What this government produces is $42 million or thereabouts.One of the initiatives is for a full service school for students at risk. But in the estimates process we were not able to establish what it is that the government means by the concept of a full service school. There is no definition given and no understanding within the bureaucracy of what that term actually means. Again, it looks great on a press release. You can go around the country, put your hand on your heart and say, `We care.' But you do not actually do anything in a practical way to actually assist the people that you are obliging to enter into these particular programs.So what you have is an initiative being taken, as I understand it—a name taken from the American education system—and applied to Australia without any understanding of the cultural conditions in this country or without the resources that go into the American education system. Americans fund their public education system at a much higher level than we do in this country. So we have a government engaging in a highly cynical device—telling people that they are concerned about their sons and daughters but not concerned enough to provide the resources necessary to ensure that they get a fair go when they are forced back into the education system itself.The initiatives that the government has proposed and the Prime Minister announced in a hail of publicity in late January—the jobs pathway program and new apprenticeships and access programs—are not moneys that go towards the schools. These are in fact moneys that are supposed to be used out of the school arena. So you cannot actually argue that the government has provided additional resources for the education system, but has provided them for a period of transition from school to work. I am not saying that that is a bad thing, but it does not address this fundamental problem.We have the issue of the way in which these funds are being distributed. I am greatly concerned, given the run-down of the department, that there will not be the resources available through the department itself, given the way in which the Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs has been gutted, to be able to administer these programs effectively and to ensure that the money actually goes to the people who need it, as distinct from being dished out on a basis of some sort of shoddy bidding process which does not guarantee that the money actually goes to the places that it is actually needed.We still do not have within this government an understanding of where these particular students are going to be located. There is no sense, from the estimates answers I have, that the government has commitments from the states or an understanding of the particular regions other than the most broadest concept of the impact of these measures. They are not able to actually identify the school districts, the school regions, where the additional resources will need to go. They say, `That's all up to the states; we'll let someone else worry about that; and we'll let someone worry about that in the fullness of time.'Meanwhile, this is a program that is due to come into operation from the beginning of next year. They had to put it back six months because the administrative arrangements were not in place. I say that they are still not in place. But what we have is a program being initiated by the government which has no real understanding of the social and educational consequences of its actions. As a consequence, while we support the amendment, we raise these concerns with the Senate and express our very deep frustration with the government, which seems to be so intent upon undermining our educational system and undermining the opportunities of tens of thousands of Australians.12:40:00933Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—I want to advise Senator Allison that, although the question she asked really relates to the portfolio of Senator Ellison, as I understand it, the $42.6 million is currently being negotiated by Senator Ellison with the states. Beyond that, I cannot say.Request agreed to.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Senator Carr, I understand you have an amendment that you wish to withdraw.12:40:00933Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—Does the government agree with that amendment?BE4NEWMANSenator Newman—I understood that you were going to seek leave to withdraw it.AW5Carr, Sen KimSenator CARR—No.BE4NEWMANSenator Newman—Well, the government does not think very highly of the drafting, but we will not oppose you.AW5Carr, Sen KimSenator CARR—My amendment reads:Schedule 2, item 8, page 124 (line 26), at end of subsection (4), add "This age will be progressively reduced over time.".Amendment agreed to.Bill, as amended, agreed to, subject to requests.Bill reported with amendments and requests.933Motion (by Senator Newman) proposed:That the report from the committee be adopted.Amendment (by Senator Harradine) agreed to:At the end of the motion, add: "and that the following matter be referred to the Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 2 April 1998:The operation of the special benefit provisions relating to the newly arrived resident's waiting period".Original question, as amended, resolved in the affirmative.Miscellaneous93312:43:00933Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT5F4TASLP10—by leave—The Senate passed its motion requesting the tabling of legal advice provided to government on the application of section 57 of the constitution to the Native Title Amendment Bill. In his comments yesterday, Senator Woodley suggested that the government had given no indication of when advice was obtained. I draw the Senate's attention to the answer tabled yesterday by the Minister for Justice, Senator Vanstone, on behalf of the Attorney-General in response to a question from Senator Lees. That answer made clear that the government had obtained legal advice on this issue prior to making its decision to expressly indicate its disagreement to the various Senate amendments to the Native Title Amendment Bill by laying the bill aside.The government also made clear yesterday that it opposes any motion calling for the tabling of legal advice. This is the position that has consistently been taken by successive governments, whether ALP or coalition.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! It is after 12.45 p.m.5F4Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT—I seek leave to continue my remarks.Leave granted.5F4Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT—The Attorney-General has, however, provided to Senator Woodley a letter which he sent to the Special Minister of State and Minister assisting the Prime Minister, Senator Minchin, in relation to the comments made by the Clerk of the Senate on section 57 of the constitution. That letter makes clear the government's position on this issue. I have been authorised by the Attorney-General and Senator Minchin to table that letter. The government is keen to make clear to the Senate the nature of this legal advice and the reason it is entirely confident of its position, a position which has been supported at all times by experts in constitutional law. It is important, however, that legal professional privilege is respected and maintained by the Senate.A key concern of Senator Woodley appears to be the reliance made by the clerk on some obiter comments made by then Chief Justice Barwick in the 1975 High Court case, Victoria v. the Commonwealth. Senators should note that the context of these Barwick comments relate to when the three-month period for the purposes of section 57 is calculated; that is, from the time first passed by the House or as a result of the Senate's actions. In his letter, the Attorney-General sets out the government's position as follows:I do not consider that use of the words `will not agree' in s.57 imposes any requirement that there be an opportunity for the Senate to reconsider its position on amendments disagreed to by the House. Rather, at most it indicates that the House must make clear its rejection of the Senate amendments.In my view, the interpretation the Government gives to s.57 is supported by the wording of s.57 itself. If there were a requirement that a bill be considered twice by the Senate, one would expect to see that stated expressly in the Constitution . The High Court has indicated its reluctance to read words into s.57 that are not there: Western Australia v. Commonwealth (1975) 134 CLR 201. I find nothing in the words `will not agree' that supports the conclusion that the disagreement must be a disagreement evidenced by a second consideration of the Senate amendments. The conclusion I have reached is, in my opinion, also consistent with the object of s.57, namely, that its mechanisms be available once there is a clear disagreement between the two HousesThere is little judicial guidance in relation to this aspect of s.57 but what little there is appears to support the Government's position—see Victoria v. Commonwealth (1975) 134 CLR 81, 149-150 per Gibbs J, 167 per Stephen J.I guess you understand all of that, Senator Woodley?HX5WOODLEYSenator Woodley—I do.5F4Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT—It continues:Both these judges clearly contemplated that the formal indication by the House of its disagreement with Senate amendments would be sufficient for compliance with the first stage of s.57.There is a passage by Barwick CJ in Victoria v. Commonwealth (1975) 134 CLR 81 at 125 that appears to be relied upon by the Clerk. Barwick CJ says that it cannot be said that `there are amendments to which the House will not agree until the processes which parliamentary procedure provides have been explored' (emphasis in original). A consideration of the paragraph as a whole shows that Barwick CJ was concerned with the question of the commencement of the three months period for determining when the House can pass a bill a second time. He was rejecting the argument that the period could be taken to have commenced at the time of first passage of the bill by the House. His statement cannot properly be understood as requiring that a bill be returned to the Senate. Elsewhere in the passage in question, Barwick CJ refers to a requirement that the attitude of the House to the amendments must be decided and `must be made known' before the interval of three months could run. I do not read that as a requirement that the House must return the bill to the Senate.The conclusion sought to be derived from this statement by Barwick CJ was not, in any event, supported by two other judges, as referred to above.The Attorney-General, the first law officer of the Commonwealth, has succinctly stated the government's position. This letter reflects the government's legal advice—advice confirmed by independent constitutional law experts. Before I table a copy of that letter for the benefit of all senators, I would also like to make the point that Senator Woodley had a full briefing on the government's legal advice from the acting Solicitor-General. Senator Woodley, is that correct? I see Senator Woodley is nodding.I now table a copy of that letter for the benefit of all senators. We should now get on with the more important and relevant legislative function of this House and pass the Native Title Amendment Bill, which has been reintroduced to the Senate.12:50:00934Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEYHX5QLDAD00—I seek leave to make a short statement in response to that, because I have already received all of that information.Leave granted.HX5Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEY—I note that the government whip has made it quite clear that the government does intend to defy the order of the Senate to show the people the legal framework upon which we may now be hurtling towards a $60 million double dissolution election on the Wik legislation.The government has claimed that all government legal advice is protected, but we are advised that since 1993 the Commonwealth government has complied with orders of the Senate to supply legal advice on three occasions—that was the previous government. So, contrary to the government's argument, there is a precedent for tabling such advice.The question the Democrats want answered is: did the government seek formal, independent legal advice on how to prepare the Wik legislation as a double dissolution trigger, or did they slip up on their way to the airport in the Christmas rush on 6 December? We now have that answer, and it is yes. We have pursued this issue to highlight what we suspect is the case: that the government had not sought formal, independent legal advice on how to prepare the Native Title Amendment Bill for a double dissolution election.We note that three ministers, Senator Minchin, Senator Vanstone and Attorney-General Daryl Williams, have avoided our questions about whether the government sought formal independent legal advice prior to setting the Wik bill aside in December last year. I acknowledge, however, that the government had legal advice, certainly from the Solicitor-General. We have no way of knowing because the government is refusing to table its legal advice. That was the precise order of the Senate. So every reasonable voter is entitled to believe that there is a doubt over the validity of any bill passed by a future joint sitting of both houses of parliament. I believe that the Liberals have made a mistake and they do not want to admit it. The main point is: what is this government hiding? Sadly, it appears that we might not know until after this country goes through the enormous disruption of a $60 million double dissolution election on race, only to have the High Court strike down the Wik bill after it is passed in a joint sitting because the government failed to do a bit of procedural housekeeping. Time will tell.Bills935r412Billsr416935Debate resumed from 9 March, on motion by Senator Newman:That these bills be now read a second time.12:53:00935Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT4J4SAALP00—The opposition supports the NRS Levy Imposition Bill 1997 and the Telecommunications Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1997. They are being debated at a non-controversial time so obviously everybody else supports them. There are some minor amendments in the package but there are two important points about the National Relay Service.This bill will enable non-carriers to be eligible for the provisions of the NRS. In the new competitive market that we now have with carriers and non-carriers providing telecommunications services, that is a useful and necessary development. The other point is that the funds for the provision of the National Relay Service will be paid on a quarterly basis rather than on a yearly basis. This helps carriers and non-carriers with their cash flow. At the moment about $7 million a year is provided.The National Relay Service is an excellent service that provides people who are hearing or speech impaired with access to a standard telephone service on terms and in circumstances comparable with those that other Australians have to a standard telephone service. This bill enhances that service for those people with those impairments. In the future, with the development of more and more sophisticated value-added services and telecommunications, I have no doubt that there will be consideration given to the National Relay Service not just being provided to the standard telephone but to those other add-on services. I do not know what the cost of that would be but that will have to be debated at the time. One can imagine that, with all the new on-line, broadband and Internet services, sooner or later, and quite rightly, people will say that they should be available to those who have those impairments of hearing or speech. The opposition commends the bill to the Senate and looks forward to its speedy passage.12:56:00935Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—I thank the Senator for his contribution.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills read a second time, and passed through their remaining stages without amendment or debate.Bills936s14693612:58:00936Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT5F4TASLP10—On behalf on Senator Patterson I present the report of the Environment, Recreation, Communications and the Arts Legislation Committee on the National Environment Protection Measures (Implementation) Bill 1997 [1998] together with submissions.Ordered that the report be printed.5F4Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT—I seek leave to have the tabling statement incorporated in Hansard .Leave granted.The document read as follows—I table the Committee's report on the National Environment Protection Measures (Implementation) Bill 1997.This bill represents the commitment of the Commonwealth and the States and Territories to work co-operatively to implement national environment protection measures developed by the National Environment Protection Council—a commitment which was made by the Council of Australian Governments in the Intergovernmental Agreement on the Environment in 1992.The National Pollutant Inventory has recently been adopted by the National Environment Protection Council, and other national environment protection measures are now at draft stage.IMPLEMENTATION OF NATIONAL ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION MEASURES IN COMMONWEALTH JURISDICTIONThe bill provides several means by which the Commonwealth can implement national environment protection measures in its jurisdiction. Those means are:1. applying provisions of State and Territory laws, by declaration of the Commonwealth Environment Minister.2. making regulations.3. using an existing Commonwealth law which can deliver appropriate environmental outcomes.4. carrying out an environmental audit and preparing an environmental management plan.The government envisages that applying State and Territory laws will be the first option considered. There was a perception in submissions to the Committee's inquiry that the Commonwealth does not intend to apply provisions of State or Territory environment law to its activities as a first option for implementation. However, the structure of the Bill ensures that the Commonwealth Environment Minister considers the application of provisions of State or Territory environment law to Commonwealth activities before considering the use of regulations under Part 4. The Bill reflects the Commonwealth's intent to apply provisions of State and Territory environment law to Commonwealth activities under the recent COAG Heads of Agreement on Commonwealth/State responsibilities for the environment.Where State or Territory law is not the mechanism for implementation of a particular national environment protection measure, there is an obligation on Commonwealth authorities to implement the measure either through an existing Commonwealth law which will deliver the necessary environmental outcomes, through Commonwealth regulations or through an environment management plan. The government intends that this option will be used where an activity or premises have been exempted from Parts 2 or 3 (applying State laws) or Part 4 (implementation by Commonwealth regulations) on the ground of `a matter of national interest'.The bill provides for community consultation in the preparation of environmental management plans.COMPLIANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITYThe Commonwealth and the States and Territories will have to comply with national environment protection measures. The government intends that an exemption from implementing a particular measure at a certain Commonwealth place or with regard to a specific Commonwealth activity will ONLY be given on the ground of a matter of `national interest', as defined in the bill.The definition of `national interest is not intended to be the basis for widespread exemptions from the application by the Commonwealth of provisions of State and Territory law and total exemptions are expected to be rare. The government intends that any such site or activity which is exempted will be subject to an environmental audit and environment management plan under Part 5.There were some concerns in submissions to the inquiry about the extent of the Environment Minister's discretion in the bill. While re-iterating the intention to apply State or Territory environment law as a first option, the level of discretion available to the Environment Minister reflects the need for flexibility in deciding which mechanism is likely to provide the most appropriate environmental outcomes.Non-compliance with a national environment protection measure by a Commonwealth authority will be published in the Gazette, and the details of authorities not complying will also be publicly available through the annual report to Parliament on implementation of the measures.CONCLUSIONNational environment protection measures will ensure that people, wherever they live in Australia, enjoy equivalent protection from air, water, soil pollution and noise, and secondly. They will ensure that decisions by business are not distorted and markets are not fragmented by variations between jurisdictions in environmental protection. There will be greater certainty for business, and a greater capacity for industry to manage environmental issues which cross State borders.The Bill provides the framework by which the Commonwealth is able to implement NEPMs in its jurisdiction in all circumstances. The application of provisions of State or Territory environment law may not always achieve the most appropriate outcomes, though the Commonwealth will apply provisions of State and Territory environment law as the first option and wherever possible.Bills937r456937Bill received from the House of Representatives.Motion (by the Deputy President) agreed to:That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.Bill read a first time.937937The DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT10000PON/A10—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 bill I have just presented provides, for the first time, for the establishment and administration of a separate Parliamentary Service to support the operations of the Houses of the Australian Parliament. The staff at present providing the Parliament with its support services operate under administrative and staffing structures established by the Public Service Act 1922; however it has been decided that the parliamentary administration should have its own legislation which recognises and mandates that the primary obligation of Parlia mentary Service staff is to serve the Parliament as a whole.The bill is identical to the bill that was passed by the House on 30 October 1997. It had been introduced into the House on 23 October 1997 and was amended following the report of the then Joint Committee of Public Accounts into the Public Service Bill 1997. The Senate returned the Public Service legislation and the Parliamentary Service Bill with amendments to which the House disagreed, and the three bills were laid aside on 5 December 1997.The Parliamentary Service Bill follows as much as possible the philosophy, content and structure of the Public Service Bill 1997, which changes significantly the structure of public service employment, with certain modifications necessary to ensure the independence of the Parliament from executive government. It establishes an employment framework which mirrors that proposed for the Australian Public Service generally and provides specifically for the reciprocal mobility of staff between the two services without loss of accrued entitlements. Arrangements will also be put in place to ensure mobility for staff currently engaged under the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act.There are significant differences between the Parliamentary and Public Service Bills which recognise that staff in parliamentary departments serve the Houses of the Parliament. That distinction is reflected in the first object of the bill which is to establish an apolitical Parliamentary Service that is efficient and effective in serving the Parliament. The Parliamentary Service Bill contains a statement of Parliamentary Service values and a Code of Conduct, provides for the appointment of a Parliamentary Service Commissioner, makes specific reference to the offices of Clerk of the Senate and of the House of Representatives, and provides for appointments to those offices. Tenure as Clerk of either House will be for one ten-year period. The bill also stipulates conditions for earlier termination of those appointments. Occupants of the office may retire earlier once they attain the age of 55 years. Secretaries, other than Clerks, are to be appointed by the Speaker and the President for five year terms with termination arrangements similar to those applying to secretaries of executive departments. There are transitional arrangements to ensure the continuation in office of current heads of parliamentary departments.In broad terms, the Presiding Officers will have the same employment powers as Ministers under the Public Service Bill with advice from the Parliamentary Service Commissioner. Consistent with the need to preserve the independence of the Clerks as impartial advisers, the Clerks of the House of Representatives and of the Senate are not to be subject to direction from the Presiding Officers in relation to the nature of their advice provided with respect to either House, to members or senators or to committees. Secretaries of parliamentary departments, including the Clerks, cannot be directed in relation to the exercise of their powers in respect of specific individuals. The Presiding Officers will have the power to give secretaries of parliamentary departments, including the Clerks, general directions relating to the management and leadership of the Parliamentary Service.The bill also creates the new office of Parliamentary Service Commissioner with a role similar to that of the Public Service Commissioner. The Parliamentary Service Commissioner will have the task of advising the Presiding Officers with respect to the management practices and policies of the Parliamentary Service and, if requested by the relevant Presiding Officer, of investigating and reporting on specific issues.While the bill provides specifically that the Parliamentary Service Commissioner is to be appointed separately and independently by the Presiding Officers, it is expected that normally the same person would fill both of these offices. This would assist in ensuring overall comparability and consistency between the two services. However the bill specifically provides that the Commissioner cannot be subject to direction by executive government in relation to the Parliamentary Service.Secretaries of parliamentary departments, including the two Clerks, are to have the same employment powers as those proposed for departmental secretaries in the Australian Public Service.As mentioned earlier, the bill incorporates a legally enforceable Code of Conduct and a statement of Parliamentary Service Values. These values reflect the fact that staff serve the Houses but in other respects mirror those of the Public Service Bill, with a parallel reference to the requirement that employment decisions in the Parliamentary Service be based on merit.In summary, this bill gives legislative effect to the decision that the parliamentary administration should not continue to be covered by the standard Australian Public Service Act. It establishes a statutory framework and administrative arrangements broadly consistent with those for the public service while incorporating the changes necessary to accommodate the unique circumstances of serving the Houses. It provides the Houses with a set of arrangements which will allow them to continue to attract and provide a career for those staff who will be equipped to deliver the high level of service the Houses currently enjoy.I commend the bill to the Senate.Ordered that further consideration of the second reading of these bills be adjourned until the first day of the winter sittings, in accordance with standing order 111.Bills938r451Billsr450938Bills received from the House of Representatives.Motion (by Senator Newman) agreed to:That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time.Bills read a first time.93813:00:00938Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—I move:That these bills be now read a second time.I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard .Leave granted.The speeches read as follows—PUBLIC SERVICE BILL 1997 [No. 2]The Public Service Bill 1997 provides a legal framework for Australian Public Service employment which achieves an optimum balance between improved accountability and devolved responsibility so as to maximise the efficiency and effectiveness of the Australian Public Service needed for the 21st century.When the Government came to power in 1996 it realised that many of the inefficiencies of the public service were not the fault of individual public servants but a systemic failure which has its primary, but not sole cause, in the legal framework and the employment arrangements governing the public service.It was evident that the Government needed to change the legislative framework if high performing organisations were to be achieved.We acted quickly to develop new legislation in three areas crucial to the competitiveness of the APS: financial management, workplace relations and the Public Service Bill. We have been successful in implementing two of these, but the third, the Public Service Bill was amended by the Senate.The Government will not be deterred from completing its reform of the APS by the short-sighted obstruction of the Opposition and minor parties. The effect of this obstruction is simply to frustrate the very many people in the public service who are keen to press ahead with a reform agenda in the development of which they have had an important role and which they see clearly is essential for building morale and opportunities for the future.This is the same as the Bill that was passed by the House of Representatives on 30 October 1997. It had been introduced into the House of Representatives on 26 June 1997 and immediately referred to the Joint Committee of Public Accounts (JCPA) for consideration.The JCPA handed down its Report on 29 September 1997. In the Report the JCPA supported the need for the 1922 Act to be replaced, and favoured the simplification, modernisation and the more accessible format of the Bill. The Committee made twenty recommendations all of which the Government accepted either in full or in part. The Opposition were, of course, well represented on the JCPA.The legislation was also referred to the Senate Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee which reported to the Senate in early October. The Committee largely endorsed many of the JCPA report recommendations, while acknowledging the very brief period in which the Committee had to consider the report.The Democrats, however, who did not take up representation on the JCPA, submitted a dissenting report recommending that the Bill be withdrawn and rewritten.The Government accepted all 20 of the JCPA's recommendations. The Government accepted the recommendations, in a spirit of compromise, in the belief that all Parties, Members and Senators shared a common goal for a public service that would deliver the best value from public funds to serve the Government and the community for the 21st century.Amendments to the Bill, in response to the JCPA recommendations, were made to:. strengthen the APS Values;. strengthen the references in the Bill to merit as a fundamental principle of APS employment by including a definition of merit in relation to the engagement and promotion of APS employees; and. enhancing the level of scrutiny and reporting of agency workplace diversity programs.The Government amendments were accepted without dissent by the House of Representatives.The legislation was introduced into the Senate on 11 November where the Opposition and minor parties moved seventy-four amendments to the Bill during some 17 hours of debate on 17, 18 and 19 November 1997. The Opposition amendments do not recognise the increasing need for APS agencies to be freed from central controls and to adopt employment arrangements which meet their particular needs. This Bill provides that flexibility.The pressures for public service reforms have not slackened. The Government is determined to bring public service employment arrangements into line with community standards; to enable the public service to meet market competition and to promote a stronger performance culture. We have already introduced administrative reforms that will come into effect on 15 March 1998. Under these reforms:. Departmental Secretaries will have greater authority and flexibility to effectively manage their staff;. new Public Service Values and a Code of Conduct for staff will be established through new regulations;. public accountability will be increased and strengthened; and. protection for whistleblowers raising allegations of Code of Conduct breaches will be strengthened.The Government will also press ahead with reforms and improvements to public service workplace relations through the Workplace Relations Act.This is not to suggest that legislative reform is unnecessary. A new Bill is essential because there are a number of key areas in the current legislation that are not amenable to simplification by administrative action. For example,- giving employment powers direct to Agency Heads;- ensuring a secure Parliament-endorsed legislative- framework for APS values, the new code of conduct and protection of whistleblowers;- removing complex appeals arrangements;- removal of inflexible employment categories;- removal of compulsory age 65 retirement;Therefore, it will be impossible to build a fully coherent, reformed, management structure without legislative change.Cultural change is also necessary. The extent to which the reforms are acknowledged as real changes and embraced by staff and middle management, will be an important determinant of the success of the reform process. The existence of a new Public Service Act will be the major contributor to the perception, among public servants, of real and significant change.The current Public Service Act is over 75 years old and has been amended 100 times. It is complex, prescriptive and out of date. The new Bill removes that prescription, is easy to understand and is only 40 pages long.Although there will be some fundamental employment relationships that we cannot change without the new Public Service Bill, the Government will continue, in the meantime, to use the Workplace Relations Act to make a significant impact on the performance of the APS.As the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service has stated on a number of occasions, Australia needs a public service that can:. position Australia in a global environment to ensure that we are future focused and seeking out the changes that will guarantee our national future;. benchmark itself against all sectors to determine what it does best, what it can improve, and what is more effectively delivered by the market;. provide frank and fearless—and innovative—advice to government; and. access the best service delivery skills, quality and cost, wherever they might reside.Along with reforming workplace relations generally, and the waterfront in particular, achieving a more relevant, efficient and innovative, world class Australian Public Service is a key objective of the Government. The Government is determined to build on the strengths of—and make even more effective—one of the key institutions supporting Australia's democratic system.The Public Service Bill is therefore an essential part of our reform agenda.I turn now to the terms of the Bill itself.The Public Service Bill is a very exciting piece of legislation, aiming to put in place a framework for a high performance public service.Alan Kohler, writing in The Age, commented last year that the Bill is:' . . . the most uncompromising deregulation of the Public Service anywhere in the world. The bill lays down standards for ethical behaviour and impartiality, establishes the first code of conduct for public servants, sets up a process for accountability and scrutiny, and then lets departmental heads run things as if they were corporate chief executives.''[It] is one of the great pieces of Government employee legislation—simple, clear and powerful'. (The Melbourne Age , 11 July 1997)It not only removes prescription and central control, but enhances the accountability framework which the Parliament and the community expect of the public service. It will enable the public service to meet market competition, to benchmark itself more effectively against other sectors and to promote a stronger performance culture.The Bill is all about making the Public Service more efficient and effective and delivering better service to both the Government and to the public. It gives a message about the expectations of citizens in a democratic system of governance appropriate for the twenty-first century.What holds the APS together, what creates a unified Service, is the shared values and ethos of public service. And these are reinforced in the Bill, by setting out for the first time, the APS Values and a Code of Conduct for all public servants. This legislative framework of values, conduct and scrutiny provide, for the first time, a coherent statement of the public interest.The community also expects that its public service will be subject to the same workplace arrangements as apply to the rest of the workforce. The Public Service Bill seeks to achieve this by giving Agency Heads the same rights, duties and powers as an ordinary employer, thus allowing employment arrangements that will meet the particular needs of each individual workplace. Accordingly, the Bill devolves employment powers from the central agencies to Agency Heads. It does not prescribe process but instead ensures that Agency Heads are held accountable for their actions.I believe that the Bill will be welcomed by those innovative and creative public servants who are actively seeking a higher standard of performance and who are frustrated by the constraints.For example, the 1995 Australian Workplace Industrial Relations Survey indicated that employees in the Public Service felt disempowered by the highly protected and regulated environment. While formal consultative processes were twice as likely to be in place than in the private sector, public servants did not feel able to make decisions for themselves at the workplace level.They did not have a high level of workplace autonomy—the Survey showed that more than twice as many private sector employees recorded high levels of workplace autonomy.Under the Public Service Act of 1922 public servants have been working under a piece of legislation more than seventy five years old. It is outdated, overly prescriptive and unnecessarily centralist. Workplace flexibility and accountability is limited. Personnel decisions are slow, paper-driven and labour-intensive.The Government is reintroducing this Bill unchanged, not because we want an election over it, but because we believe this Bill as it stands provides the type of Public Service that the Government and the Australian Community have a right to expect. I commend the Bill to the Senate.PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT (CONSEQUENTIAL AND TRANSITIONAL) AMENDMENT BILL 1997 [No. 2]The Public Employment (Consequential and Transitional) Amendment Bill 1997 deals with the consequential and transitional matters arising from the proposed repeal of the Public Service Act 1922 and its replacement by the legislation set out in the Public Service Bill 1997.This is the same Bill that was passed by the House of Representatives on30 October 1997. In November 1997 the Opposition parties in the Senate passed amendments to this Bill and the Public Service Bill 1997. The Government rejects outright those amendments and is reintroducing this Bill to progress the reforms which will allow for a dynamic and flexible public service.Both this Bill and the Public Service Bill underwent extensive scrutiny by the Joint Committee of Public Accounts. I am pleased that the Committee supported the need for the present Act to be replaced and favoured the simplification, modernisation and more accessible format of the new Bill.The Government adopted, in whole or in part, the twenty recommendations made by the Joint Committee of Public Accounts. The Government also gave close consideration to the substantive comments contained in the report but which were not expressed formally as recommendations.Despite the Government accepting the recommendations of the Committee, the Opposition and minor parties in the Senate went on to amend the Bill. The amendments did not recognise the increasing need for APS agencies to be freed from central controls and adopt employment arrangements which meet their particular needs while retaining the best characteristics of the APS: integrity; professionalism and accountability. This Bill, together with the Public Service Bill 1997, provides that flexibility.I turn now to the terms of the Bill itself.The Bill sets out certain transitional provisions that are necessary with the introduction of the Public Service Bill. There is a need for provision of transitional arrangements from the old to the new employment framework and a need to validate actions and decisions taken under the old legislation where that action has not been completed.There is also a need to make consequential amendments to the extensive range of legislation which incorporates references to the Public Service Act 1922.The transitional provisions fall into three broad areas. First, it is necessary to set in place conversion arrangements for those who work in the APS. With the removal of the concept of office for APS staff and the creation of a single employment category, officers and employees covered by the existing Act are converted to employees in their corresponding agencies with their corresponding classifications. Fixed-term Secretaries to Departments under the old Act will become Secretaries of their corresponding Departments under the new Act. Similarly, the person holding office as the Public Service Commissioner under the existing Act will become the Public Service Commissioner under the new Act, as if she had been appointed under the new Act.Second, as the Public Service Bill 1997 is primarily principles-based, there are some conditions covered by the Public Service Act 1922 that require transitional arrangements because they will no longer be regulated in the same way.The most important of these are the arrangements governing the rights of return of staff who have left the APS to take up non-APS public employment under the complex, legislative provisions of the old Act. These staff will be able to return to the APS under the transitional arrangements and, in future, APS employees will be able to move in and out of APS employment, where it is in the interest of the APS, under a simpler model of unpaid leave.Third, there is a need to provide for the continuation of processes already set in train. Action may have commenced under the Public Service Act 1922 or the Merit Protection (Australian Government Employees) Act 1984 that will not be completed by the time the new Public Service Act is proclaimed.I refer to matters such as appointments, promotions, suspensions, transfers and advancements, as well as to appeals, grievances and other reviews of employment decisions. To enable action to be completed, regulations will be made to ensure the continuation of those processes after the new Act is proclaimed.The validation of actions and decisions taken under the former legislation will be largely dealt with in regulations.With respect to the consequential amendments, the Acts specified in Schedule 1 to this Bill will be amended or repealed as set out in that Schedule. The amendments can be divided into the following categories:. changes in the current provisions relating to staffing to reflect the new employment framework;. removal of obsolete references to the Public Service Board; . consequential amendments to the superannuation legislation, but without any changes in the operation of the schemes;. changes to the role of the Remuneration Tribunal in relation to the remuneration and allowances for Secretaries;. removal of cross-references to reciprocal mobility which will now be dealt with by directions by the Public Service Commissioner;. removal of references to the old mobility arrangements set out in Part IV of the Public Service Act 1922;. standard translations for common terms in the old Act; and. other miscellaneous amendments to ensure appropriate links to the new APS employment framework.The Bill also deals with the consequences of devolving the arrangements for setting the salaries of the Senior Executive Service (SES). The link of the remuneration of Members of Parliament with the SES Band 2 minimum salary will be replaced by a link to the classification structure created by the Remuneration Tribunal for certain statutory offices. It is not intended to increase the level of remuneration.Subject to any special requirements in relation to particular consequential amendments, this Bill will commence on the same day as the Public Service Act 1997.The proposed amendments have no financial impact.Collectively the arrangements proposed in this Bill will provide the necessary certainty and continuity of administrative and management arrangements for the Australian Public Service. They will enable an orderly devolution of employment powers in the APS and a transition to a less regulated workplace.I commend the Bill to the Senate.Ordered that further consideration of the second reading of these bills be adjourned until the first day of the winter sittings, in accordance with standing order 111.Sitting suspended from 1.00 p.m. to 2.00 p.m.Ministerial Arrangements94214:00:00942Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment10—by leave—I inform the Senate that Senator John Herron, Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs, will be absent from the Senate chamber for question time today. Senator Herron is in Melbourne attending a meeting of the Ministerial Advisory Council on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Affairs. In his absence, Senator Newman will take questions relating to the portfolio of health and family services and Senator Minchin will take questions on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander affairs.Questions Without Notice942942942Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—My question is to Senator Parer, the Minister for Resources and Energy. In your pecuniary interest declaration to the Prime Minister, Minister, did you declare that you hold eight of the nine shares in Investment Management Pty Ltd? Did you reveal to the Prime Minister that that company held 16 shares in Queensland Coal Mine Management? Did you further reveal to the Prime Minister that that company owned 100 per cent of the Advance Queensland Resources and Mining company? Did you reveal to the Prime Minister that that company operates the Jellinbah coal mine? Finally, did you reveal that Queensland Coal Mine Management also owns 70 per cent of the Bowen Basin Coal company, which holds the Lake Vermont coal deposit?942Parer, Sen WarwickSenator PARERKI4QLDLPResources and Energy10—I have told the Senate everything about this particular project. I have also advised the Senate of my own interest in Investment Management. It has been there for years and years, Senator. It takes you a long time to read. Everyone is aware of the fact—I have never hidden it; it is also in my statement in the Senate—that I was on the board of QCMM for about seven years. Of course, Advance Queensland Resources and Mining is simply the operating company for an investment company which is QCMM. So I know a little bit about this area.Senator Cook has suddenly discovered something: 70 per cent of Bowen Basin Coal, which has an area called Ensham. That is an authority to prospect; it is not a lease. It has been there a long time. There has been a lot of work going on in regard to feasibility studies and things for many years.Let me say that the Prime Minister laid down guidelines for ministers because we believe in the sort of government that these people on the other side would not even know about. Knowing the Prime Minister's guidelines, as he does very well, let me quote from what he said yesterday in the House of Representatives. He said:I am satisfied that Senator Parer has not breached the ministerial guidelines.943Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—I have a supplementary question, Madam President. I asked you, Senator Parer, five explicit questions of what you told the Prime Minister.Government senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senators on my right will cease interjecting. Start again, Senator Cook.Senator Alston interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Alston, cease interjecting.RF4Senator COOK—You evaded all of those questions. I assume, therefore, that the answer is no.KI4PARERSenator Parer—You are wrong.RF4Senator COOK—The answer is yes? My supplementary questions are: Minister, did you reveal to the Prime Minister details of the income stream derived by Investment Management Pty Ltd from Queensland Coal Mine Management, and did you reveal to the Prime Minister details of the amount of money disbursed by Investment Management Pty Ltd to the beneficiaries of your family trust? And you might chance your arm and answer the first five questions as well with a yes or no, Minister.943Parer, Sen WarwickSenator PARERKI4QLDLPResources and Energy10—The ministerial guidelines require us to divulge income streams from just about every source. This is a family trust. It is made up not just of me and my wife. In fact, as I said two years ago, I do not run the thing. My wife runs it and she has run it for about eight years. However, there are seven adult children. When adult children become adults—RF4COOKSenator Cook—Will you answer the question?KI4Senator PARER—I have said that the income stream that went from any of those trusts to me and my wife, from whatever source, were in accordance with the ministerial guidelines, and they were stated.943943Boswell, Sen RonaldSenator BOSWELLYE4QLDNP10—My question is to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Today's labour force figures reveal that in the six months to February 140,600 jobs have been created by this coalition government, with an additional 14,800 Australians joining the work force in February. How important is growth in the resource sector in achieving this goal, and what actions has this government taken to promote investment and jobs?943Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment10—Yes, more good news on the employment front, flowing through from sound economic management at last for this country. An additional 14,800 Australians joined the work force in February. This means that we have seen employment rise by a strong 140,600 over the six months to February. Employment is continuing to grow at a solid rate and, just as important, unemployment remains on a downward trend. In fact, I believe that the unemployment rate now is lower than it has been for over seven years. What stronger endorsement could you have for an incoming government than in just two years of office, by adopting sound economic policy, they have been able to contribute to such a positive employment environment and such a significantly reducing unemployment rate.It does demonstrate, yet again, the extent to which this government is interested in real jobs. It is interested in job security. It is interested in attracting investments and promoting exports. It is obviously interested in contributing to a growing economy and that is why we have put such emphasis on maintaining lower interest rates and low inflation, giving incentives to support industry to grow and to employ.No other industry has been any more important in this area than the resources sector, which is booming under this government. I take the opportunity to congratulate Senator Parer for his leadership in this critically important portfolio. Let us look at the record. More than 40 new projects have been commissioned in the past 12 months, involv ing an investment of some $7 billion. More than 120 resources and energy projects are currently under construction or have been committed to. This represents a capital investment of over $20 billion and will create 7,000 direct and over 20,000 indirect permanent jobs. An excellent record. More than 160 additional projects are currently under consideration by industry, involving an estimated investment of $70 billion, with the potential to create many more thousands of new jobs. Under this government and under this minister the resources and energy sector has been a stunning success story. That is of benefit to all Australians and particularly of benefit to those who are aspiring to jobs.Contrast that record with that of our opponents. Labor's record is one of high unemployment, high interest rates—record interest rates, in effect—and no incentive for business to grow; a miserable record to pass on to an incoming government. The contrast is so stark that it demonstrates what good policy and good ministerial leadership can really achieve.Labor are not interested in unemployment at all. We listen to Senator Faulkner, who leads off with the dirt file every day, slurring innocent parties whether they are dead or alive. The Baillieus are one example of that. We still have not got the apology. He still has not been prepared to exhibit a touch of decency and apologise. What some might think is more important is: where does he stand on unemployment? In 85 days of sitting last year, Senator Faulkner, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, demonstrated how important they regard unemployment by asking only three questions on unemployment. Is that an endorsement of the government or is that evidence of disregard of a critically important area? (Time expired)944Boswell, Sen RonaldSenator BOSWELLYE4QLDNP10—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Senator Hill, that is certainly good news for the Australian people. I would like to seek an assurance: will the high priority given to investment and jobs in the first two years of the Howard government continue? Is this priority shared by the Labor Party and other parties?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Hill, you should keep the remarks to that within your portfolio and not comment on Labor Party policies.944Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment10—Thank you Madam President. Of course this government will concentrate on the high priority of reducing unemployment. Not only did we inherit unemployment levels that were too high but we inherited an economy in which the fundamentals were so wrong. We will get the budget into surplus within three years after inheriting a deficit of $10.3 billion. We have been prepared to take the hard decisions to keep down inflation, to reduce interest rates, and to give industry and investment a real opportunity to bring full benefit in terms of employment opportunities. There can be no better demonstration, Senator Boswell, of the determination of this government to keep on down that path. The result will be continuing reduction of unemployment and continuing employment growth, and that is good news for all Australians.944944Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—My question is directed to the Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Parer. Minister, despite your claim—Senator Alston interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Alston, cease interjecting.5K4Senator FAULKNER—Minister, despite your claim that the letter of 20 March 1997 from the Registrar of Senators' Interests is still in your in-tray, how do you explain your failure to declare the 44 shares you own in Queensland Coal Mine Management ESP, declaration of which was a requirement of the Senate prior to the date of that letter in March last year? Is it not the case that clause 3(a) of the original Senate guidelines requires registration of `shareholdings in public or private companies, including holding companies, including the name of the company or companies'? Minister, isn't this more than just a technical breach? Isn't this, in fact, a very serious breach of the Senate's requirements?944Parer, Sen WarwickSenator PARERKI4QLDLPResources and Energy10—Just to tackle the first part of Senator Faulkner's question first, he talked about the letter of 20 March being in my in-tray, as if I made it up. I have checked around this place—put your hands up, over there, those who have read that letter.Opposition senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! There are too many interjections.KI4Senator PARER—I just checked around to see how many people had actually read this letter, and it was amazing. People were coming to my office and saying, `Can I have a copy of it because I have not seen it?' So there you are. As regards ESP—4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—How many on your side have got trusts?KI4Senator PARER—How many on your side, Senator Schacht, have ever worked?UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—We have never been given shares like that, Warwick.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! There are too many interjections in the chamber. The level of breaches of standing orders is absolutely unacceptable. The level of interjections is unacceptably high, and senators will not shout when I am standing on my feet either. I will not tolerate the breaches of standing orders. You have been warned. Senator Parer.KI4Senator PARER—Thank you, Madam President. Can I explain what ESP is because yesterday, I think, the question was asked of me, and my recollection at the time was, `I think this thing is finished; it is no longer there.' That is not the case. ESP was started up as a superannuation type company. ESP itself stands for `employee share management plan', or `share plan'.UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—Not extra sensory perception?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Ray, you are persistently interjecting during this question time.KI4Senator PARER—It was set up as a superannuation type plan. In other words, the aim of it was to provide long-term savings for employees and directors of the company. The way it worked—which is not unusual in companies—is that, on some sort of a percentage on profits—I have forgotten now, but a bonus type situation—when a certain profit level was made, it was paid by the operating company into the superannuation type com pany. This was set up on the recommendation of some accountants from Sydney. They claimed it was a more flexible way of going down a savings operation.The company made contributions in the years 1993 and 1994, and they stopped making them in 1995. As the employee share benefit plan is a form of superannuation scheme, I personally treated it as such. You may argue whether it is or is not. As you can see by the sorts of things I have put in the register in the past, there was certainly no deliberate intention to do anything that was not in accordance with the requirements.945Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Senator Parer, I think that you have indicated to the Senate that you have corrected the record of yesterday when you indicated that this particular company was wound up. I asked you whether you were required, under the original Senate guidelines, to make a declaration about that company, but you have not responded to that. I ask you specifically, Minister: did you declare your ownership of those 44 shares in your declaration to the Prime Minister? If you did not, how can you maintain, as you did to the Senate yesterday, that:. . . I have disclosed all interests that I have from a pecuniary point of view. . . . . . . . . .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 my family trust.945Parer, Sen WarwickSenator PARERKI4QLDLPResources and Energy10—I would just like to take the last words that Senator Faulkner said and say, `You're right.' I have not changed my view; it is absolutely the same as yesterday in regard to the ministerial requirements.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—You said the company was wound up, yesterday.KI4Senator PARER—No, that is not what you are talking about. You talked about me making declarations.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—You can't have it both ways—either it was wound up or it wasn't wound up.KI4Senator PARER—I did not say that yesterday.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—What did you say?KI4Senator PARER—I said, `my recollection is but I will check.' Where my recollection was not entirely correct is the contributions made into that ceased in 1995, but the ESP continues.946946Watson, Sen JohnSenator WATSONVJ4TASLP10—My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business. Minister, the Maritime Union of Australia has gone on strike for 48 hours at Port Botany in Sydney. Is such a strike action in the national interest? What has the government and the opposition had to say about this strike action? Are there any factors impeding a sensible approach to waterfront reform?946Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, the Information Economy and the Arts10—I do not think anyone in Australia, apart from the Labor Party, would be other than of the view that what is occurring at Port Botany at the moment is a national disgrace. It is one thing to defend crane drivers, who have an hourly performance rate about 50 per cent below their major international counterparts, getting $90,000-plus per year for working about a 14 hour week—an absolute disgrace in itself—but the notion of their now turning around and going on strike, seeking a $4,500 pay rise and better superannuation simply defies belief. They are doing it because they are on a vengeance binge. This is simply a cover in order to pay back Patricks for the action they have taken to try to open up the waterfront to sensible competition. Even the Labor Party understands the need for competition on the waterfront because we saw a bunch of weasel words in their national conference document which paid lip service to the concept.Apart from that, there has been an absolutely deafening silence on the other side. Of course, the reason for that is clear; there is a massive conflict of interest. These people come in here and want to talk about standards and conflicts of interest. What you have confronting you on the other side of this chamber are people who, when in government, gave away millions and millions of dollars to their trade union mates. In 1994-95, $16½ million went to the trade union movement—up 300 per cent from two years earlier. Unions associated with 10 of these people over here got in excess of $5 million in that same year.It is an absolute disgrace. The MUA got $220,000. Can you imagine why they would need that sort of assistance? It is because you are the wholly owned subsidiaries of the trade union movement. You come in here and try to impugn the integrity of people like Senator Parer when you well know that not only is he doing a first-class job in his portfolio but he has very much upstanding standards of integrity that you would not even begin to comprehend. We see people like Senator Bolkus having the absolute gall to simply ignore all the proper standards of propriety and aspiring to be the Attorney-General of this country when he has no conception of what ethical standards are about and we find Senator Faulkner, nearly two weeks later, not being prepared to apologise. Who are these people to talk to us about conflicts of interest and standards? They have got nothing to say on policy issues. That is why we now have a shadow minister for muckraking leading the team on the other side. Senator Ray comes into this chamber only when there is a bit of muck around. He does not bother to take an interest otherwise. But he is there in spades when there is a bit of dirt to be thrown.Time is running out for this mob. They have had more than two years to come up with policies but they simply are not interested. They have the cheek to attack people like Senator Parer when they know full well that the standards applied on this side are light-years ahead of the standards that they apply. So do not come in here lecturing us about these things. Get back to the things that the people of Australia want. They want real reform on the waterfront. They certainly want an apology from Senator Faulkner. They cannot comprehend how someone can have the unmitigated cheek to just sit there and smirk when he has defamed both the living and the dead. It is simply unacceptable. Do not lecture us; get back and do some policy work instead.946Watson, Sen JohnSenator WATSONVJ4TASLP10—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Minister, what implications would further strike action have on Australian exports and on Australian jobs?947Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, the Information Economy and the Arts10—Senator Watson knows the answer to that question. The reason he wants it on the record is that it ought to be abundantly clear to everyone concerned that, unless you achieve higher standards of productivity, you simply render yourself much less export competitive.This is a bottleneck to Australia's export competitiveness. The people over there are not interested in solving the problem. Not only did we have Senator Faulkner and Senator Bolkus; Senator Sherry was caught red-handed the other day, and when given an opportunity to apologise he did not. In other words, they do not even want to address issues like how to make Australia more competitive, how to boost exports and how to create jobs.Did we hear anything from any of their spokesmen about the employment figures that came out today? Of course not, because they have only one issue on their agenda. They are not prepared to tackle the issues. They are not prepared to acknowledge the crying need for reform in these areas because they are paralysed. They are not allowed to. (Time expired)947947Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAYUI4VICALP00—I direct my question to Senator Parer. Minister, are you aware of a board of directors meeting of Queensland Coal Mine Management and associated companies in Brisbane on 25 February 1993? Did that meeting allocate to your family trust 16 $1 C class ordinary shares in Queensland Coal Mine Management? Is it true that those shares were worth a minimum of $2 million on 30 June 1996? Further, can you confirm that you chaired another meeting of that board at the Sheraton Mirage Gold Coast—Government senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senators on my right will cease interjecting so Senator Parer and I can hear the question.UI4Senator ROBERT RAY—Minister, can you confirm that you chaired another meeting of the board at the Sheraton Mirage Gold Coast on 11 August 1995? Did that meeting approve a payment of just under $100,000 in fully franked dividends to IMPL, your family investment trust? If it did, why haven't you declared that over the years?947Parer, Sen WarwickSenator PARERKI4QLDLPResources and Energy10—First of all, I just hope that Senator Ray is right—but you are not, I don't think—that this shareholding is worth $2 million.UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—It is 1.6 per cent of $150 million.KI4Senator PARER—They are back-of-the-envelope calculations. I have never walked away from the fact that the family trust that my family has has 16 non-voting shares in a private company. You know better than anybody, Senator Ray, that shares like this are not easily tradeable. Buyers do not come in and say, `I want to buy some non-voting shares.' So as regards value, I have no idea. But that is not the point.They are saying, `What is wrong with this is that you have some sort of a dividend into your family trust.' Senator Ray knows that we have a registration of senators' interests; we also have the Prime Minister setting guidelines. What is the reason for that? The reason is to avoid a conflict of interest. Senator Ray, I doubt you are accusing me of that. If you are, or if anyone on that side is saying that at any stage I misused my office for personal gain, get up and say it.Naturally, what happens with the distribution of moneys is that it goes through family trusts. There was nothing unusual about that. I cannot confirm that figure, Senator. You obviously have got documents from somebody. I think I know who you got them from.Let me say—and I have said it right from the word go—that I have always been up-front on this. I have never tried to hide anything. There has never been a conflict of interest between my portfolio responsibilities and the particular mine that I was a director of until 1996. Not only did I resign—I resigned from that company and all subsidiaries of it. I have no involvement whatsoever in its operation and have not since March 1996.947Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAYUI4VICALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Minister, are you saying that you cannot remember that on 11 August 1995 you chaired a meeting in which a decision was made to remit some $99,000 to your investment trust? Are you saying that you cannot remember a mere $99,000 from 16 $1 shares being sent to your trust? When you say that these shares—you were careful, so I will be careful—are very difficult to dispose, you will acknowledge that these shares can be disposed of with the permission of the other ordinary shareholders, being class C shares. You will at least put that on the record that they are disposable. As you hold eight of the nine shares in your own management trust, were you unaware that in 1996 this particular shareholding put $300,000 into your family trust?948Parer, Sen WarwickSenator PARERKI4QLDLPResources and Energy10—This is totally irrelevant to the registration of senators' interests and the Prime Minister's guidelines on conflict of interest. Naturally—Opposition senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order!KI4Senator PARER—Madam President, I do not know for how long we have to tell these people: we have a family trust that has been going for 28 years, which my wife has run for about the last eight years. For practical purposes, my wife has run that for the last eight years. That was already divulged in senators' interests going back years and years and years. And when I resigned from those various companies, that was put in as well so that you were kept up to date.BH4HILLSenator Hill—Hey, Rosemary, those Telstra shares are going well?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Hill. I call Senator Lees.BH4HILLSenator Hill—Those Telstra shares are going well?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Hill, cease interjecting. I wish to be able to hear the question.Senator Hill interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Hill!948948Lees, Sen MegSenator LEES8U4SAAD00—My question is also directed to the Minister for Resources and Energy. Minister, given the recent emergence of your not inconsiderable financial interests in the coal-mining industry, how can you now defend your ministerial activities and statements against very real charges and serious charges of conflict of interest with particular regard to the following—and I will just list three.Government senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senators on my right will cease interjecting.8U4Senator LEES—Firstly, your decision to cease funding the—Government senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senators on my right will cease interjecting.8U4Senator LEES—Firstly, your decision to cease funding the Energy Research and Development Corporation, an organisation dedicated to the development of alternative energy sources—sources other than fossil fuels; secondly, your high profile role in the government's irresponsible strategy to force international agreement at Kyoto to actually allow Australia to increase its greenhouse emissions instead of decreasing them; and, thirdly, your stubborn refusal to allow conservationists to contribute to your Energy Advisory Committee and your scrapping of the ethanol bounty?948Parer, Sen WarwickSenator PARERKI4QLDLPResources and Energy10—Senator Lees has covered a range of things here. Let me just point out—8U4LEESSenator Lees—You have a pretty bad performance.KI4Senator PARER—You are just as guilty of slur as anyone else. You talked about personal gain, Senator. What we are talking about here is conflict of interest, or the potential for conflict of interest. I repeat to you, as I did to the Labor Party: if you want to claim that somehow I have misused my office for personal gain—and that is what you are talking about; not industry, not the generic industry, but personal gain—stand up and say so, or sit down and shut up.Let me talk briefly about ERDC. ERDC did a very good job over quite a number of years. However, its time came, and it was replaced by other programs.Let us talk about the so-called greenhouse. This was a whole of government approach in respect of greenhouse. What Senator Lees is doing is running down the same line as the anti-Australian conservation foundation. So it is the anti-Australian democrats and the anti-Australian conservation foundation. You fought ABARE; you used everything at your disposal to fight ABARE. Do you know the industries that were most concerned? It was not the export coal industry, Senator. They export to other countries; they produce very little CO2. It was people like the aluminium industry, it was people like the steel industry—people who rely on coal being produced for electricity for those energy intensive industries.So, Madam President, it was mainly carried, as you know, by Senator Hill. He did an excellent job—as, I might say, did Ambassador Meg McDonald; another good job. Senator Hill had responsibility for it. Certainly there was input from it. It was nothing whatsoever to do with individual personal gain for a mine that I used to chair, which is totally in the export market.I am not sure what the final question was. You might like to ask it as a supplementary.YE4BOSWELLSenator Boswell—Tell us about the ethanol.KI4Senator PARER—Madam President, I know the hang-up the Democrats have on ethanol. They actually went along to the Labor Party at budget time once and said, `Listen, we'll pass your budget if you give us $20 million for ethanol.' When we came into government, we were totally ambivalent about this, but we had a report that this was going to be a total waste of money.Senator Lees interjecting—KI4Senator PARER—Here is Senator Lees saying `rubbish'. Senator Woodley, I think you were in the estimates that day and you asked a few questions, until you were shot to pieces by the public servant who was there. What we have done with ethanol is restore the $2 million, which I think I am responsible for, in the building of a pilot plant.949Lees, Sen MegSenator LEES8U4SAAD00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I am not quite sure where to begin. I think we must start, however, with ABARE, Minister, in saying that it is an absolute nonsense—and even the Ombudsman has now made it very clear that the methodology behind that model is more than slightly suspect. But, Minister, is not supporting an industry, as you have done consistently and yet again today—an industry that you—Government senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senators on my right will cease interjecting.8U4Senator LEES—Thank you, Madam President. Is not supporting an industry, Minister, as you have done consistently, and an industry that you obviously now, it seems, have a personal interest in, a conflict of interest? If that is not a conflict of interest, then what is? It is an industry in which you have a personal interest.949Parer, Sen WarwickSenator PARERKI4QLDLPResources and Energy10—Senator Lees obviously was not listening. I support the mining industry, and the mining industry is a very broad generic area. For example, if you want to zero in on coal, do so by all means. I think there are about 50 different varieties of coal in Australia—UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—You would know.KI4Senator PARER—Yes—some of it being used for thermal in the domestic scene, some for thermal in the export scene, some of the semisoft coking coals that are used in steel mills and, of course, the hard coking coals that are for the steel mills as well.But, Senator, what you do not understand is that a conflict of interest is where someone does something that will be to their personal gain. As I have said, if anyone wants to suggest that I have ever done that in my own portfolio, get up and say it. Don't muck around and fish and—(Time expired)Honourable senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! We will proceed with question time when there is silence in the chamber.949949Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—My question is directed to the Minister for Resources and Energy. Minister, you have admitted that you hold through your family trust a very substan tial beneficial interest, estimated at at least $2 million, in Queensland Coal Mine Management. Minister, doesn't this equate to the minister for coal mining having substantial interests in coal mines? Doesn't this create at the very least an apparent conflict of interest? Minister, can you assure the Senate that you have never made a decision in your capacity as minister for resources which resulted in a direct or an indirect benefit for Queensland Coal Mine Management Pty Ltd, Advance Queensland Resources and Mining Pty Ltd, QCMM (ESP) Pty Ltd, Bowen Basin Coal Pty Ltd or Jellinbah Mining Company Pty Ltd?950Parer, Sen WarwickSenator PARERKI4QLDLPResources and Energy10—Of course I can say that. I can unequivocally say that, Senator.Honourable senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! It is difficult for everybody to hear when there is so much background noise in the chamber.KI4Senator PARER—I unequivocally have supported the growth of the coal mining industry in a generic fashion. This has included taking up a program that was set by the previous Labor government—the New Horizons program into India.UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—Are you going to table who you talked with?KI4Senator PARER—I am happy to table—what do you mean table who you talked to? One of the things I would have thought that this lot on the other side would be pushing, because of the difficulties being experienced in Asia, is the problems with regard to the export of coal. We have all seen the prices come down. You have no interests in that—none whatsoever.Then there have been the industrial relations problems going on in specific parts of Australia. What this country needs—and I keep suggesting it across the board, and I will do it over and over again—is for us to remain more competitive than the rest of the world. We want to increase sales of coal. It is our biggest export earner by far. We are competing. We are not the only country in the world supplying coal. We must be more productive.656FORSHAWSenator Forshaw—What have you done for the miners at Cobar? Hundreds of people out of work and you haven't opened your bloody mouth.BH4HILLSenator Hill—It is your greenhouse policy that will put them out of work.KI4Senator PARER—The prospects in the next 10 years or so indicate, if my memory is correct, an increased demand for exports of about 127 million tonnes.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senators are shouting across the chamber, which will not be tolerated.Senator Forshaw and Senator Hill interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Forshaw and Senator Hill, cease interjecting and talking while Senator Parer has the call. You are in breach of the standing orders.KI4Senator PARER—It should be the aim of everyone in this country, whether they be in the trade union movement or the non-union sector or the companies themselves, to increase our productivity and get the lion's share of that projected increase in coal required around the world.950Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Minister, my question actually went to the perceived conflict of interest. I ask you: isn't it true that the Prime Minister's code of ministerial conduct requires that `no conflict or apparent conflict between duties and interests arises'? Aren't you in clear breach of this requirement?950Parer, Sen WarwickSenator PARERKI4QLDLPResources and Energy10—No; and the Prime Minister agrees with me.950950Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—My question, which I have been requested to ask on behalf of the Aboriginal tent embassy, is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. Given that under international law it is broadly accepted that there are only three ways in which sovereignty can be acquired over an area of land—when that land is terra nullius, or uninhabited; when the original inhabitants enter into a treaty in which they cede sovereignty; or by conquering the original inhabitants in a declared state of war—and given that the High Court has rejected the myth of terra nullius and confirmed that native title is a right having its source in pre-existing Aboriginal law which predates European occupation of this continent, can the minister indicate under what sovereign authority the Commonwealth is planning to alter pre-existing native title rights of the indigenous peoples of this continent who have never entered into a treaty nor have ever been conquered in a declared state of war?Government senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senators on my right will cease talking when a senator has the call.951Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment10—I thought I might get a question along these lines today so I took some advice, which I can pass on to the honourable senator. That advice is in the following terms: the High Court has consistently held that the Commonwealth of Australia's sovereignty over Australia cannot be challenged, controlled or interfered with by the courts. However, the courts can, of course, examine the consequences of the acquisition of sovereignty. In Mabo, the High Court rejected, as Senator Margetts said, the concept of terra nullius. The acquisition of sovereignty does not depend on acceptance of the doctrine of terra nullius. The High Court confirmed in Mabo that sovereignty may be acquired over an inhabited territory just as it may be acquired over an uninhabited territory and that the acquisition of sovereignty cannot be challenged in the court.The High Court found that, on the acquisition of sovereignty over territory, the Crown acquired a radical title to that territory. The radical title is subject to the pre-existing native title of the indigenous inhabitants. That native title may, however, be extinguished by a legislative or executive act which is plainly inconsistent with the native title rights. Chief Justice Brennan, in the majority judgment, stated:Sovereignty carries the power to create and extinguish private rights and interests in land within the Sovereign's territory. It follows that, on a change of sovereignty, rights and interests in land that may have been indefeasible under the old regime become liable to extinction by exercise of the new sovereign power. As the Native Title Act case—Western Australia versus the Commonwealth—made clear, the Commonwealth clearly has the power to regulate native rights and interests. The Native Title Act, as amended by the Native Title Amendment Bill, will continue to recognise and protect native title and provides that native title cannot be extinguished contrary to the act.951Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I listened very carefully to the minister's answer, and I thank Senator Hill. But, if I listened correctly, he has indicated that the High Court of Australia has never ruled on sovereignty and has generally indicated that it cannot rule on sovereignty. Therefore, does the minister concede that the issue of indigenous sovereignty remains unresolved, that the promise of a previous Prime Minister to enter into a treaty or series of treaties remains unhonoured and that to proceed to alter the fundamental rights of indigenous people with these issues outstanding is entirely wrong? Also, is any minister of this government intending to visit the people at the tent embassy to explain your views to them?951Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment10—During the recent Constitutional Convention, at a quiet moment I happened to listen to an address outside the tent embassy where this argument was being put. But I think the bottom line is in fact that what the government is seeking to do is find a fair and just solution to a range of problems—problems in terms of their practical sense—that arise from the law as it has been promulgated by the courts in recent times. There is no doubt that, in seeking to implement the court's ruling in relation to native title, there are a whole range of practical issues that need to be addressed. They have been addressed by the parliament in order that we can provide reasonable certainty that is consistent with the rights that the High Court has told us exist. That is the way this government is addressing this particular difficult issue and I think, in all circumstances, it is the proper way to act. (Time expired)951951Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—I direct my question to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. Minister, given that the Prime Minister's code of conduct says, `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,' on what basis did Mr Max Moore-Wilton advise the Prime Minister's office that Senator Parer was not in breach of the code? Did Mr Max Moore-Wilton make this judgment on the basis of his personal and extensive experience in the share market?952Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment10—I think Senator Faulkner should start with the unwritten code of conduct, which basically says, `If you defame innocent individuals, whether they be alive or dead, you should at least have the decency to come in here and apologise.' It is not a big thing to do. It is not all that hard. All you have to do is get up here and say, `I made a mistake and I'm sorry. I'm sorry that I defamed the Baillieus.' When you apologise—5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Tell us about Moore-Wilton. I know you are a rorter. Tell us about Max Moore-Wilton.BH4Senator HILL—You did not have the nerve. You did not do what Senator Ray said and take 15 steps to courage. You would not say it outside because you knew you had defamed them. You would not say it outside. You know you have defamed them and you know you have got it totally wrong. But you have not got the decency to stand here in this place and say you are sorry. It is not a difficult thing to do.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—I know you are a rorter. I asked a question about your rorts.BH4Senator HILL—No. We are not talking about me.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Hill has the call. Any other senator speaking at the time is in breach of the standing orders. I ask you to note that.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—He is required to answer the question.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Under which standing order is he required to answer the question?5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Madam President, I raise a point of order. My point of order is on the basis of relevance. As you would be aware, Madam President, ministers are required—and normally presidents direct them—to answer questions that are directed to them by any senator in the chamber. I ask you to draw to the minister's attention the fact that he is not answering a very direct question that has been directed to him.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—There is no point of order. There is no standing order which requires that and there has never been. Senator Hill has been asked a question about standards and behaviour. He is answering it as he sees fit.BH4Senator HILL—The point is, Madam President, that the question was premised by Senator Faulkner talking about a code of conduct, standards of behaviour, and that is the way I am answering it—standards of behaviour that he expects of ministers, standards of behaviour that we expect of all parliamentarians. When they stand in the coward's castle and defame innocent bystanders, they should at least have the decency to come in here and say they were wrong and apologise. When Senator Faulkner does that, he will be better placed to come in here and ask about questions relating to the conduct of ministers. As Senator Faulkner knows, the Prime Minister has said that he is totally satisfied that Senator Parer has complied with the ministerial code of conduct and I have no intention of second-guessing the Prime Minister on that matter.952Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I did ask the minister on what basis Mr Max Moore-Wilton advised the Prime Minister's office that Senator Parer was not in breach of the code. I would appreciate an answer. I understand, of course, that Senator Parer's declaration to the Prime Minister was referred to Mr Max Moore-Wilton for checking on 7 May 1997. Was this, Minister, the same time at which Dr Shergold was conducting his own inquiry into Mr Moore-Wilton's use of entitlements? Also, what value would the Prime Minister attach to an all-clear from Mr Max Moore-Wilton in these circumstances?952Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment10—That is just about as grubby as they get; certainly as grubby as anything I have heard in here in 16 years. It all seems to be part of a consistent pattern: just lash out; throw the bit of muck around; do it often enough and with a bit of luck just a little bit will stick ultimately. You have a go at Senator Parer; you now have a go at a senior public servant; you basically had a go at the Baillieus. The Baillieus are not even in the business, but you have a go at them.The point that Senator Faulkner does not seem to appreciate is that it is for the Prime Minister to decide whether the standards he set are being met. He has so decided, and that is the end of the matter.953953Coonan, Sen HelenSenator COONAN2M6NSWLP10—My question is directed to the Minister for Justice. Will the minister inform the Senate of the seriousness with which the government regards the chase for Mr Christopher Skase and his assets? There have been suggestions that the chase for Skase is a waste of taxpayers' money. What is the minister's response to these suggestions?953Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPMinister for Justice10—I thank Senator Coonan for the question. The government, as opposed to the opposition, clearly takes the chase for Skase and his assets seriously. We know quite clearly that the government takes it more seriously than the opposition, because if they did take it seriously—it having been shown that their shadow Attorney-General had leaked highly confidential Federal Court documents that had the potential to damage and make more difficult that pursuit—Mr Beazley would have shown some courage, demanded standards be set by his alternative first law officer and would have sacked Senator Bolkus.Senator Bolkus would be in here today, rather than wherever he is. He accuses this place of being a kangaroo court. It begs the question whether you have sent him some sort of community service order and that is why he is not here. But if you have, and he is out planting some plants somewhere, I will give you a tip—count the seedlings. I would count the seedlings.The government does take this seriously. Fugitives cannot be allowed to escape from justice and a blind eye turned. It is same with criminal law and corporations law as it is with standards in this place. You have to set an example. When you turn a blind eye to the wrong thing being done, you set a new low standard. That is what Mr Beazley is doing by failing to sack Senator Bolkus.This place is not a kangaroo court. It is a sort of two-fingered salute to the Greens, the Democrats, Senator Harradine and senators on this side. Madam President, every senator in this place who is not a Labor senator voted to condemn Senator Bolkus for what he did. Nonetheless, he still says it is a kangaroo court and he does not care. He has no standards; the Leader of the Opposition has no standards; Senator Faulkner has no standards. If they were prepared to sack Senator Bolkus, we could say that they had some.But you only have to look at the past to see what sorts of standards the Australian public can expect from the opposition. The sorts of standards that they got in government were the sorts of standards that, I am advised, meant that Prime Minister Keating in 1988 failed to reveal to cabinet his relationship with Warren Anderson at a time when cabinet was deciding to allow the Northern Territory to expand its debt to build a new $130 million state square project in Darwin. And who was to be the developer? The developer was to be Warren Anderson. In 1992 Senator Richardson continued to be a director of 2HD when he was Minister for Transport and Communications. They are some examples of the sorts of standards that were set by Labor when they were in government.What we have seen over the last few days is in direct contrast to the standards that we want to uphold and the Democrats want to uphold. Even the Greens voted with us yesterday to indicate that this was an unsatisfactory standard by Senator Bolkus. It was an historic censure, because I do not think it has not happened in living memory—and perhaps because the Greens voted with us.There are plenty of other examples of the sorts of standards that Labor is prepared to accept in this place. Senator Faulkner defamed dead men as part of a Baillieu rort and failed to apologise. He claimed that someone was chairman of a company when they had resigned three years earlier. Senator Sherry, who sits at the back of the chamber, had a go at Dr Lyle Williams and failed to apologise for what he did—just come in here, smear anybody, put it on the record and don't worry about it. Senator Sherry came in here and cast stones and he should be prepared to apologise when he has got it wrong. We saw Senator O'Brien—(Time expired)954Coonan, Sen HelenSenator COONAN2M6NSWLP10—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. The minister has indicated that the government does take seriously the pursuit of Mr Skase. Will the minister further detail how the government's stand in upholding Australia's bankruptcy laws is being upheld?954Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPMinister for Justice10—Yes, the government does take it seriously. We believe that by supporting Mr Donnelly in his chase for assets we are demonstrating to anybody else who wants to do the same as Mr Skase did, that it is unacceptable. It is an unacceptable standard and we will pursue them. This government is about setting standards; standards that we do not see from the opposition.I was about to say that Senator O'Brien had alleged that Allhands Hire was a business that was put up for sale. Yesterday Senator Ellison came into this place, indicated it was not for sale and the company had consequently lost a number of clients. Senator Quirke suggested a gold shovel had been bought and there was some sort of sleazy deal for Burson Marsteller, only to find that it was Labor who in fact gave that contract out. In stark contrast to the standards that are not permitted here, this government will implement standards. (Time expired)954954Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—My question is directed to the Minister for Resources and Energy. Minister, is it not the case that your shares in Queensland Coal Mine Management have experienced remarkable capital growth in recent years, with the value of the company assets growing from $15.9 million in 1995 to $153 million in 1996? Is it not also the case that both you and the Prime Minister claimed in parliament last night that there was `just no scope for public divestment' of those shares? Do you and the Prime Minister stand by that statement?954Parer, Sen WarwickSenator PARERKI4QLDLPResources and Energy10—Yes—public divesture, yes. These shares are 16 non-voting shares in the company. What I talked about was public divestment, divestment—Honourable senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! There is far too much noise. Senator Parer is entitled to silence while he answers a question and should not be interrupted by all sides of the chamber.KI4Senator PARER—What the Prime Minister said, and I think what I said too, was that it is the disbursement of those shares as compared with publicly listed shares. There is not an open market out there. I have no idea what they are worth.Let me get back to the point. Senator Cook is hammering away about dividends that come from an investment by a family trust in another company. What we are on about—and this is what I thought Senator Ray and others were on about when they got up—is saying, `Let's look at the registration of interests, whether it be the Senate or the Prime Minister's guidelines, and see whether there is a conflict of interest.' If anyone thinks—and I say this again and again and again—that in the office that I hold and in the two years I have held it there has ever been a perception of a conflict of interest in respect of me or even my family's trust, let them get up and say it. This fishing around is stupid. Just give me one example, Senator Ray.UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—It is perception, not reality.KI4Senator PARER—There has been no conflict of interest and there has been no perception of interest.954Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Minister, that is an interesting answer. Is it not true that the only prohibition on selling shares in Queensland Coal Mine Management is that prior consent of just three ordinary shareholders must be obtained? Did you make any effort to obtain such consent? If not, why did you not?955Parer, Sen WarwickSenator PARERKI4QLDLPResources and Energy10—I think I have answered this very clearly. I have answered this in the answers I gave yesterday and in the explanation I gave last night and today. There is nothing more I can add to what I have said.BH4HILLSenator Hill—Madam President, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper .Miscellaneous95595515:04:00955Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—I move:That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Parer), to questions without notice asked today, relating to the financial interests of Senator Parer.Despite what is overwhelming evidence to the contrary, Senator Parer is proclaiming that he is not guilty of any conflict of interest nor any other sackable offence. But I think it is worth examining closely these protestations of innocence from Senator Parer. Firstly, let us look at the issue of the Senate's requirements in relation to its system of disclosure of pecuniary interests. Senator Parer has failed to declare to the Registrar of Senators' Interests his directorship of Investment Management Pty Ltd, his family trust company. He has failed to declare his shareholding in that company or his family trust shareholdings.Senator Parer claims not to be aware of the letter of 20 March 1997 from the Registrar of Senators' Interests informing all senators of the requirements to `notify actual shares held by relevant family or business trusts as of 20 March 1997'. He claims to be only in technical breach of the guidelines. But he conveniently fails to mention the fact—he ignores the fact—that he has also failed to declare his shareholding in Queensland Coal Management ESP. This was a requirement of the Senate disclosure system from the very beginning. It is not a technical breach; it is a serious breach.Then there is the issue of compliance with the code of conduct of the Prime Minister (Mr Howard). That is now an infamous and much discredited document. Surely we need to go no further than the requirement on page 11 of this code, which says: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.Does Senator Parer possess shares or similar interests in any company or business involved in the area of his portfolio responsibilities? The answer to that question is yes, he does. Has Senator Parer divested himself of these shares and interests? The answer is, of course, that he has not. Is he in compliance with this much discredited prime ministerial code of conduct? No, he is not. Of course, you could look, in relation to ministerial conduct, at page 10 of the code:The nature of their duties is such that they may need to have regard to the interests of members of their immediate families (to the extent that ministers know their interests) as well as their own when ensuring that no conflict or apparent conflict between interests and duties arises.Again, the same problems. But what the opposition in the Senate has been asking today is: what about his compliance with the Prime Minister's requirements for a confidential declaration of interests from all his ministers?Here we only have Senator Parer's word. Why should we accept it? He would not answer direct questions from Senator Cook which were directed to him in question time today on a range of issues in relation to disclosures he made to the Prime Minister. He insists that he fully complied with the Prime Minister's requirements. We invite him to table confidential documentation in the Senate to prove that that is the case.The truth is that on those three grounds—the Senate requirements, the ministerial code of conduct and the Prime Minister's confidential declaration; on all three counts—Senator Parer has failed. He is a liability to the government. Our view is that there is no alternative for him but to resign or be sacked by the Prime Minister. (Time expired)21:09:00955MacGibbon, Sen DavidSenator MacGIBBONYH4QLDLP10—I am not going to give respectability to a perfectly scurrilous attack on the charac ter of one of the best senators in this place. I have known Senator Parer longer than anyone in this parliament. I knew him many years before he came in here 12 years ago. Senator Parer's integrity, his honesty and his probity is beyond dispute in any way at all; way beyond challenge. He is a fit and proper person to discharge the duties of a minister in this place. That ought to be the end of the argument.15:10:00956Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAYUI4VICALP00—We have just heard from Senator MacGibbon on this. Senator MacGibbon, the Prime Minister marched into the House of Representatives, puffed up, in May 1996 and said, `I'm setting a whole new standard.' He implicitly criticised the previous government, even though a lot was drawn from the cabinet handbook. We are simply asking that Senator Parer and every other minister observe those standards.There is no use saying that we are being scurrilous in this. The first question we raised was: why didn't Senator Parer comply with the March 1997 directive from the registrar? What is his response to that, Senator MacGibbon? `I'm guilty,' he says. We have established that. It is not a completely threadbare assault on Senator Parer. Then we asked the second question: why didn't you declare your 44 shares which were declarable long before the March 1997 directive? We did not really get an explanation as to why they were not declared. We asked him whether he declared them to the Prime Minister. Through all the fog of the answer I got the impression that he did not. Then we hear the Prime Minister over there in the other place absolutely asserting that he was notified of the 44 shares. We need to clear that up.The one thing that is difficult for Senator MacGibbon or anyone else to argue about is the clear reference in the ministerial code of conduct to disposing of shares which directly affect your portfolio area. He did not do that. They were not easy to dispose of—we can see that. But if he had let us know that he had them and that he had difficulty in disposing of them we would have some idea that there was a potential or a perceived conflict of interest. Senator Parer jumped on the point I made yesterday. I will repeat it for him if he wants to jump on it every time and grab it like a lifeline. I do not think Senator Parer would ever deliberately go out and enrich himself in this area by an action to favour a particular company where he has an investment. But neither will I accuse Senator Short or Senator Gibson of that. They breached the ministerial code. They went; Senator Parer does not go.The other side gets upset when we question the basis of these financial arrangements. But he was someone, absent from a meeting in 1993—but, nevertheless, as chairman of that area later concurring—who got 16 C-class shares at $1 each which, within three years, have a minimum value, because they cannot be established at the maximum, of $2.3 million. He has to explain that to the battlers. How many battlers can go out and get given sixteen $1 shares that have a value three years later of $2.3 million? The income stream from those shares to the family investment company to the family trust in 1995 was $99,000. In 1996 the two payments into the family trust totalled $290,000. Not bad going for a battler. But the really strange thing is that Senator Parer cannot seem to remember any of this. He cannot remember the odd $99,000, the $149,000 and the $140,000 cheques coming in.AX5EVANSSenator Chris Evans—Small change.UI4Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAY—You are right, Senator Evans. Is it small change? Those things should be answered. The biggest joke of all is that Senator Hill comes in here and says that the Prime Minister has cleared him, that it is okay by him. That has sent the boat out very quickly. Is the Prime Minister the one to really judge in this particular case? At least the Prime Minister says that he relies on the judgment of his senior public servant Mr Max Moore-Wilton, the most political appointee in the history since federation.It is so coincidental that he brings down his report on 9 May and then on 10 May at 9 o'clock in the morning the Prime Minister rings Dr Shergold and says, `I want you now to do a review of Mr Max Moore-Wilton's entitlements because the horrible senators have been raising it in the Senate committee the week before.' Then the same Dr Shergold gets promoted in December last year to departmental secretary.If you want to bring in someone to judge this, bring in a neutral judge. Putting Max Moore-Wilton in charge of this particular investigation is like putting Dracula in charge of the blood bank. But if there is anyone I feel sorry for—and he does not want me to mention it—it is Senator Brian Gibson. Senator Brian Gibson left executive office for the most minuscule thing—nothing like this. (Time expired)10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—I call Senator Coonan.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—See if you can go for longer than one minute, which is all David MacGibbon could do.15:15:00957Coonan, Sen HelenSenator COONAN2M6NSWLP10—Yes, Senator Faulkner, I will certainly be going longer than a minute because isn't it about time that we got a bit of reality into this? This is approaching the farcical. Finally we get as an interjection from Senator Robert Ray that what seems to be worrying the opposition comes down to just a perception that there might be some infringement. For goodness sake!Isn't it about time that we, as the elected representatives of this country, actually addressed the real issues affecting the people of Australia rather than going on with this eternal trawling about things that real people out there do not seem to be really too worried about? Real people out there must be rubbing their eyes in disbelief at what has taken the time of this chamber for the last couple of days. The real issues and the real problems do not seem to be of the remotest concern to Senator Ray, Senator Faulkner and those in the opposition.I wonder how many people are actually lying awake at night wondering about Senator Parer's family trust. There is not one shred of evidence to suggest that Senator Parer has ever misused his office for any improper purpose or even an allegation that he has been guilty of some actual conflict of interest. Not only is this a grubby exercise; it shows the utter lack of appreciation by those on the other side of how a trust actually works. We do not really know whether whoever is feeding all this stuff to the opposition has ever really looked at the memorandum and articles of association of this company. Senator Ray seems to be aware that we are looking at C class shares, which invariably have restrictions, and, of course, Senator Parer has said until he is practically blue in the face that the trust has 16 non-voting shares. We almost need to put the words to a song here—`16 non-voting shares'—but the message does not seem to be getting through.It is very difficult to value shares, and certainly we question the sorts of values of non-voting shares that have been tossed around here at random as Senator Ray sought to do when he took note. These are not publicly listed shares. They are certainly not easily divested. They are very difficult to market. I think Senator Cook said all you have to do is consent to sell the shares in Queensland Coal Mine Management Pty Ltd. That's a laugh! If it were that easy to get rid of non-voting shares, I am sure a lot of people would do so with alacrity. The truth of the matter is that you do not have much control over non-voting shares, and certainly very few people want to buy them if they cannot exercise any vote in relation to their interest. So the matter of whether or not there is a market for non-voting shares is critical in this case, and it is certainly one that ought to excuse Senator Parer from having to adopt the sort of wild values that have been tossed around in this chamber.Quite apart from the fact that there has been no conflict of interest at all, there is further evidence—and I cannot believe that those on the other side of the chamber would not accept Senator Parer on this—that he has obtained no personal benefit from his ministerial responsibilities. That is really the critical issue. There is absolutely nothing to suggest that he has ever had any personal benefit from his office. Senator Parer has not breached the ministerial guidelines and the worst that can be said is that there is some technical breach of the Senate explanatory note. Are you really going to seek to hang Senator Parer for this? As I said when I started my speech, let us get a bit of reality into this debate. It is time that this is played out. I say to honourable senators on the other side, give it a rest.15:20:00958Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—That was an amazing speech; I don't know that it would hold up anywhere but in this chamber. This question is about probity in public office and, most of all, it is about the integrity of the Prime Minister. It is about that because the Prime Minister himself declared to the Australian electorate before the election that he would bring new standards, and after the election he did. Although they embodied most of the ministerial handbook, he declared what those standards are and they are on the public record. The particular standard under debate here is: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 the Prime Minister's own standard. We have just heard that that is fine as long as you can't say that the person has benefited from them in his own right. That is a preposterous notion. It says, in the Prime Minister's own standards, that there cannot be any `apparent conflict' between the exercise of public duty and that of the private potential gain of the individual minister.It is not just a matter here of whether there was an actual conflict; it is also a matter of whether there is a potential conflict and it is also a matter of whether there is an appearance of conflict. This is the well trodden area of law that justice has to be done and justice has to be seen to be done. Both precepts have to be met. Let us compare this case with what happened to Senator Short. On 14 October 1996 the Prime Minister said, in the case of Senator Short after he had resigned, that there was `an apparent conflict of interest'. Those are the words of the Prime Minister in the case of Senator Short.Where are those words now? Does the Prime Minister uphold his own standards? He has been silent on this. He will not answer that question. He needs to set his consistency on the line. He either upholds the standards he has imposed or he does not. And if he does not he is a hypocrite and he never intended those standards to be upheld anyway. It was simply a way of gulling the Australian electorate.Short said at the time that he had made a `careless and distressing oversight'. He confessed to an apparent conflict of interest. We have here a similar confession to an apparent conflict of interest by the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Parer), who has said, in a quaint way of putting it, `I made a technical mistake.' There is no provision for technical; you either made one or you didn't and a confession of a mistake is a confession of a mistake. He also went on to say that he did not read the letter that alerted him to what his public duty was. Since when was that a defence? Try standing up in a court and saying that you did not know what the law was and therefore you are innocent. That is exactly what is being said here. Why should that standard apply to ordinary Australians and not to a minister of the Crown? Why can a minister of the Crown say, `I didn't know; therefore I am innocent,' but an ordinary Australian say, `I didn't know what the law was,' and be convicted? That is a direct comparison of their hypocrisy on this matter.There is a series of comparisons I would like to make—and I know that I will not have time to complete the list—between Senator Short's conduct and the conduct we are now witnessing from Senator Parer. Senator Short confessed to owning 6,679 ANZ shares, through the Short family trust, worth approximately $64,000 at the time of his resignation. Senator Parer owns just over one per cent of the issued capital in QCMM Pty Ltd, worth an estimated $2.3 million. Is it because of the higher value of the shares that a different level of conduct is acceptable? Is it because Senator Short was a supporter of the Prime Minister but not a personal mate, as is Senator Parer? Is that why a different standard of conduct is acceptable? Is that what it means?Senator Short went on to say that he had held the shares in the trust, the ANZ Bank, for a considerable amount of time and that this holding had been recorded in the Register of Senators' Interests since its inception. Parer claims, as some sort of defence, that the trust has been in existence for 28 years and that he has a one-ninth interest in it. This must mean that he is one of nine family beneficiaries. At least Short declared it.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator Cook, could you please use their correct titles?RF4Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOK—At least Senator Short declared it; Senator Parer did not. (Time expired)15:25:00959Crane, Sen WinstonSenator CRANEUW4WALP10—I too would like to enter this debate and make a number of points. It is quite obvious from the tactics we have seen here involving our colleague Senator Parer and what occurred last week that the Labor Party came back after the break with one intent, and that was to sling mud, slur and try to pick individuals out and not deal with the issues that are required to be dealt with today—particularly when we have the Native Title Amendment Bill coming back into this place. This is just a sloppy, dirty diversion away from the real issues facing Australia.We hear from those on the other side about Senator Parer using the words `technical breach', which he did. But I have never heard such a mishmash of argument as that put before us in that last contribution from Senator Cook. You could not even call it a technical argument. In fact, one could quite fairly and freely say that Senator Cook mislead this place when he said that the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) remained silent on this. Aren't you aware that the Prime Minister went into the other place last night and made a statement? For your benefit I will quote it. I will read out a couple of these points:I inform the House that I am satisfied on the basis of the advice I have received since question time that Senator Parer has not breached the ministerial guidelines.That is from the Prime Minister himself. If the Prime Minister stands up in the other place and says that, then I am satisfied. He also made a number of other points, as Senator Parer has done: there was no personal benefit out of the arrangements that were put in place; there is no conflict of interest in carrying out his job. These are very important aspects of what we have here before us at this particular time.I had the benefit not so long ago of being in Kalgoorlie with Senator Parer. What did he do? He got on and dealt with the issues before us. In Kalgoorlie he discussed the problems that the goldfields and the mineral fields of Western Australia have with native title, which I have already mentioned. He talked about the issues of transport, the problems there and the need for infrastructure development to assist in the great industries we have in my state in those particular areas. There was no conflict of interest whatsoever or any pretence of conflict of interest in what Senator Parer was doing in carrying out his particular job and in performing his responsibilities as a minister. And to try to run a comparison between other people and Senator Parer and his particular position is absolutely a nonsense argument and position to be in. Senator Cook has left the chamber. He may have aspired at one time to be a lawyer but after that contribution he has a long way to go. He is certainly no Rumpole as far as I am concerned.Returning to the issues that are very important: there is no conflict of interest, no profit and no voting rights. What more do you want from a particular individual? What amazes me most is, and it also applies to the Democrats and that silly question that was asked by their leader, Senator Meg Lees today: why do they so desperately hate anybody who is successful? I thought we should have this place full of successful people—people who know how to run a business, how to do things, how to be successful. I doubt whether you can find one senator on the other side who has ever made a buck of their own, who has ever taken their shirt off their back and done a decent day's hard work. And here you are attacking the man who has done it himself. He is a self-made person who has contributed an enormous amount to this economy of ours. You should be congratulating him for his performance. XH4McGAURANSenator McGauran—Take your shirts off!UW4Crane, Sen WinstonSenator CRANE—Yes, take your shirts off, absolutely. You have never risked a dollar of your own or put a bit of risk capital out in the investment field. This is really just a slur campaign to try to put individuals down and a refusal to address the issues.9L6MACKAYSenator Mackay—Like Senator Bolkus.UW4Crane, Sen WinstonSenator CRANE—We saw today another rise in employment, albeit a small one, but it is coming up. You mention Senator Bolkus. What did he do? He is trying to keep Skase out of the country—9L6MACKAYSenator Mackay—You slurred him.UW4Crane, Sen WinstonSenator CRANE—I did not slur Senator Bolkus. He brought it on his own head. He read out confidential documents and got caught; that is what happened to Senator Bolkus. He absolutely trapped himself in.I come back to this matter. Why do you hate somebody who makes a profit and makes a success? At the end of the day there is no conflict of interest. The Prime Minister has looked at the issue very carefully and he is satisfied, and if the Prime Minister of this country is satisfied with that particular explanation, so am I, and so should everyone else in this chamber be.15:30:00960Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—There are two fundamental questions involved here. There is the question of whether or not Senator Parer has been open and direct in his declarations to this parliament under the pecuniary interest requirements of the Senate, and there is the issue as to whether or not the Prime Minister has failed in his duty to uphold the ministerial guidelines that he himself has flourished as a great hallmark of his government and the allegedly higher standards that he is representing in this country at the moment.In the first instance, it is undoubtedly the case, as Senator Parer himself acknowledges, that there has been at the very minimum, on his own admission, a technical breach. There is a more fundamental question, however, as to whether or not that technical breach goes to the issue of whether there has been a more fundamental conflict of interest between his activities as the minister for coal and his ownership of shares in coalmining in this country.For the Prime Minister, however, there is a more substantial question still—not that the issues regarding Senator Parer in themselves are trifling affairs. What the Prime Minister said in regard to Jim Short when he laid down the benchmark here on 10 October 1996 was that he felt that, although Senator Short, as he then was, did in fact breach the guidelines, it was only a minor breach. That was his first position. He said that he thought that, while he believed that Senator Short did not comply and had acknowledged that to the Senate, he had discussed the matter with Senator Short. He had considered sacking him but he felt that, because there was no personal benefit directly to the Assistant Treasurer, as he was at the time, that he had made no consideration directly to benefit himself, as he saw it, it involved no impropriety. So Senator Short, as he was then, ought not be forced from the ministry. He said:I think anybody who knows Senator Short will be aware that he has not been guilty of any deliberate dishonesty. In all the circumstances, I do not believe that he has profited from any deliberate decisions. I do not think the ownership of those ANZ Bank shares influenced decisions that he took. In those circumstances, I have taken the decision that I have and I remain confident of the minister's capacity.Of course, the problem for Senator Short and for the Prime Minister was that by the weekend, by 11 October 1996, Minister Short was writing a letter to the Prime Minister resigning his portfolio. He said that he had become aware, as a result of staff going through his papers, that he had in fact undertaken a number of decisions involving ANZ interests. What he said in a letter to the Prime Minister was that he had found several dozen approvals relating to the administration of banking laws. In his letter to Mr Howard, according to the Sydney Morning Herald of 14 October, Senator Short said that the ANZ request was a routine one and his approval had been based on the recommendation of both the Reserve Bank and the Treasurer. There were no grounds on which the request might have been decided differently. He said:My approval was influenced in no way whatsoever by the fact of my shareholding in the ANZ Bank. When I spoke with you on Wednesday evening I had not recalled having given the particular approval, and similarly during the Senate sittings on the Thursday. Now my attention has been drawn to that approval, I feel that the circumstances of the matter have changed, and in light of this I have given the deepest consideration to the circumstances and I have decided to tender to you my resignation as Assistant Treasurer.What is a difference between Senator Short, as he then was, and Senator Parer now?10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! The time for debate has expired.Question resolved in the affirmative.Notices961961961Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT5F4TASLP10—by leave—On behalf of Senator Watson, I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, he will move:That the Select Committee on Superannuation be authorised to hold a public meeting during the sitting of the Senate on 23 March and 24 March 1998, from 7 p.m., to take evidence for the committee's inquiry into the provisions of the Commonwealth Superannuation Board Bill 1997 the Superannuation Legislation (Commonwealth Employment) Repeal and Amendment Bill 1997 and the Superannuation Legislation (Commonwealth Employment—Saving and Transitional Provisions) Bill 1997.Documents96196110000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—On behalf of the President, I present a document entitled Work of committees for the period 1 January to 31 December 1997.Ordered that the report be printed.Committees96196110000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—The President has received letters from the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and an independent senator seeking variations to the membership of certain committees.Motion (by Senator Ellison)—by leave—agreed to:That senators be discharged from and appointed to committees as follows:Employment, Education and Training References Committee—Participating member: Senator Carr for the committee's inquiry into employment levels and regional unemploymentSubstitute member: Senator Mackay to replace Senator Carr for the committee's inquiry into employment levels and regional unemploymentPublications—Standing Committee—Appointed: Senator CarrDischarged: Senator ColstonRural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee—Substitute member: Senator Lundy to replace Senator Forshaw for the consideration of the provisions of the Australian Capital Territory (Planning and Land Management) Amendment Bill 1997.Miscellaneous96115:37:00961Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY9L6TASALP00—I move:The Senate notes, with concern, that:(a) despite coming to office pledging to reduce youth and long-term unemployment by boosting economic growth, the policies of the Howard Government have in fact delivered: (i) a 15 per cent increase in long-term unemployment since March 1996, (ii) a fall in employment growth from 2.9 per cent per year during the last term of the Labor Government, to 1.4 per cent per year under the Coalition, (iii) an increase in the youth unemployment rate from 27.4 per cent to 28.4 per cent since March 1996, and (iv) a fall in economic growth from 4.7 per cent to 3.6 per cent since March 1996;(b) the Government's response to this disastrous employment picture has been to contract out the responsibility for its failures by abolishing the Commonwealth Employment Service and introducing a `market-based' approach to employment services, without parliamentary scrutiny and excluding many hundreds of community-based employment service providers with excellent track records and priceless intellectual property;(c) the Government has introduced this fundamentally flawed employment policy with a tender process which has been secretive, has demonstrated no link between resource allocation and need, and fails to deal with ongoing issues such as performance monitoring and purchaser/provider dispute resolution; and(d) the Government's policy, despite being promoted as more flexible and effective, is no more than a cynical measure designed to artificially deliver a lower long-term unemployment rate by actively excluding from the employment services market 400 000 unemployed people who are not on benefits, people over 50 and people who have been in case management for more than 39 weeks.I thought I would start off by anticipating the speakers from the government who will, no doubt, talk about the unemployment figures that were released today. I would like to point out, before the chortling from the government, that what we have is a flatline employment situation. Employment is stuck at 8.1 per cent. The other key fact is that there has been no improvement whatsoever in youth unemployment since this government was elected.I would like to go through the economic situation because I am sick to death of the nonsense coming from Peter Costello with regard to the economic situation in Australia and the selective quoting of statistics that he is so good at. Let us have a look at it.One figure they do not talk a lot about on the other side of the chamber is growth. The reality is that last week's national account figures showed economic growth for the year to December as 3.6 per cent. You cannot get genuine employment growth in an economy unless you get over the hurdle of four per cent to 4.5 per cent growth. Who said that? Who said you have to get at least four per cent growth before you can make a real dint in unemployment? I bet you he has rued the day he made the statement. It was the Prime Minister, Mr Howard, who said that. Yet in the whole two years that this government has been in they have not cracked the four per cent. What was the growth rate when Labor went out of office? It was 4.6 per cent. So in two years of coalition government growth has dropped. That is the first point. It was probably a non-core promise but it was a commitment by this government that it would get growth above four per cent. But what has happened is that, under the policies of this government, growth has reduced by one per cent. That is an indictment in itself. But there is more.Let us have a look at the situation with regard to the average rate of economic growth achieved under the Howard government. Average economic growth is three per cent. In Labor's last term of office the average rate of growth was 4.5 per cent. That is a 1½ per cent difference. In Labor's full 13 years in office the average annual rate of economic growth was 3.7 per cent—more, right through the recession in the early 1990s, than this government has managed to achieve in two years when the commitment was four per cent. In the calendar year 1997, the first full year of the Howard government, the economy grew by just 2.8 per cent, despite an OECD prediction of 2.9 per cent.Let us go through this litany of mismanagement. The transport industry also recorded negative growth in the December quarter of minus one per cent. Corporate profit, something they are very fond of trumpeting here, actually fell by 0.4 per cent in the quarter. Despite the fact that inflation continues to remain low, the major deflators—private consumption and GDP—all show a rise in inflation. Let us have a look at savings. The household saving ratio fell from 3.9 per cent to 3.1 per cent. The ratio was 3.6 per cent when Labor left office. The manufacturing sector, a very important sector and a major job creator, recorded negative growth of minus 0.6 per cent in the December quarter. That is outrageous in such a labour intensive sector.Employment growth since March 1996 has averaged just 1.4 per cent compared to almost three per cent under Labor. Long-term unemployment, the most serious and difficult form of unemployment to deal with, has risen 15 per cent since the Prime Minister took the axe to Working Nation. This is outrageous. As I said before, in the entire term of this government there has been no improvement in youth unemployment, despite the commitment they gave that youth unemployment was a high priority. Secondly, we have a situation where, as I said before, 8.1 per cent is flatline.The economy, the government says, is going really well. It says the preconditions are there and all we have to do is wait. To quote the previous minister for employment, Senator Vanstone, it is a bit like a farmer waiting for the drought to break. The drought still has not broken and the reason the drought still has not broken is that nothing has happened in this economy under this government for two years.5F4CALVERTSenator Calvert—Hasn't it?9L6Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY—That is right. Nothing has happened. A growth rate of 3.6 per cent is not a good result. It is a shocking result, Senator Calvert. It was 4.6 per cent when we left office.Let us have a look at the figures today. The number of full-time jobs fell in Australia in February by 7,000. Do you know why? Because what this government is doing is creating a casualised and part-time work force, and the strategy is absolutely deliberate.One of the most important things that came out yesterday was the consumer confidence figures. I wonder if anybody on the other side had a look at those. The consumer confidence figures fell in March by 10 per cent, which is the second largest monthly fall in this decade. That is extremely serious.FQ6SYNONSenator Synon—Ooh!9L6Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY—Well you may go `Ooh!' but that is extremely serious. Consumer confidence falling by 10 per cent with the economy in such a difficult situation is very serious. With the Asian crisis yet to hit it is very serious. If the people on the other side think it is funny then you do not deserve to get re-elected and you will not.What has the government done in the face of this situation? They have introduced the deregulation of the employment services market to supposedly help unemployed people. What a disaster that has been. I said it the other day and I will repeat it—FQ6SYNONSenator Synon—It hasn't even started yet. How can it be a disaster?9L6Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY—That's right; it has not even started yet and look at all the disasters that are emerging already. It is one of the most mismanaged, maladministered messes that I have ever seen. I think it is the most mismanaged, maladministered mess that this government has created. That is the reality.How did all of this commence? The previous minister for employment, Senator Vanstone, introduced a bill. The opposition was successful in getting amendments to that bill, which included a reference to universality and which included reference to a public service. No way. The government did not like that. The bill was pulled; they ran away. They could not take the heat. They could not take the public scrutiny so they pulled the bill. They proceeded anyway and what an absolute disaster that has been.If you do not believe me—as I am sure those on the other side do not—listen to what the Australian of 28 February 1998 had to say about this new market approach to employment services. It says:Providing a bounty of up to $10,000 for a successful job placement for someone who is defined as long-term unemployed seems, however, a system ripe for exploitation.They got it in one. They were absolutely correct—`ripe for exploitation'. Gary Hardgrave, the Liberal member from Queensland, said:I am angry about the awarding of contracts because many community providers with strong records of helping the unemployed missed out on contracts.So, if you do not believe the opposition and the Australian editorial, what about one of your own people who made that statement? He should be angry because that is exactly what happened.Let us revisit—and see if we can actually get it through to the government—what is happening with the 400,000 people who will not be eligible for employment services. Let us just go through it one more time because we still have not had assurances from the government in relation to it. The reality is: if you are unemployed and not on benefit, you are not entitled to access to employment services for free.FQ6SYNONSenator Synon—And you never were under Labor.9L6Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY—With the CES you were. We have heard nothing but weasel words from Dr Kemp with regard to this. He is saying, `Nobody will be turned away in terms of access.' I think Senator Ellison may have said the same thing. What does that mean—that you are not going to be thrown out of an office when you walk in? I want this government to give an absolute guarantee that every single person who is unemployed will have free access to employment services. That is what we want. We want that guarantee.Let us revisit the long-term unemployment figures. We have a situation where long-term unemployment has increased by 15 per cent under this government. What is the government doing for long-term unemployed people? If you are long-term unemployed and not on benefit, you do not get—and I said it the other day—a cracker. You do not get any assistance whatsoever. Let us just clarify this because you have to listen very carefully to what Dr Kemp and Minister Ellison have said in relation to this. If you are not on benefit, you will not get assistance. If you have been unemployed for 12 months, you will not get assistance. Who said this? Not the opposition—Employment National. Employment National said, `Sorry, we're interested in profit. We're running things on a market basis. If somebody, not on benefit, has been registered as long-term unemployed for 12 months, we will not help them. We are in the business of making a profit.' That is fine; I cannot blame them for that because this government set up that precondition. Again, Minister, I would be very interested if this government would give a commitment that every single person who is long-term unemployed and not necessarily on benefit will be given access to employment services to the same extent as those people who are long-term unemployed and on benefit. That is what we want.Access to employment services for the retrenched worker who is living off his or her redundancy payments is denied. We still have not had an assurance to free services for defence force personnel spouses because they are not on benefit. Minister, I would be very pleased if you would give a rock-solid commitment—not a core or non-core commitment—that you will guarantee that these people will be given access to employment services. Women wishing to re-enter the work force with partners who work—the ones who can actually afford child care these days, given the cuts to child care—are denied access to employment services. They cannot get it. This really is an outrage. People know it is an outrage, and I would suggest that you are not going to get away with it. Tom Connors from the West Australian said on 11 March:Jobless Australians deserve a free employment service. Only the heartless would say otherwise.Only the heartless would say that. This government is heartless and mean spirited.You could go on and on about this disaster. Let us have a look at the resource allocation. How were FLEX 3 resources allocated, Minister? Were they allocated on the basis of long-term unemployment? They were not. FLEX 3 resources were not allocated on the basis of long-term unemployment. There is no nexus between FLEX 3 allocation and long-term unemployment rates. Do you know what you have done? I know what you have done. You have done actually allocated resources on the basis of job opportunities, not where long-term unemployed people actually are. Let me explain what you have done because I know what you have done. It is very simple. It is allocated on the basis of job opportunities. That means that you—the government—have given more resources disproportionately to those areas where people have more chance of getting a job. That is why the major factor in relation to FLEX 3 allocation is job opportunities.What does that do? It means that long-term unemployed people who are lucky enough to live in areas where there are jobs will get them—let us hope that they do—and those long-term unemployed people who live in areas where there is not enough FLEX 3 allocated will not. What will they get? They will get work for the dole. What will we have? We will have jobless ghettos. If this government is serious about saying to the Australian people that the allocation of FLEX 3 for long-term unemployed people—that is, intensive assistance—was done on a fair dinkum basis, show us the modelling. Show us how you did it. Show us how you actually got the figures and show us how it was allocated. I, for one, would be extremely interested to see it.How did the minister, Dr Kemp, deliver the so-called good news about this new service? I think I have already indicated that there were some real doubts about the allocation of FLEX 3 in relation to the tender documents. Did the minister say that there are X number of FLEX 3 places—that is, intensive assistance—for here and there are X number of places for there? No, he gave ticks. If you have a look at his papers, you will see that there are ticks—FLEX 3, tick; FLEX 1, tick. He did not indicate how many places. It was quite deliberate. In the press conference he obfuscated when asked that question by journalists. He would not give that response. Why? The reality is that the resources have diminished. There is a cut. We will find out about this.When Dr Kemp made the announcement, he set himself some benchmarks, which is very interesting. It is good that we have benchmarks, but it is a pity that we do not have a jobs target. One benchmark is that during the first 19 months 840,000 will be matched vacancies. What does that mean? Does it mean that 840,000 people will get jobs or does it mean matched? Perhaps you can clarify that, Minister Ellison. Does it mean they will get the jobs? I do not think so. Here again are weasel words.The second lot says that 540,000 will be given intensive assistance—that is, FLEX 3. Do you know what that means? It means they will go along to a provider and get registered. It is $1,500 in the provider's pocket. That is what Dr Kemp means when he says that 540,000 will be given intensive assistance. That is why they are called FLEX 3 commencements in the tender documents. I suggest you read it, Minister. These so-called benchmarks and targets are arrant nonsense.What happens to the long-term unemployed job seekers who go along to the provider and get put on the books and remain on there for 52 weeks? If they are really hard cases, after 52 weeks they are put off the provider's books. Do you know what they have to do then? They have to wait to requalify for intensive assistance and all they are entitled to is FLEX 1.I would like to spend the remaining time looking at what this flawed and biased tendering process delivered. Let us look at what happened to those hardworking, committed people in the community sector and the private sector who missed out. Mary-Louise Petro of Sisters of Mercy, St Mary's—this issue has had a lot of coverage—was quoted in the Financial Review as saying:We are having to close Mamre Employment Services in St Mary's. We have made 10 highly efficient staff redundant.Let us look at some case studies. Key Training, established in 1989, has been providing case management services in Tasmania since 1995 and has a placement rate of 43 per cent, which is 6.3 per cent higher than the CES itself and other similar providers in the region. Key Training has received numerous industry awards—too many to mention here—and under the recent round of tenders got nothing. As a result of this, 12 staff are being retrenched at Key Training.Victoria's Strategic Training and Employment Placement Services, STEPS, which was established in 1996, has been providing case management services at Broadmeadows since that time. Both the principals of this organisation have been working with the long-term unemployed for over 30 years and were previously CES area managers. It has a placement rate of 34 per cent, which is four per cent higher than EEA and other similar providers. It did not get anything either and is expecting to retrench four experienced staff as a result.I conclude by saying that this is a disaster. This is why day after day the government is getting community provider after community provider saying the process was a shonk, the results are a shonk and they will not deliver any genuine services to unemployed people, particularly to the area most in need—that is, the long-term unemployed.15:57:00966Synon, Sen KarenSenator SYNONFQ6VICLP10—Considering the experience of 13 years of Labor government, I find it very difficult to believe that we are here debating this motion today. Senator Mackay, since you feel so strongly about the unemployed, you might stay in the chamber for the debate. Today of all days we have had the best job news for over seven years. The ABS announced today that 8,529,000 people are in work in Australia—the highest number ever in Australia's history. There was an increase of 14,800 in February alone and and increase of 140,600 jobs in the six months to February. Listen to this, Senator Mackay: the seasonal unemployment rate is at 8.1 per cent, the lowest since December 1990—more than seven years. Today there are 8,529,000 people in employment in Australia—the highest number in Australia's history.But this government is not going to rest on its laurels. The coalition is committed to working towards the goal of giving a job to every Australian who wants a job. It is a goal we are proud of. It is a legitimate goal that only a government that genuinely cares for the people of Australia could have. It is a goal which in 13 years the ALP never even tried to reach. Unemployment rates went up under the ALP, and let us never ever forget it. When this government came into office we pledged to reduce youth and long-term unemployment by boosting economic growth. I must say that our record is far better than that of those who sit on the other side of the chamber and seek to trivialise the debate today.In the `recession we had to have' the ALP destroyed 338,900 jobs; let us think about that another way: 338,900 people's lives. I hope you are proud of that. When Mr Beazley was minister for employment, long-term unemployment increased by 95,000 people. In the six years from July 1990 to March 1996, when the ALP was in government, only 16,000 full-time jobs were created—in six years. It is laughable that you come into this chamber today and wish to debate the coali tion government's record on employment creation.We have created 14,800 places of employment in February alone. You created 16,000 in six years. What a pathetic effort. We all remember when unemployment reached 11.2 per cent in December 1992—the highest level of unemployment in the postwar era. That was under your government: congratulations to you. We all remember when from March 1991 to November 1994, nearly three years, unemployment did not fall below nine per cent; and when in December 1992 youth unemployment reached 31.4 per cent. Incidentally, in today's figures it is down to 26.4 per cent. Under you, it was 31.4 per cent; it is now down to 26.4 per cent.7L6HOGGSenator Hogg—That is nothing to be proud of.FQ6Synon, Sen KarenSenator SYNON—We are not resting on our laurels; as I have said, we will continue to do anything within our power to give a job to every person in this country who wants one. None of us will ever forget the 1.3 million Australians who, under Labor, could not find the level of employment they wanted. Who can forget those billboards all around Australia: one million unemployed?I am not necessarily blaming Senator Mackay for the policies of the Captain Wacky government. Given that the senator was never part of that government, I can only assume that she is as embarrassed by its record as we on this side of the chamber are disgusted, because when Senator Mackay raises the issue of unemployment in this chamber she never mentions Labor's record. She is ashamed of it.The Hawke-Keating governments did spend money though. As I have said before and will doubtless say again: Labor governments are very, very good at spending money. Working Nation, the $12 billion disaster, springs immediately to mind—or Non-Working Nation, as it was called by many. Many of those young people who were churned through training program after training program after training program called it Training Nation.The Labor government's message to young people was that being on the dole was an acceptable alternative to education and training, an acceptable alternative to looking for work. Let the Australian people never forget that, under Working Nation, when you were in a training program, you were considered to be working. What a joke. What a manipulation of the unemployment figures. It is something of which I think you should be ashamed.In the Bulletin last year, the attitude instilled by the Labor Party was showcased in an unemployment snapshot of young people living at Broken Head. Johnny Abegg, 17, left school early and is on the dole because `it helps out the oldies'. Matt Chelman, 21, who has not worked since leaving school:We're all on the dole. You get addicted to it after a while . . . Look, I'm happy on the dole. It suits me and it keeps you out of trouble.These are our young people, the future of our country—and I hold the ALP directly responsible for this attitude.But this is not surprising, when you consider the labour market programs that Labor devised. In 1995-96 the ALP spent $2.7 billion on labour market programs, and unemployment rose. But Labor's labour market programs did not work. Take New Work Opportunities, for example, a labour market program which had an outcome of 21 per cent. Not too bad, you might think. But, when compared with a comparison control group of 17 per cent, the outcome was four per cent—four per cent net outcome and $143,000 a place. But, in addition, most of those people had already taken part in a previous training program; that is, more money on labour market programs which did not fix the problem—the training merry-go-round. Is it any wonder that Johnny Abegg and Matt Chelman think it is easier to stay on the dole?The Democrats phrased it well—and I regret the fact that Senator Stott Despoja has left the chamber—when they said in their unemployment issues paper, `The Working Nation program is not about creating new jobs but reshuffling the unemployed.' This same paper of the Democrats also concludes, `a goal of every Australian having work is an impossibility'—an impossibility. Well, you have sold out the Australian public too soon.In 1994 the OECD made a statement about training programs like Working Nation. After a comprehensive study of developed countries' traditional responses to unemployment and their training programs, such as Working Nation, the OECD concluded that there was `meagre support for the hypothesis that such programs are effective'—meagre support.Money is not the answer. We do have an unemployment problem in this country, and the unemployed people out there deserve some innovative creative responses. We cannot continue with the responses of the last two decades which have not worked in Australia and, according to the OECD, have not worked in any other country, just because you are not imaginative enough or courageous enough to tackle new things. This government is.7L6HOGGSenator Hogg—You haven't done anything.FQ6Synon, Sen KarenSenator SYNON—Let me tell you, Senator Hogg, what our results are—10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Address the Chair please, Senator Synon.FQ6Synon, Sen KarenSenator SYNON—I am sorry, Madam Deputy President—116,100 new full-time jobs: the strongest job growth in 2½ years. In the past five months under our government, there has been the creation of 141,800 new jobs. As I said before, that translates into a seven-year low of unemployment rate of 8.1 per cent.Yes, we have replaced the old CES—and, yes, it needed to be replaced. It had a success rate of less than 20 per cent and was not providing adequate service to Australians. So it had to go. And, yes, we have introduced the new Job Network, a system which will be more flexible, more responsive and infinitely more successful. On 1 May Job Network will replace the CES. Job Network is our national network involving more than 300 private community and government organisations, which will specialise in finding jobs for unemployed people. We are going to focus on results, getting unemployed people into jobs, giving people help that actually makes a difference.And, yes, we are using a market based approach. We are actually going to pay Job Network members for placing unemployed people in jobs. We are going to provide incentives for job placement organisations to find unemployed people jobs. The more disadvantaged the status of the person, the greater the incentive. This government is not about managing or reshuffling the unemployed. It is about finding them jobs.Job Network is a great opportunity for unemployed people. It is going to offer access to thousands more vacancies on a touch screen vacancy database and access to 1,404 sites around Australia, instead of the fewer than 300 sites the CES offered—over 700 more outlets for unemployed people to go to. That is four times the number of points of access to service for unemployed people. We are going to provide them with improved access to free computers, telephones and facsimiles to help them prepare resumes, apply for jobs and find work; flexible assistance—assistance actually tailored to the needs of the individual job seeker; and easier access, most importantly, to apprenticeships and traineeships. Apprenticeships, under the previous government, fell to their lowest level in more than 30 years.By offering greater choice to employees and employers we are letting them decide what they want and what services they want to use. It does work. The Westgate Community Initiatives Group in Footscray, Melbourne, a highly successful and professional community based nonprofit organisation, offers personalised service to its clients, who find it has a more comfortable and individualised environment. One of their unemployed people, Despina Sarandogiou, said—I want senators to listen to this:Here I feel like a person whereas at the CES I felt like a number.Is that how those opposite would have our young people think of themselves—as a number in a bureaucratic machine? Not this government. We are treating these people as people. But Senator Mackay's motion also, surprisingly, criticises our tender process—something which I am finding hard to accept in light of its rigour. We put in place an outstanding process to select the best people in Australia to provide Job Network services. Every one of them went through a very rigorous process to test their suitability and financial viability. Every one of them had to devise a strategy to help unemployed people in their area, and every one of them had to undertake satisfactory access for unemployed people to their services. They all had to demonstrate their experience, and they all had to compete.Senator Mackay and others were at estimates and heard this process discussed and have a copy of Mr Sedgewick's statements outlining the terms covering the tender process. They know that experienced departmental staff assessed approximately 5,000 bids for six service types within 29 labour market regions against stated selection criteria. The ALP know that the principles established in allocating levels of business to tenderers included competition, client choice, diversity, value for money and coverage for as many job seekers in the market as possible. They know that to meet these principles a wide range of providers were selected—over 300 of them.They also know, and have been told repeatedly, that Blake Dawson Waldron, a highly respected law firm, was appointed to independently monitor procedural integrity throughout the tender, and they know that they gave this process an unqualified sign-off on 24 February. Their statement reads:On the basis of our observation and inquiries of the Independent Observers we are satisfied that . . . the tender has been conducted in accordance with the probity requirements. We consider that the procedures outlined in the published tender documentation including the Probity Plan, have been followed . . . we have not identified any evidence of systematic bias, lack of objectivity by assessment teams, pattern of scoring or ranking which advantaged or disadvantaged any particular bidder.The independent observers are happy. Of course, each tenderer has also been offered the opportunity to be debriefed on how they fared, so it can hardly be called a secretive process. And of course safeguards have been built into the Job Network system. Contracts with Job Network organisations preclude them from charging eligible job seekers for employment services. Job seekers will be afforded protection such as client privacy and the right for complaints to be referred to the Ombudsman. An industry code of conduct lays down standards that organisations must follow, and that code is backed up by a complaints process available to anyone unhappy with the service they receive.For the first time in almost 20 years of employment service delivery we are offering unemployed people a choice. Just because that does not sit comfortably with the socialist notions expounded on the other side is no reason to criticise the program. Choice should be available to everyone, even the unemployed.As for the comments regarding the long-term unemployed and their exclusion from the employment services market of various groups in the community, they are just another example of Labor's misrepresentation of the facts and blatant twisting of fundamental truths. The long-term unemployed will be specifically targeted and receive intensive personalised case management. If they are going to get a job, they are going to get it under a program like this—not Working Nation, not LEAP, not Jobskills.Let me take on another point—that people who are not registered for benefits are not going to be eligible for services. Let me tell those opposite, based on my many years of experience in this area, that people who are not in receipt of unemployment benefits have never been eligible for intensive government assistance—training or otherwise. There were many times when I was managing an employment training program in the western suburbs of Melbourne that I rang the DEET officers and wanted to provide assistance to someone and was told the government—that is the ALP government—thought it was not an economically viable option. So let us put a nonsense to this argument that we keep hearing.Again we have the ALP wasting its time and our valuable time criticising our record and our policy on unemployment. We are the ones out there creating the jobs, helping job seekers find jobs and providing a responsive, flexible system to assist them. Our government cares enough about the unemployed to try to help. We do not just throw money at them. We do not just reshuffle their numbers. Our government cares enough that we have done something about unemployment, and the record speaks for itself. Today 8,522,000 people in Australia are in work—the highest level in the history of this country; an increase of 14,800 jobs in February alone. Over six years the ALP created just 16,000 jobs. We have created 140,600 jobs in the six months to February. The trend unemployment rate in this country today is 8.1 per cent—the lowest level for seven years.The ALP should be ashamed of themselves. They are obviously ashamed of their record, because they never discuss it; they never open themselves up to scrutiny. This government does not need to shuffle numbers. This government does not need to shuffle the unemployed. This government is about getting jobs. This government is getting jobs and will continue to do so.16:17:00969Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—I rise on behalf of the Australian Democrats this afternoon to support the general business motion before us. We on many occasions and again today express our concern about the seemingly, at times, intractable problem of unemployment in this country, in particular our youth unemployment levels, as Senator Mackay has noted in her motion before us. I acknowledge some of the points that Senator Synon has made to the chamber and today we welcome any increase in job participation; we welcome any increase in employment statistics in this country.I think we all are very nervous and at times rather cynical about figures put before us. I just hope that increased employment opportunities and positions continue. But I also get concerned about those figures which reflect those people who are dropping out of looking for full-time work. I also get very concerned when we fail to analyse that a number of new jobs created have been generally, and in particular since the beginning of this coalition government, in the part-time and casual area—that we are seeing a reduction in the number of full-time jobs being created. It is that increased casualisation of the work force which is of grave concern.I do take issue, though, with a point of Senator Synon's. She referred to the creative, the new and the innovative ideas of this government when it came to addressing the issue of employment. I could happily sit here all day—not necessarily all day, but for some time—and listen to Senator Synon expand on those new ideas. I did not get any new ideas, however. I think one of the strongest criticisms that many people in the community and certainly the Australian Democrats would make of this government is its absolute failure to invest in new industries—sustainable high-tech industries of the future; the kinds of industries where long-term, meaningful and sustainable jobs will come from, not just for young Australians but for a range of people in the community.We know, too, that the link between job placement and increased employment opportunities in the future is with education and training opportunities. One of the biggest bugbears that the Democrats have with this government is the government's failure to recognise that link, or at least underestimating that link and the important role that education and training at any level plays in this process. Jobs of the future will be in these highly skilled industries. That is why Australians, but in particular young Australians, need access to education and training opportunities. They do not need disincentives, be they psychological or financial, put in their way. In relation to education and training opportunities, they do not need barriers such as fees, high levels of unmet demand and, as we have seen today, changes to income support arrangements, in particular for students and young unemployed people, that make it at times almost impossible to enter into those institutions.I will confine most of my remarks this afternoon to where Senator Synon left off, and that is in relation to the employment tendering processes under this government. I am glad that Senator Synon expressed her satisfaction with the probity and accountability of these particular processes, because the Democrats are not satisfied. In fact it is with deepening concern that the Democrats have watched, if you like, the unfurling and now unravelling of the government's privatisation of the employment services market. We believe that this service is fundamentally flawed, both in operation and in implementation—the losers being the unemployed and the established and committed service providers for whom this government continues to display an appalling lack of regard.We believe it is the sad truth that the more one looks into the operation of this scheme the more flaws one finds. At every level there is evidence of poor policy and poor decision making, and every day more comes to light. Today I have to add to this ever-growing list. I wish to highlight in particular the government's contravention of its international treaty obligations and its apparent lack of probity. The International Labour Organisation convention was ratified by this country in 1949; yet it appears that the current government either has forgotten about these provisions or hopes that the rest of Australia has forgotten. An examination of these provisions show that the employment tendering scheme certainly contravenes the spirit and the letter of that convention. I draw the attention of the Senate to article 1 of the convention which provides:Each Member of the International Labour Organisation for which this convention is in force shall maintain or ensure the provision of a free public employment service.When we look at the proposed operation of what remains of this public service, Employment National, we can see that it has been established on a commercial basis. It is to compete with other service providers and, as such, will be bound to maximise profits at the expense of the service it offers.I note the minister has been very keen to assert that facilities will be available for those who need them, yet the facts are that the intensive FLEX 3 assistance will only be available to the long-term unemployed and other facilities will only be available to those on unemployment benefits. That leaves an estimated 420,000 people, such as those in part-time and casual employment—a growing proportion of our work force as I have pointed out—and the spouses of employed persons re-entering the job market without free access and assistance, in clear contravention of this article.The minister is wrong in his view—and it is a view to which only he and his government appear to adhere—that the provision of touch screen services at Employment National, and Senator Synon referred to this, and other service providers will equate with one-to-one assistance. Furthermore, it is important to remember that Employment National has been set up on a commercial basis and of course it is going to be expected to operate on this basis. What incentive will exist for it and other service providers to list vacancies on their databases for universal access when they will not receive any payment when they are filled? These organisations will only be paid for the positions which they fill themselves, and it is an accepted view within the industry that the degree to which the positions will be listed will be very limited indeed.Furthermore, the minister has claimed repeatedly, in lieu of formal safeguards to protect difficult to place unemployed persons, he will rely on `verbal assurances' given by providers. We heard the following comment from the minister on yesterday's AM program:Drake have said that if they come to us we'd consider taking them for that job along with everyone else who was the best person for the job.This is clearly no assurance whatsoever.As these organisations will be operating on a for-profit basis and will be paid only for the people they place, what incentive exists for them to provide services for the disadvantaged or the long-term unemployed whom they may not consider to be the best person for the job? They are the hard people to place. There is nothing to stop these organisations from culling the people who come to them and providing services only to those whom they believe will be attractive candidates for employers.Again we see the government in breach of its obligations under this convention, because part 2 of article 1 provides:The essential duty of the employment services shall be to ensure, in cooperation where necessary with other public and private bodies concerned, the best possible organisation of the employment market as an integral part of the national programme for the achievement and maintenance of full employment and the development and use of productive resources.The minister is certainly adept at making grand assertions, but I would defy even him to continue to claim that the outcome of the tender processes actually fulfils this part of the article. The most cursory glance will reveal serious anomalies and, unless action is taken to rectify this, the ramifications for those requiring the services will be all too severe.Examples abound of established, experienced organisations—particularly community organisations and those with community links—losing out to organisations with little or, in some cases, no capacity to deliver the services for which they have been contracted. Organisations such as the National Skillshare Association have been decimated—an absolute tragedy—under this tendering process. Their years of expertise in service provision has been deemed of less worth than individuals with new ideas and approaches. I take on board Senator Synon's concerns about some of the former Labor government's projects—O15TIERNEYSenator Tierney—Too right!3I6Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA—Do not get ahead of yourself, Senator Tierney—in particular the Working Nation programs. There were flaws. However, what this government did was not only cut $1.8 billion over about three years out of labour market cetera programs, but it did not even give any credence to the notion that well-targeted labour market programs do assist and that there were organisations that had very good track records in the provision of places and the placing of those people who were unemployed, be it for short or longer periods of time.The Democrats have always acknowledged that that process needed time to be not only properly established, but evaluated. Then the idea of evaluation is to keep the good bits and get rid of the bad bits; not to get rid of the whole process altogether. We are fans of targeted labour market programs and that is why we were absolutely stunned and outraged when this government made such sweeping cuts to labour market programs in the 1996 budget, together with just about anything that involved education or training.The minister is wrong when he claims that the previous system failed the unemployed. Skillshare is a great example of a successful program and successful placements in a very difficult sector. It managed to place more than half the people registered with it. I believe in its last year of operation it placed around 60,000 people. Since 1989 the association has placed more than one million unemployed people. That is a staggering amount when we think of the number of people who have been unemployed in this country.Yet this was not good enough for the Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs or the minister, and 250 of their 300 providers did not win contracts under the new scheme. When we look at how the new scheme is set to operate, we see examples such as Lismore which has one of the highest rates of youth unemployment in the country, as Senator Tierney would know. Yet, instead of ensuring that services are maintained in that area, they have been cut. Innovative, successful programs—some provided by ATSIC and designed to assist the indigenous population in the area—have also been cut.Prior to the adoption of the new scheme, there were 56 clients per case manager in the area. Now there is only one case management provider, Employment National, and each case manager will have around 200 clients. This is unworkable, unfair and, even more sadly, it is a situation replicated throughout the country.Article 2 of the convention provides:The employment service shall consist of a national system of employment offices under the direction of a national authority.The Australian Democrats would like to know why organisations with proven expertise lost out to those with little or no experience and why Employment National in particular was awarded a disproportionate amount—42 per cent—of the most lucrative work available, often at the expense of the smaller providers.The outcome of the tendering processes has seen the creation of an anti-competitive market in which Employment National, with its huge market share—which stretches to a monopoly in some places, such as Lismore, which I mentioned—is poised to clean up. It has been handed the employment market on a plate. So we are seeking an assurance from the minister that the government has not handed Employment National the employment market on a plate so that it can be privatised at a future time. It is fattening up Employment National so it can be sold off, an act which would be in direct contravention of the provision that I just described in article 2 of the convention.Moving through the convention, article 3 is yet another provision which the government has chosen to ignore. It states:The system shall comprise of a network of local and, where appropriate, regional offices, sufficient in number to serve each geographical area of the country and conveniently located for employers and workers.The $1.4 billion worth of cuts in funding to this sector has resulted in a decimation of the public provider. In May 1996 in my home state of South Australia, the CES operated a network of 31 offices and had 700 staff. Despite the fact that today's employment figures—Senator Synon was happy to talk about today's employment figures—reveal that the rate of participation in the labour market in South Australia is the lowest for years, with almost 5,000 people having given up looking for work, as of 1 May Employment National will have less than 100 staff in 17 locations. A number of these will be merely office shopfront locations and operations. Of particular concern is the effect that this will have on rural and regional areas.The commercialisation of the market has seen a parallel urbanisation of service provision with providers choosing to establish themselves in the more lucrative urban locations. The result of this has been that places such as Coober Pedy, Ceduna, Naracoorte in the south-east, rural areas and some regional areas with high levels of unemployment, will no longer have employment service providers.Given the contempt with which the government has approached this whole process and the contempt that it has displayed in its obligations towards the unemployed and the service providers—the list goes on—it is perhaps not surprising that an analysis of the tendering process has thrown up a few other anomalies.The Democrats have discovered something that we consider perhaps a serious breach of due process. I am advised that Drake International, which, of the private tenderers, received the most lucrative contract, has strong links with the former leader of the Liberal Party, Dr John Hewson. I am advised that Drake International has as its managing director a Robert W. Pollock, who was also the top executive of ABN Amro Holdings, a company listed as the global ultimate name of Drake International Inc. This company is also the principal shareholder of ABN Australia Ltd, which lists Dr Hewson as its chairman.What we are asking for, Senator Tierney, is an explanation from the government as to the links between the receipt of this contract worth millions of dollars and the former leader of the government's party.EU4O'CHEESenator O'Chee—You've been taking lessons from Senator Faulkner.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order!3I6Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA—We actually consider this quite a serious matter, quite a serious anomaly. When this anomaly is added to the list, part of which I have already outlined, the need for this government to justify its election process grows even more pressing. We will no longer be satisfied with vague assertions provided by the minister because his verbal assurances have been shown to be empty. The claim by his department today that our concerns and those of the community at large are `irrelevant nonsense' just add to the growing body of evidence that this government, far from demonstrating any real commitment to addressing the unemployment problem, chooses instead to show its contempt for the people who are hurting the most from its reforms.There have been a number of comments made here today about the difficulty of addressing the unemployment issue. Nobody fails to accept that that difficulty exists but I do find it very hard to take when someone like Senator Synon stands up and says that her government has implemented new and innovative measures. Far from it. We have seen a return to some of the oldest and most antiquated, outdated measures in the book. When a government legislates for a compulsory work for the dole program, it even legislates the word `dole'. For the first time so far as I know—not only in the history of this nation but perhaps internationally, as senators may be able to advise—it legislates the word `dole'. It enshrines that in the legislation, with all its negative connotations. That is not a new response. That is not a response to what is a new problem in many respects.Unemployment may be old but the newness is that our work force has changed. We know that traditional entry level jobs, especially those occupied by young people, have disappeared. Our work force has been fundamentally restructured, and people have to accept that. That is where labour market programs come in. That is where we accept that skills and training and access to education at all levels is mandatory. It is necessary to ensure that people do have the skills with which they can compete in a work force and, increasingly, a global work force. As for these new ideas, I cannot see any forthcoming from the government.To make one final point, when I talk about stereotypes surrounding the word `dole', Senator Synon in her contribution could not leave it alone. She could not resist the chance to perpetuate some of the negative stereotypes that we hear about young people. I swear that I get so sick and tired of the dole bludgeoning that goes on in this place by some decision makers and some members of parliament who find it much easier to use young unemployed people as scapegoats for the fact that their failed, miserable, outdated policies to solve unemployment in this country are just not working.16:36:00974Crowley, Sen RosemarySenator CROWLEYZF4SAALP00—There are many points that need to be taken up in this very important debate brought into this place by my colleagues Senator Carr and Senator Mackay. The first point I want to take issue with is Senator Synon's claim that the tender process for the new employment agencies is all above board and par for the course, that it has been followed completely according to procedure, and that it should be ticked off by an independent assessor. We have had questions in this place about a Mr Khadar Roude, a person who has actually been approved—for a significant number of dollars—to assist with the employment placement of unemployed people. That man has no office, no facilities, no staff, no anything.9L6MACKAYSenator Mackay—No phone.ZF4Crowley, Sen RosemarySenator CROWLEY—Yes, no phone.O15TIERNEYSenator Tierney—Can't you find anything but this? You keep re-running this. The guy is setting up a small business, you should welcome that.ZF4Crowley, Sen RosemarySenator CROWLEY—One would have to say, on the evidence of just that one, you would hope the department, let alone the assessor, would be very concerned about what could have possibly gone wrong. Just a soupcon of doubt would have helped, Senator Tierney.O15TIERNEYSenator Tierney—How can you condemn him before he even starts work?ZF4Crowley, Sen RosemarySenator CROWLEY—Because there are clear examples of that sort—and more than just one—across the nation that makes this side of the house, the Labor Party, very concerned about the process. Nobody would be more appreciative than I if they got it right. You, in the corridors of power and in the rooms of your colleagues in the ministry, are concerned too; you know how bad this looks. You know that some of you have gone, before the Labor Party has got there, to raise concerns about the process—and properly you should raise those concerns.What everybody in this place is united about, surprisingly, is that we would like to see every Australian who wants a job to be able to get one and to work. That is what we know Australians want. There is no doubt at all that any figures that show there is increased employment should be accepted with the celebration that that means, though—as I will go on to do—those figures need to be very closely examined to see whether they tell the whole truth or just a sort of truth.First of all, let us be concerned that you, in turfing out the old order for assisting with employment and replacing it with a new one, do not have the comfort and the assurance that the process you have gone through is entirely successful or satisfactory. More than most in this place, Senator Tierney, you know that. I believe that is going to be a matter of major concern and that we will need to keep a very close eye on precious taxpayers' dollars that may already be pouring down the gurgler. They will not be assisting people get jobs.O15TIERNEYSenator Tierney—You wasted $1.7 billion on Working Nation.ZF4Crowley, Sen RosemarySenator CROWLEY—Senator Tierney, that is the next point that I wish to come to. You know full well—and I can hear you saying it now—that you have to give these things time to work.O15TIERNEYSenator Tierney—Over two years we found out what happened with Working Nation.ZF4Crowley, Sen RosemarySenator CROWLEY—The Working Nation program was in place and was beginning to bite. As any number of people would say, in the analysis of that program—O15TIERNEYSenator Tierney—Two-thirds back on the dole queue!ZF4Crowley, Sen RosemarySenator CROWLEY—Yes, clearly there were some bits that were not as good as others and there were bits that were hugely successful. You did, with a stroke of the pen, a $1.8 billion slice through the whole lot and it has gone—the good along with the not so good.O15TIERNEYSenator Tierney—There was a lot of not so good.ZF4Crowley, Sen RosemarySenator CROWLEY—It was never given time to make an effect. You should be very cautious about your own programs, Senator.O15TIERNEYSenator Tierney—Tell us about your new work opportunities.ZF4Crowley, Sen RosemarySenator CROWLEY—You should be the first down there arguing that any tender process that is ticked off and that allows a person with absolutely no infrastructure at all to be granted a very large amount—I believe $1 million—to assist unemployed people to get jobs is a joke; a sick expensive joke at the taxpayers' expense. For any people who are looking for jobs we should hang a sign out that says `Don't go there'. They will find that out themselves very quickly.O15TIERNEYSenator Tierney—How do you know that? You are smearing people in this place. He hasn't even started yet.ZF4Crowley, Sen RosemarySenator CROWLEY—I want to pick up on the very important points raised by my colleague Senator Mackay, which were also picked up on by Senator Stott Despoja—that is, if you are not on benefits you are not going to be given the sort of assistance you need. Before I come to that—and I will come round to it again, I hope—I want to pick up on why I am concerned about these unemployment figures. While I am very glad that they are down, I am concerned that they are masking a large number of people who are now so discouraged they are no longer being counted.O15TIERNEYSenator Tierney—Tell us about your record over 13 years. What was your average over 13 years? Eight and a half per cent over 13 years.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Tierney!ZF4Crowley, Sen RosemarySenator CROWLEY—You should listen to this, Senator Tierney, because for all the years we were in government more and more women in this country exercised their options to go out to work to earn money to assist their families, to assist their children into education because they saw the value of it. They picked up on our government's program to move retention rates from 37 per cent to over 80 per cent in our years in government. You, Senator Tierney, with your interest in education, ought be barracking for that because it was a brilliant success. Those women who went out there to work to assist their families—O15TIERNEYSenator Tierney—You didn't have anything to do with it. They did it in spite of your government, not because of it.ZF4Crowley, Sen RosemarySenator CROWLEY—It is funny how the story changes post election, isn't it, Senator? Those women went to work, and they were able to do that because they were backed up by a government committed to and insisting on seeing they had the support—for example, child care. An article in the Herald Sun of Tuesday 10 March, entitled `Women give up on the hunt for work', shows that women are giving up. They are one group of the discouraged jobseekers. They are one group that no longer have that high participation rate which made it so difficult for the figures to come down for the Labor Party when it was in government. But it certainly meant that many people enjoyed the opportunity of working in this country. As David Luff writes:Almost 120,000 job-seekers, mostly women, stopped looking for work last year believing there was no hope of finding a job.But the Federal Government yesterday chose to ignore the figures, preferring to concentrate on a rebound in job advertisements last month.About 3.7 million adults were not working compared with the 9.2 million people in the labour force . . .About 1.2 million said they were not actively looking for work or not available for it even though more than half wanted work.The number of discouraged job-seekers—people not doing anything to find work and people not receiving unemployment benefits—stood at 118,400, with women accounting for two-thirds.This is one of the things that is not obvious in those figures but is a critical part of the story that needs to be told. Whatever else we do, we ought be telling the truth here; we ought be telling the whole story, the complete story. We should be aware of how many people are discouraged and not being counted any more. Women are very high in that category.You have had a policy since you came into office of encouraging women out of the work force because you know that is one way in which you can drop the figure for unemployment, and it is beginning to happen. It is happening, in particular, because of another mean-spirited decision by your leader to take away the operational subsidy for community-based child-care centres and to peg the assistance as the fees rose. In most centres those fees have gone up about $20 per week per child and many families cannot afford it any more. Women who use child care are now dropping out of the work force. Those women are not able to be counted here. They have given up; they are discouraged.There is another group of people associated with child care whom you do not count. I heard yesterday—though I always qualify these figures as to whether they are exactly the latest and most accurate—that 48 community-based child-care centres around this country have now closed under your government. If you allow an average of 10 women working in each child-care centre, that is 480 women who are on the unemployment list because of your policies to see the closure of community-based child-care centres. It is not only the families who use child care, but it is also the workers who provide the child care. They are not counted in your list. They are discouraged. They are not out there either.There is another very important group that is not being counted. These are the people who are 55. We have got a lulu of a challenge for them: if they want to be on unemployment benefits, they have to run down any savings, in particular superannuation. I wonder why, if you became unemployed at 55, you would want to say, `Right, that's it; I'm out of work for the rest of my life. Nobody will take me on. I might as well give up now.'Most people at that age expect and hope that they will be able to come back into the work force and would prefer, as they could in the past, to go on to unemployment benefits and seek further employment. These days, if they do that they are going to be eligible for unemployment benefits only if they run down their superannuation and retirement benefits, so many of them shrug their shoulders and become retired so they can actually have access to and maintain the nest egg they have worked all their lives for. They are not counted anymore. They are off the list. That is a very interesting little way in which you score how many people are unemployed.That goes for the 55s who are now retired so as to save the nest egg that so many of them have been working 20 or 30 years for—taxpayers of this country putting their pennyworth in and saving for their retirement now being forced to retire at 55 if they want to have full access to it. You are a mean lot over there, a mean, nasty lot.What is interesting is, this is the government that said it would be the government to make people's lives comfortable and relaxed. Any time you go into the community that is not what they tell you. I heard one of my Liberal colleagues saying the other day that you should not worry too much about unemployment in Canberra and about all those public servants who have lost their jobs because over a year and a half or so almost all of them will have got some other employment—as though that has fixed that.Have they ever stopped to speak to somebody who has lost their job? Do they understand what lack of confidence, what kind of anxiety and what kind of pressure that builds on their families and that, when these people finally do get another job, they are actually not the same kind of assured and capable people they were before they lost their jobs? It is as if there is a transition with no measurement of the gap, no measurement of the pain and suffering, no measure of the loss of income and no measure of the anxiety—and that is the word I keep hearing in the community. `We're not sure where we will be, Senator.' `We're not sure we will still have a job.' `We're not sure that we will be able to keep on paying for the mortgage or the borrowings.' You know that.Senator Natasha Stott Despoja also talked about the increasing and dramatic casualisation of jobs and the move to contracts—12-month contracts in particular for many people. Senator Tierney and I are in the process of concluding an inquiry into the status of teachers in this country. One of the things that was raised with us time and time again was the difficulty of being a first year graduate teacher, if you are lucky to score a 12-month contract to become a teacher. You know and I know—and they certainly told us this in bucketloads of evidence before the committee—that a 12-month contract is no way to move into your new profession with some kind of optimism that this year you will be really learning as you go, but that will be all right because the year after and the year after that you will be able to build on and improve those skills.No, what they say is, `We are very concerned about whether we will even have a job as a teacher in 12 months time.' Worse than that, many of the people who would be a mentor for those young teachers have been saying, `It is hard to get too enthusiastic for a young teacher who may not be there next year and who may not even be a teacher at all next year.' It is a double if not a triple whammy. That is the impact of these short-term contracts, as just one example from the comprehensive evidence we have taken over the last few months of the negative impact of that.Many of those people may be counted as employed this year but they do not have any confidence that they will be employed for the longer term. They are the sorts of people who are frightened to get into major investment. The figures show there has been a very significant drop in confidence not only in the business community but among the purchasers of this world. We saw those figures just the other day—I notice Senator Synon was not quoting those at us today—a massive drop in business confidence and consumer confidence, and I have just stated one of the reasons.Even the people in the work force do not have the confidence they will be there with any long-term prospects; they are anxious about the on-going security or income that they can expect. It is more so if they are in casual work. We saw this, too, all through the evidence brought before child care inquiries; not only from the child care point of view but from the the viewpoint of families and particularly women who are working casually Monday, Tuesday this week and Thursday, Friday next week.How on earth are they going to manage their lives on that? The difficulty of those rotating hours are tough enough; the casualisation and the lack of security about even being able to have to rearrange your life in a couple of months is also pressurising those people. The stress and anxiety builds up and more and more those women, in particular, are retreating from the work force. They are discouraged; they are not counted.I would urge a caution about wild celebration of today's figures. We know that what they reflect is a very significant drop in the participation rate of women. You know it, and what is more you cannot actually boast it because it would make clear your unspoken agenda to remove women from the work force. I have been saying this for two years. I was laughed at when I first said it; slowly the picture becomes patently clear. There is no denying it. They are out of the work force, they are discouraged from looking for work and now they are not even being counted. You cannot acknowledge it because, first, as I say, it would indicate your mean, miserable, limited, mean spirited agenda and, secondly, you would have to acknowledge the success we had in our term in a large part of our government—Government senators interjecting—ZF4Crowley, Sen RosemarySenator CROWLEY—Oh, laugh. We had a huge participation rate.O15TIERNEYSenator Tierney—And a huge unemployment rate—8½ per cent average over 13 years.ZF4Crowley, Sen RosemarySenator CROWLEY—No, for a brief time, Senator. Nobody more than this Labor government hurt about that. There was no boasting about it, Senator. There was a great regret.YW4MACDONALDSenator Ian Macdonald—Are you going to support Mrs Scott in Oxley?Senator Mackay interjecting—ZF4Crowley, Sen RosemarySenator CROWLEY—Senator Mackay reminds me of one of your colleagues from Queensland, Senator Ian Macdonald, who reckons—of course, I would never use such language—that the best place for women is `barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen'. You remember him, don't you? And you remem ber Senator Newman who said last year in answer to a question from Senator Ray, I think it was, that if women behaved like the Defence Department did in being wasteful it would be right for her husband to push her out of the home. We know the Lyons Forum's approach to women. We know what some of your colleagues have said on the record. We know the problem you have about women who are not at home looking after children. You have never really celebrated it, and here it is: women are out of the work force. Women are not being counted because they are discouraged. You have cut back child-care centres. The work force is reduced by those 480 to 500 women who do not have their jobs any more. There are all those thousands of families who can no longer go to work or participate because they do not have access to the wide distribution of quality child-care services that were instituted under our government.Those are the major points that I wished to raise in my contribution to this debate. The points raised by Senator Synon have been more than dealt with; particularly her point about the tender process. I do believe that you should be very cautious about the success of that. You can be assured that we will be watching very closely. Senator Synon said that all the unemployed people would have touch screen services. That will be the thrill of their lives. What people want when they are looking for a job is somebody to talk to. It is nice to know, as a first stop, where you might be able to find a job but they are not going to find full satisfaction and assistance from touch screen services. What is this? An up market way of reading the newspaper? If the list of job vacancies is improved, then that is a good thing.Your proposals for helping people get jobs are really scandalous, particularly the proposal that if you are not on an unemployment benefit you are not going to be eligible for that kind of assistance. Your claims have been refuted very comprehensively by Senator Mackay. They have been refuted again by Senator Natasha Stott Despoja. Unemployment remains a major concern. We are seeing many people discouraged, defeated and retreating from the work force. They are no longer counted. Be careful of your figures.16:56:00978Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEYO15NSWLP10—I would like to start by congratulating Senator Mackay for raising a serious issue—unemployment. We have spent several days in this parliament listening to issues that do not concern this nation. We have spent several days muckraking because of this policy vacuum in the ALP—these policy airheads on the other side who have absolutely nothing to say on the issues that concern this nation, and the most important is unemployment. We have been on this debate now for 1½ hours. Has anyone in this chamber or anywhere else heard in that debate an original idea from the other side, from Senator Mackay or Senator Crowley or any of the other apologists for their failure for 13 years to do anything about this problem?Their failure is shown up by the fact that, on average, unemployment over 13 years was 8½ per cent. That is their brilliant record. And that is only the official rate; it does not include the underemployed—the part-time people who wanted a full-time job and could not get it. It did not include the ones who had given up altogether. Senator Crowley was talking about the participation rate. Of course there were a lot of people who were not participating who would have liked to. To put them all in, the evidence from the long-term unemployment inquiry that I chaired three years ago was that you have to roughly double your rate. So your record over 13 years was about 17 per cent unemployment in reality in this nation.Don't let us start on youth unemployment. If you go to your figure it becomes horrendous. You left government with 29 per cent youth unemployment. I remember reading in a book in 1985 about the terrible state of youth unemployment in this country—25 per cent in 1985. You were in government for 11 years beyond that and what happened to it? It went from 25 per cent up to 29 per cent. What a great record. And Senator Mackay comes in here today and raises the issue of unemployment—after 13 years of miserable failure. What did we hear from the Labor Party? Did we hear a grand plan for solving this problem? I do not think anyone in this chamber on this side did. We were all straining and listening for solutions from the ALP to unemployment in this country.What are your options? Are you going to continue with our program? From what you are saying today, probably not. Are you going to go back to the failed Working Nation program, where you wasted $1.7 billion, where your placement rate was one-third? You took the others, the two-thirds left, all those hundreds of thousands of people, trained them and there was no job; trained them, no job. Are you going to do that? Is that your option? There is a third option, isn't there? There is a grand new vision of the ALP for unemployment in this country. Well, where is it? We have had in this chamber all your shadow ministers and your leader here going on for days on issues that are irrelevant to the people of Australia. I looked up into the gallery today and saw all those people looking down as you were just muckraking, destroying people's reputations, and they must go away thinking, `What on earth is happening to this country if these people have anything to do with the running of the country?' You are not focusing on the serious issue.Congratulations, Senator Mackay, here you have actually returned to the serious issue, but you are a bit on the back foot with it, given 13 years of failure. You are also on the back foot because of the record of this government over the last two years. When we came into power, unemployment in this country was 8.7 per cent. It is now, on today's figure, 8.1 per cent. That is a steady drop over that time. You obviously put up this motion this morning on the basis that the unemployment record was going to be bad. Well, didn't you get sprung.9L6MACKAYSenator Mackay—No.O15Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEY—Did you know before everybody else? You really got caught because it showed the success of the government policies continuing and the continuing decline in unemployment in this country.Senator Synon has already indicated the success of the Howard government program. Let me take you quickly through some of that success. There has been a 2½ per cent drop in interest rates.9L6MACKAYSenator Mackay—What about growth—what's the growth rate?O15Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEY—You mentioned growth. Growth is the highest of all OECD countries at 3½ per cent. What was your average over 13 years? Two per cent was your average, and we have nearly doubled that since we have got into government. You had this great plan that you were going to get unemployment down to five per cent. What a joke. With the policies that you had brought in, you were never going to get anywhere near that, particularly when you had the budget deficits that you were running.What this government has done has saved Australia from the disaster you were leading it towards. Just imagine with the Asian economic meltdown if we had continued over the past two years with the failure of your government. Where would Kim Beazley's $10.5 billion be now under your policies? Would it be $12 billion last year and $14 billion this year? Do you think that is unrealistic? I remember the 1992 deficit being over $19 billion. You are capable of these big numbers, and under your government it would have continued. As we move into this Asian meltdown, what it is showing is the strength of the Australian economy under the policies of this government.9L6MACKAYSenator Mackay—What's the foreign debt? You don't mention that, do you?O15Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEY—You can bark away over there, Senator, but it will not change the reality. Today's figures prove that those very sound policies in what it has done with the budget and what it has done with interest rates have set the business climate to actually reduce unemployment. So there is your secret. It is not going back to your failed Working Nation policies; the secret is to set the policies in such a way that you actually get unemployment coming down. Does it work? Look at what has happened over the last two years: 8.7 per cent down to 8.1 per cent sounds like a success to me. The policies of this government are working.Let us look back at some of the failure of your record. I do not think we can emphasise these points too strongly. We need to keep telling the Australian public again and again about the way you failed over 13 years. The one who really leapt to your defence today, greatly to my amazement, was Senator Stott Despoja, who started quoting international conventions; incorrectly, as it turns out. She was claiming that under the 1949 ILO convention you had to provide public providers for the unemployed. She was actually mixing up `publicly provided' and `public provided'. It does not necessarily have to be run by the government but it has to be public and open. She was confusing those terms and trying to mislead the Senate into thinking that we are breaking some ILO convention. We are not.She also went on to defend the CES. What a brave senator, defending the record of the CES. What was the success rate of the CES, the centrepin of the previous government's unemployment policies? Didn't they do well. It was 20 per cent. There are the jobs up on the board: go and have a look and go out and find one. It was just not a successful approach. Moving into case management was a good move. We have always supported that. Moving on to what we are doing now is even more successful. I think Senator Stott Despoja should perhaps come back sometime and acknowledge that.I said I was going to remind the Senate of the record under the last Labor government. If we go back and look at what happened to the long-term unemployed, we see that the Labor government really tried to put a lot of effort in and put a lot of money in. That is what it was all about, putting in money and being showy. Calling something Working Nation: what a joke, calling it Working Nation. What irony. What an insult to the unemployed, making out that, if you institute such a program, people are actually going to be working. We know that after the program, with $1.7 billion down the drain, two-thirds of them were not working at all.As a matter of fact, Wollongong, under Working Nation at its height, had a very famous visitor, Kim Beazley. He went and spoke to the youth of Wollongong—a very brave man for doing that, I thought. It was publicised and it was televised nationally. Kim Beazley was up there saying, `We have got these training programs for you to get work.' The audience replied with one voice, `But there are no jobs.' What they said in Wollongong at that time was that they had the best trained dole queues in the world. They get into a training program and try to find a job—no job. Another training program, try to find a job—no job. Then another training program. The best trained dole queues in the world.That was what the fault of Working Nation was; it was assuming that if you trained people there would be jobs around. The whole thing failed. What we have instituted with the economic policies that I mentioned before is an approach that actually creates real long-term jobs.The disillusionment with the former Working Nation program was brought home very starkly to our committee that was inquiring into long-term unemployment. I quote from one of the unemployed, who said:It is more comfortable to remain lying in the gutter than to be picked up and dropped back in it again.That is what he said. That is what happened to him. They picked him up and gave him some training, but there was no job so he was back where he was before. He found that a shattering and disheartening experience. As we went around the nation we found the phase of this program was just a matter of churning people in the dole queue. What we really should look at are the outcomes of this program.What was the employment growth in full employment under Working Nation and under the Labor government in its last years? Between 1991 and 1995 there were 6,000 net new full-time jobs. What happened in the recession was a collapse in full-time jobs. We came out of the recession and full-time jobs started to increase again, but if you look over those four years, the great achievement of the Keating government was the creation of 6,000 new jobs—net. What a disgraceful record. With $1.7 billion that was the outcome. That is why, in March 1996, two years ago, you were tossed out in such a devastating way. It was because of the failure of a whole range of programs but, in particular, programs like this one.When we look at the fine grain of the programs under Working Nation we see that the story gets worse. Senator Mackay did say that some of the programs worked particularly well and I am sure some of them did. But there were appalling examples of failure and waste. Probably one of the worst was `new work opportunities'—$170,000, on average, per successful placement. Money was pumped into this right until the federal election, particularly up in my area. The member for Paterson, Bob Baldwin, and I went out to a graduation ceremony for one of these groups. They had been working for six months in this new work opportunities program. Bob Baldwin asked them at the end, `Hands up those who have found a job after this scheme.' Out of the 25 people in the program, one hand went up. That was a terrible failure. It was very disillusioning for the people involved and it was a terrible waste of government money.What we have done is move away from that sort of program. California based research looked at how those Working Nation type programs were operating in one county and compared them to another county where work for the dole type programs were operating. What they found in that research was that the work for the dole type program was working better because you were putting people straight into work. Instead of training where there are no jobs you put them into work, they build up the confidence and they get new skills. When they compared the two groups at the end of this time they found that the people who were in the work for the dole type programs were more likely to go on to training or more likely to find work.We have had a very successful initial start to this pilot. The party opposite opposed it fiercely, set up an inquiry and came down against it, and then suddenly did a backflip when they discovered that the vast majority of the public out there supported it, seeing it as something very necessary and something that would give young people hope. For that reason, this government is expanding this program.The people opposite today have spent a lot of time doing some sort of analysis of the new programs we have adopted. They have gone on from work for the dole to Job Network, spending a lot of time spreading gloom and doom, saying that terrible things are happening under Job Network. It is funny that they keep bringing up this example in western Sydney.8O6O'BRIENSenator O'Brien—We don't think it's funny.O15Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEY—In this chamber and also up in the estimates I think I have heard this example brought up five times. It is funny that they keep bringing up this one example. Could it be because you cannot find any other examples? That is what I expect.Let us go back and analyse this example. Maybe this poor fellow out there, whose name you have absolutely blackened, will fail now after what you have done to him on the public record. This fellow has not even started. He cannot start until 1 May, yet you are condemning him before he starts. He has had experience in the area and he is setting up a new business. What a terrible thing to do—set up a new business! He is setting up a new business to give the unemployed in western Sydney the chance for a job. You should give him a go. You should give this program a go, because your program totally failed. This one, which has incentives in it for people to work and incentives to employ people, is one that I feel, having looked at this area very thoroughly for seven years, has a great chance of success. You should give it that chance and stop trying to condemn it before it even starts.17:13:00981Hogg, Sen JohnSenator HOGG7L6QLDALP00—I rise regularly when this issue of unemployment comes up because it is an issue dear to my heart. It is an issue that should be on the table, but when Senator Tierney says that the government policies are working I do not think Senator Tierney has looked at the figures or understands what is actually going on.While Senator Tierney quoted the 8.7 down to 8.1, he did mention, as did others, the issue of the long-term unemployed people in this nation. Let us now look at the record and let us look at it through the ABS statistics of January 1998 on the labour force, from which we can get some comparative idea of what is really happening—not something that is fudged or fictional but something that is actual. If you look at long-term unemployment—and that is where the greatest problem is in this nation—the problem is getting those people who have been out of work for a long period of time back into the paid work force, because it is getting them back into the paid work force that will give them dignity.If one looks at the table headed `Long-term unemployment', which is table 26 at page 33 of the ABS labour force survey, January 1998, one sees what is happening in reality to the long-term unemployed people. It is worthwhile to compare what has happened from December 1996 to December 1997. If one looks at the seasonally adjusted figures, one will see that there has been a change in that period of time for people who were unemployed for between 52 weeks and 104 weeks—that is, between one and two years—from 99,400 to 125,600. So what we see is a substantial increase in the number of people who were long-term unemployed between one and two years.If what Senator Tierney and other speakers from the government said was correct, then we would be seeing their policies reducing that level, but there is now a burgeoning increase. If one looks at the long-term unemployment figures over 104 weeks—that is, two years or more—one will see that there is a slight reduction from 129,200 to 127,700. But the reason for the slight reduction is that many women who were in that area have left the job marketplace. That comes out quite clearly in the ABS statistics—that the people who have left the marketplace are women. Of course, there is an improvement in that area, but it is worse for men. You find therefore that the government's policies of trying to address long-term unemployment are not working at all; they are at the margins. They are affecting those people who are unem ployed for the under 52-week period. Whilst I am glad for anyone who gets a job, and I would applaud anyone who can find employment, the real problem that is confronting this nation is not being addressed.If one then turns to page 34 in the same document, one finds, again, an age break-up of the unemployed persons. It is table 27, `Unemployed persons: duration of unemployment by age, marital status and full-time/part-time status, January 1998.' If one looks there—and there is no year to year comparison—one finds that there were 157,000 men who were unemployed for 12 months and over throughout this nation. However, when you go to the figures for two years and over, you find that there are 84,900. When you put it in raw statistics such as that, we are talking about a major problem.When one looks at the figures for the females, one will find that the figure for those who were unemployed for 52 weeks and over is 81,200, and the figure for those unemployed for 104 weeks and over is 39,200. So we are seeing substantial numbers of people who, in reality, are out there unemployed, and the policies of this government have not, in any way, placed any dent in those statistics. If one looks at the collective statistics there, one finds that we have a figure for people who were unemployed for 52 weeks and over totalling 238,300 and for 104 weeks and over, 124,100. Those figures cannot be denied, and the government has to do something about it.That was its promise to the Australian people—to do something about the evil called unemployment. These are the people who have been struggling the longest and the hardest and all we see are increasing numbers—not for the time of the previous Labor government but increasing numbers that have come about during the current term of this government. We are not talking about something that is an invention on my part; we are talking about something that is in black and white, and that shows the problem we have in this nation. I only wish that this problem would be addressed by this government and not treated in the flippant way that I believe it is on many occasions.The second thing that I wish to address this evening is the issue of the employment services program. There are some real problems with what has happened in the tendering process for the employment services program. Senator Tierney expressed dismay that he has heard only one story, so I think it is only fair that we broaden the number of stories surrounding this issue of the granting of the tenders for the employment services program.I am going to look at three areas. I am going to look at the area of small business—and, of course, the government claims to be the champion of small business—at community organisations where they have missed out, and also at the feelings of some of the church organisations which were equally involved in this area and have missed out.It is interesting that the first case arises from a person whose company was unsuccessful in the tender process. I am talking about a company called About Service, which is a small business. It had nine years experience being a private provider and employed 11-plus employees. I am told that it had a placement record in the order of 65 per cent, when its direct competitors had a placement record of 40 per cent. By any test, one would think that this was a reasonable provider, an experienced provider, run by a small business operator in the area of the employment services market.This company had high hopes in the tender process. It had experience, credibility and background in the area. If one had looked at an article in the January 1998 publication of Southern Star, a local press based in Brisbane, one would have seen that there was a little bit of hope from this company about the future. The article said:People seeking work now have a choice of applying for jobs through a CES or private job brokerage.Remember that this is pre the tender. The article went on to say:About Service senior case manager Christine Polzin said the number of unemployed that the centre dealt with had trebled since the changes had been implemented with about 400 jobseekers now on its books. The company had a track record in this area. So much so that the local federal member, the member for Griffith, Graeme McDougall, was supportive of it—understandably and rightfully so. He wrote to the principal of the company on 21 January this year in respect of the tendering process that was going on at that stage because it was emerging that the process was not necessarily kosher. He said, `The minister is aware of the problems associated with the tendering process.' So the federal member for Griffith has admitted that the government, through the minister, was aware of problems associated with the tendering process. At the end of the letter he said:We share a joint goal, which is to place job seekers into positions which are rewarding to both the employer and the employee.There is no doubt that there is a great deal of sincerity in supporting this small business operator within the seat of Griffith.Let us look at the employment service record of About Service and the jobs notified over the last four weeks at About Service at their office at Browns Plains. Let us look at jobs filled over the last four weeks as opposed to jobs notified: jobs filled, 20; jobs notified, 30. Their track record is very good indeed. For the About Service Coorparoo office: jobs notified over the last four weeks, 11; jobs filled over the last four weeks, eight. Their placement record was impeccable. It was up with any of the other private service providers and community service providers in that area.And what happened? What happened was this company failed to get anything out of the government tender process. Let me assure you: the principal of the company was definitely not a supporter of our side of politics. We are looking at a company of which 11 of its employees were affected—not one or two. It was a small business that had been built up and operated over a number of years.I will tell you what the principals of the company had to say on 23 January in respect of the process. By this stage, there was a veil of secrecy; there was a cone of silence. Not even the Chief, 99 or 86 could find out what was going on. In the letter to me, they wrote:Our research and our own investigations and enquiries have revealed that other companies have been offered contracts in areas where we are currently providing employment services. These companies have not been operating in our geographical location before, yet we, as an existing, established, long-term and effective provider of these services, have heard nothing.We had a process at this stage where those who had the knowledge, the understanding and the ability were seemingly going to be denied the right to access the market that they had previously well serviced. They went on to say:In all of our dealings relating to Government tenders over a 9 year period, we have never experienced such a situation before.This was a small business trying to play their part out there and they were getting this treatment. It further said:It appears that the larger organisations, and those perhaps with some political affiliations, seem to have been notified of their success first and if they decline to accept the offers submitted to them, then and only then, will other tenderers be advised and offered the leftovers.This was a company trying to plan their future. It gets better—or worse, depending on which way you look at things. It said:We are certainly aware that there were no guarantees of gaining acceptance of our tender, but naturally we are bewildered and confused simply due to the total lack of any formal advice regarding our tender outcome.It went on to tell of the sort of uncertainty that has been created by the government in this process. It said:. . . we still have 3 months left of existing contracts to fulfil and we can do nothing about this potential loss of our experienced staff.The fear for these people was that they would lose their staff as a result of not knowing whether they were successful or unsuccessful in the tender process. Everything at that stage had led them to believe that they were unsuccessful, and ultimately they were proved to be correct. They had existing contracts which went to May that they would not be able to fulfil. It is an example of small business being attacked by this government. The letter continued:If we have been totally unsuccessful and were advised on a fair and level playing field, this we could accept. They could accept a fair and level playing field, but they did not feel they were in that situation. The letter continues:We believe that what is happening currently, needs serious investigation and must be rectified immediately to remove the unnecessary uncertainty that exists.That is, because they did not know whether or not they were going to be successful. The letter continues:Our company will be laying off 4 of its Administration staff on Tuesday 27th January, again through no fault of their own, or that of our Company but we do need to take some pro-active measures, in anticipation, before it is too late.Because of our excellent past track record with employment outcomes, we would find it extremely difficult, if not unbelievable, to accept that we were not successful in any way.So there is not just one out there; there are more.We go then to a later fax that I received from that very same company—and by this time they had some idea of the tender process outcome. The fax states:I could not work out, now that successful tenderers have been announced, why, with the exception of Employment National, 95% of existing providers were not granted their current geographical sites.The fax continues:Existing small providers, like ourselves, who only contracted for their original sites and no others, are out altogether and have received no sites whatsoever—It goes on:In effect, what we now have is a brand new start in the employment market at the expense of the unemployed and the 1000 existing providers. This new initiative will not be totally effective for some 4 to 6 months and statistics on performance will not give a clear indication of its success or otherwise for perhaps 12 months by which time there is only 9 months of the tender period to go until it all goes to tender again. It defies logic! If the Government wanted radical change to assist the long term unemployed better, why should you opt for something like this which is so risky and unproven!That is from a provider—a provider who had been in the industry and who had suffered the decimation of losing their business right from under their feet. The fax continues:Every current training provider expected that Employment National would get approximately 40% of the Flex 3 tender, but of the 700 companies and community organisations that were excluded they certainly did not expect that only 200 organisations would get the rest. Let alone that most of these 200 organisations would have no previous track record at all—None whatsoever. So the disappointment is real, and it is out there.Just briefly, I will mention the skillshare down at Wynnum. The skillshare at Wynnum was a community based organisation. It had done a marvellous job in that area of helping the unemployed, as can be seen by the statistics alone—and I have them here: for 1989, 261; 1990, 334; 1991, 369; up to 1996-97, 310. The statistics show that this organisation was active out there in the marketplace, helping. Of course, what we will see there now, because of the demise, will be 11 jobs gone. Then you have the Catholic social response: 20 jobs gone. (Time expired)17:34:00985Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—Madam Acting Deputy President, I wish to make a personal explanation. I claim, under standing order 191, explanation of speeches, to have been misunderstood in this debate. May I make a brief statement?10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Patterson)—Yes, the honourable senator may proceed.3I6Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA—Thank you. Senator Tierney in his comments has misunderstood my position and, as a consequence, his attack on it was unfounded. The Democrats do appreciate the distinction between a public provider and the public provision of services. It is disingenuous, therefore, for Senator Tierney to claim that there will be an increase in services provided under the new system simply because there will be a greater range of organisations providing them. Furthermore, I did not, at any stage, indulge or actively defend the CES, as he claimed. The Democrats, however, do support the provision of high quality, free and universal employment.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator Stott Despoja, you are only able to explain how you were misrepresented, not to debate it. Have you finished?3I6Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA—I will not introduce further material, interrupt or debate, as per the standing order. Thank you.17:35:00985Crane, Sen WinstonSenator CRANEUW4WALP10—I too join this debate on the motion now before us, which relates to industrial relations and employment policies. I think it is rather ironic that just over three to four years ago we were on the other side of the chamber leading a similar charge, if you like, trying to prove that there were better ways to deal with unemployment. But the difference between then and now is that, under the coalition government, there have been very significant improvements to the rates of unemployment. For a while, I just want to deal with that trend. So let us look at the figures.I do think this debate requires a little bit of balance, rather than the political point scoring that continually goes on in this place. Unemployment is a serious problem. It is something that most, if not all, Australians have been seriously touched by through their family or friends—but certainly most of us, from time to time, have been touched through our families.We find that there has been a certain theme in unemployment going right back to the 1980s coming into 1981, before the previous Labor government got into power—it got particularly bad in 1983 when they came into power—and then we had those horrific years 1992-93-94, when it was consistently stuck at over 10 per cent and went to 11 per cent.I believe that the difference between our approach and that of the Labor Party really and truly is one of philosophy. We believe that the best way to deal with unemployment is to make sure that we have a strong economy, successful businesses and stimulus for small business; and in time—and I think the facts are starting to prove this—job availability will go up.I particularly want to look at this aspect—because I believe it is important. We can see that from 1994 to 1995, before we came to power, unemployment dropped from 10.5 per cent to 8.9 per cent. We can all quote figures to suit ourselves; we can take a month, we can take two months. That is not my intent.The point I want to make here is that the drop in unemployment at that time was almost entirely due to what occurred in Western Australia after the Court government came in. Looking at the figures during that time, and anyone can analyse them very carefully, we went from having the highest level of unemployment when Carmen Lawrence was the last of a series of Labor premiers—it was at well over 11 per cent; I think it got up to 12 per cent at one stage—but, by the end of 1992 and going into 1993, Western Australia's unemployment rate had dropped to the lowest in the country. That was almost the total take-up of the jobs that were created during that time for all Australia. That was stimulated almost entirely by the opening of some great mining projects in Western Australia and getting some of the red tape out of business's way and allowing business to expand and employ people. That is what our philosophy is.I want to work through some of these issues. I have been on inquiries and wrestled with these problems, as Senator Tierney mentioned. I wish to comment particularly on a couple of contributions made here today: firstly, that by Senator Rosemary Crowley, who referred to the very unfortunate comment, she claimed by a Liberal, about there being only one place for women—barefoot, pregnant and back in the home, or words to that effect.Senator Crowley has not thought very hard about that. She obviously is not aware of what happened on 11 March in the other place. Apparently Janice Crosio, the member for Prospect, interjected on Minister Moylan, saying, `Go back to the kitchen.' It went a little further than that. Minister Moylan came back and spoke on indulgence—and I do not understand all the detail of the standing orders of the other place and how they operate. Mr Beazley, the Leader of the Opposition, Australia's alternative Prime Minister, got himself involved. He said:The minister is known on our side of the House as `Go back to the kitchen Moylan'. That came from your leader. Mr Beazley also said:That is why that was proposed. `Go back to the kitchen Moylan' is your nickname—B36NEALSenator Neal—Madam Acting Deputy President, I raise a point of order. This debate is not an opportunity for members of the chamber to make reflections on those in the other House. I think the senator on his feet should restrict himself to the debate at hand. Clearly he is in breach of the standing order that prevents senators making reflections.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Patterson)—There is no point of order.UW4Crane, Sen WinstonSenator CRANE—The point that I was making in this very important debate is that it is pretty damn dangerous to throw stones in glasshouses because they will bounce back at you.Returning to the issue of reducing unemployment, regardless of what is said we know that since we came to power there has been a gradual trend downwards in unemployment—and there has been further good news today. It is not going down as fast as I or anyone on this or the other side of the chamber would like, but it has been consistent and sustained. That is important. I believe that it is going to remain consistent and sustained.B36NEALSenator Neal—You have economic growth of below four per cent. It will not go down.UW4Crane, Sen WinstonSenator CRANE—You can rabbit on all you want but you have had your go. You are a policy-free zone over there.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator Crane, direct your comments through the chair. You will get into less trouble if you do.UW4Crane, Sen WinstonSenator CRANE—Madam Acting Deputy President, I will take your guidance. I must inform you that we have a policy-free zone over there. Those opposite come in here and rabbit on and carry on, but they never tell us what they are going to do. Are they going to go back to Working Nation? That is what I want to know. A week or two ago former Prime Minister Bob Hawke apologised to the Australian people for the recession that we did not have to have. There are all sorts of things we can talk about.B36NEALSenator Neal—So what is your objective in terms of employment levels? What is your target?10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator Neal, you are not helping by interjecting.UW4Crane, Sen WinstonSenator CRANE—The people over there presided over the most sustained, long-term period of unemployment in this country. We have set about endeavouring to do something about it through sound economic policy and management. Had the previous government not run up that enormous $10.3 billion deficit, we could have made even more remarkable inroads into unemployment than we have. It is my very strong view that, with sound policy and development of initiatives as the Australian accounts come back into balance, unemployment will fall even more.Let us look at a few of the issues which are very important in dealing with these things. One of the principal reasons we had that sustained period where unemployment ranged from nine to 11 per cent is that during the 1980s our average inflation rate was eight per cent. Today that rate is down to nearly 1.4 per cent. Business, the people who employ—small business in particular—know that they are now in a very sound inflationary position in terms of expanding their businesses and making good economic decisions which will create sustainable long-term jobs—not mickey mouse jobs.The next point I would make relates to the impact interest rates have had—again, a very important point—and what is happening in that arena. Looking at the current situation as against that when we came into government, mortgage rates were 10.5 per cent and today they are around 6.5 per cent. For a $100,000 mortgage that is a saving of $80 a week. Taking another measure which I think is very important and will allow people to invest more and help the business community, the average mortgage is around $120,000. That represents a saving on interest rates of about $100 per week or the equivalent of a wage increase of $150 a week. It is these policies that I believe will allow Australia to be in a sound economic position to continue to, albeit slowly, make inroads into unemployment.One of the other initiatives which is very important and which will protect Australian jobs and create them—this needs mentioning, because it did not get much coverage at the time—is our new anti-dumping measures. Those on the other side and in the other place had some 13 years to deal with anti-dumping. I have a document which I will read so that I get the facts absolutely right. It states:Under the new arrangements interim duties can be imposed after 60 days. The time taken to reach a final finding will be reduced to 150 days and the Anti-Dumping Authority, ADA, will be abolished.That means it will be put under one roof. That is absolutely crucial in terms of protecting Australian industry, both in dumping and in countervailing situations, from subsidised imports coming into this country. There is no doubt at all that some of the products that have come into this country have hurt Australian businesses greatly and they have created situations where there have been a job loss, a very sad and unfortunate job loss. So we are seeking, in terms of dealing with that particular issue, to get that impediment out of the way and secure Australian jobs and increase the number of Australian jobs.I will now go through a couple of other points that I think are very important in terms of protecting Australian jobs and making sure that we get our equal share of what is available around the world, in particular in Asia. I repeat what I said in here last week: I am not one of the doomsday merchants about Asia and what has happened there. I think it is quite tragic the way some of the journalists have decided to write it up. Maybe that is a little unfair on the journalists. It is some of the commentators who talk to the journalists about the situation in Asia. At the end of the day, we are going to see two things in Asia. The first is a much stronger financial system, which is absolutely crucial to those people doing business with Asia. The other is that, although it will be a slower growth rate, it will still be in the four per cent to seven per cent area, which will be close to leading the world as we move beyond the year 2000.These things are all very good indicators in terms of the employment position. Australia's part in this, and I must highlight this, is our support with the IMF in terms of assisting those particular countries not through gifts, not through grants, but through loans and currency swaps, assisting them at this time through their financial difficulties. These are the types of initiatives we require in this country to sustain—and I emphasise that very strongly—the slow improvement that we are attaining as far as unemployment is concerned.I particularly mention a little bit about training. I have my office in East Victoria Park. Parts of that electorate have some of the lowest socioeconomic areas of any electorate in Australia. It is the Swan electorate. The member is Don Randall. It was formerly held by the current Leader of the Opposition, whom I mentioned earlier. We were sick and tired, and so were the young people coming in, of the fact that they repeatedly said, `I've been trained once; I've been trained twice; I've been trained three times.' Some of them had been trained up to seven times and still did not have a job. All the training in the world will not get them anywhere unless there is sound economic policy behind it.Having said that, I firmly believe that the more training, the more assistance and the further we can upgrade our education processes around the country, the better. It is absolutely essential that we do that. But at the end of the day there must be some hope. There is nothing more soul destroying than to be trained two or three times and still have no hope of getting a job because you have been trained in the wrong areas.Senator Neal interjecting—UW4Crane, Sen WinstonSenator CRANE—You were the absolute specialists at it. You trained them without a job at the other end. It is absolutely crucial in terms of this that the two are matched. There is a very important initiative in terms of that, and I will quote from a press release. I was going to make a little comment with regard to one component of Senator Stott Despoja's contribution today when she was critical of the work for the dole scheme. My experience with the people involved with the work for the dole scheme is that they are very proud to be able to do something in return for the assistance they are getting from the Australian taxpayer. That is my experience with the people I have talked to about it. I quote from an article today in the Advertiser . It is headed `Work for the dole scheme: a stepping stone to success. Youngsters break into the jobs world'. I will just read the first paragraph. It states:A north-eastern suburb's work for the dole scheme has been so successful that three of the 14 young participants building bus shelters have landed jobs within three weeks.It then goes on to talk about the training in terms of their ability to build the bus shelters; their ability in joining, sanding, welding, design and all the various other things they are learning. That is a very good endorsement of the fact that there is a place in Australian society today for a work for the dole scheme, and that proves it. It is not the be all and end all. It is not the only answer. That is why we have introduced some flexibility into the system for people seeking jobs.Regardless of what anybody in this place might think, not all CES offices worked as well as they might have. During that unfortunate period when we had a lot of over-45-year-olds lose their jobs, the last place they wanted to go or be seen to go, because of the psychology of it, was to a CES office. Whether we like it or not, that is a fact of life. Whether you think it is right or wrong, that is a reality. In introducing some competition, some alternatives, you are going to allow a much wider scope of people to have varying opportunities and hopefully—and I believe there will be—increased opportunities.I want to come back to where I started in the remaining two or three minutes I have. There is no question that unemployment is a very difficult issue for Australia. It is coming down, albeit slowly. It is a very difficult problem for most Australians. As I said earlier on, they have been touched by unemployment through a partner, their family, in some instances their parents. It is very traumatic. But there is one last thing that I wish to leave in terms of this particular debate and how we can effectively assist in this process, and that is a piece of legislation that is coming up here very shortly. I refer in particular to our 10-point Wik plan and the importance of getting that legislation through this parliament. Once that is through and we can get rid of some of the deficiencies—and I am not talking about the High Court decision here; there is nothing being removed in the 10-point plan Wik legislation that was delivered by the High Court—it will get rid of some of the inventions that were created by the former Prime Minister, Mr Keating, and the then Senator Gareth Evans, who is now in the other place.The most appalling of those inventions is the right to negotiate and the way that has been handled. I heard from one of my Aboriginal friends the other day who said, `It sounds all right on the surface, but it is the overlapping claims, the extortion, the fact that whoever happens to negotiate gets all the money, buys their four-wheel drive vehicle and then skips town.' I am sure Senator Chris Evans over there has heard these stories in terms of what is happening on the ground. It has held up project after project throughout much of Australia, and particularly in my state of Western Australia.There are many economic opportunities there if they are allowed to be opened up and developed. The 10-point plan is part of doing that. It will increase the opportunities for jobs; it will increase exploration, mining and exports—these are the things work will come from. Finally, it is also absolutely crucial in terms of investment on an existing property that we get certainty back into title. This issue exists and has made a lot of people very cautious about what they do at this particular time as far as their investment and expansion are concerned. Where titles for exclusive possession have been granted, that should be made absolutely crystal clear in the legislation. We should get rid of this nonsense of claims over private land and claims over land where exclusive possession has been granted.17:55:00989Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—I wish to make a couple of quick points in the five minutes available to me in this general business debate. I am pleased to join the debate because it is about an issue that is crucial to the future of this country. I want to say that I think it is important that we stress what has happened in terms of the new employment services market that the government has sought to establish. The point I want to stress is that the government introduced a bill into this parliament last year to set the framework for the new market that they hoped to establish. That bill was debated and passed by the House of Representatives and was then debated in the Senate.But before the debate in the Senate had finished, the government withdrew the bill. The government was not prepared to accept the amendments already passed by the Senate and, rather than allow the Senate to complete its work and review what had occurred and take on board the opinions of the other senators in this chamber, it essentially spat the dummy, withdrew the bill and said, `We don't need you. We can set up our new employment services market without you; therefore, we're not going to accept any amendments, any criticism, any critique, any improvements to this bill.'I want to make it very clear to those listening and put on the record that the government will wear this market. The government established this market without parliamentary approval and without accepting the parliamentary processes in shaping that market. We made a range of criticisms about the government's proposal. We accepted in principle the move to a more competitive market. It reflected a development that had started under the previous Labor administration of allowing private companies to be involved in the employment market. But we had a range of concerns about the new market arrangements, about how it treated the long-term unemployed, about the role of what is now the old CES and very important issues that went to privacy and freedom of information concerns—a whole range very serious public policy issues.The government would not accept the scrutiny of the parliament. The government said, `No. We want to do it our way; we won't accept any parliamentary scrutiny.' So it withdrew the bills and proceeded down this path of establishing a new employment service market in a quite reckless manner. At the time, this was in the hands of Senator Vanstone, who was the minister at the time. But I understand that it was driven straight out of the Prime Minister's office. She took her instructions from the Prime Minister's office. They had reimposed learner's plates on her office and her activities as the minister then, and they deliberately decided, straight from the Prime Minister's office, that they would go without any parliamentary processes into this new employment services market.The government will have to wear this grand experiment because the parliament was not given the opportunity to scrutinise the bill as it was. It was not given the chance to debate the issues pertaining to this new employment services market. The criticisms that will come home to roost must be worn and accepted by the government and the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs (Dr Kemp) because they refused to have any parliamentary input into this market. I want to make that very clear. At the moment it may not seem such an important point but, when this whole thing unravels, I think Dr Kemp in the other House and Senator Ellison in this chamber are going to have to wear the responsibility for what will be a gigantic failure, a real let-down of unemployed people and something that will lose the Commonwealth millions of dollars because the whole thing is a shambles.The new employment services market has been organised without parliamentary approval. It was foisted upon a department that has had its staffing and leadership culled so that it is not in a position to undertake this sort of experimental development. I think we face a real disaster that will reflect, firstly, on the unemployed people in this country and will have much wider ramifications as well.The other point I want to make is that there are serious legal concerns about this market because of the lack of parliamentary legislation underpinning it. I think the whole thing will collapse under legal challenge. I think the government will be severely embarrassed when this whole thing crumbles. In the couple of seconds left to me, I seek leave on behalf of Senator Denman to have her speech in corporated in Hansard. It has been checked with the other side.Leave granted.The speech read as follows—Senate Speech—11th March 1998I wish to rise and speak in particular on the issue of the difficulties faced in the region in which I live in getting unemployment down.I want to speak generally with regard to Tasmania and a little more specifically at times, of the Mersey-Lyell statistical division which includes a lot of the West and North West Coasts and includes the cities and towns of Burnie, Devonport, Zeehan, Queenstown and Strahan.I mention the Mersey-Lyell region because that has the highest unemployment rate in Tasmania. In the last labour force data released in March 1998 the unemployment rate was 15.1 per cent representing 8500 unemployed while Tasmania's rate was 12 .5 per cent. So there is a significant difference in the North West & West Coast figures compared to the rest of the State.It was revealed this week that seasonally adjusted job advertisements for Tasmania fell 8.6 per cent opposed to a national increase of 5.1 per cent. With the release of those figures there was also some positive news that the underlying trend for Tasmania was for slow continued growth.Unfortunately the rate of growth is too slow and not fast enough to offset contraction in the areas such as engineering and paper making to industries that are located on the North West Coast. As an example those areas are struggling to compete or to have had significant decrease in demand because of factors such as the Asian meltdown or the fall in the global price of gold.It is important to realise that I do not believe our Tasmanian businesses as a whole are inefficiently managed.I believe, from discussion with many in the Tasmanian business community, that we are equal to our mainland counterparts in capturing markets in an increasing competitive market. Many Tasmanian businesses have had to remain lean and mean because of our geographical isolation. We have for example some very competitive building contractors who are constantly winning tenders in Melbourne and Sydney.It's not surprising that Tasmania is in a prolonged recession.Tasmania has lost in the order of $160 million from the State economy since the Federal Liberal Government took power.It is difficult to reconcile that loss of revenue with the comments of the Prime Minister, Mr Howard, when he said he was committed to looking after the special needs of Tasmania.This shortage of money has not assisted in what is the most critical issue for the nation and for Tasmania that of unemployment.Tasmania is not benefiting from this crusade by the Federal Government to balance the books.Not only has the State Government had costs shifted to it by the Commonwealth without the compensation in return but it is the individual Tasmanian who has been personally stung. Be it by a decreasing of benefits or increasing of costs or even by the decreasing level of service provided by their local community funded organisation.Those individual increases in costs includes things like increased child care charges, increased individual contributions for legal aid, and increased nursing home fees.As we know Tasmania does rely heavily on federal grants with 53 per cent of all Tasmanian public sector income being provided in the way of federal grants.With this cost shifting as part of the deficit reduction strategy there has not been, in my view an adequate reciprocation of the obligation by the federal government to reduce proactively and urgently the high levels of unemployment that is crippling Tasmania.There has been a neglecting in my view of introducing positive measures that could assist Tasmania.Especially when some traditional areas within the economy are significantly without those holes in the economy being adequately filled by those growth areas.In saying that Tasmania, has had, some recent successes over the last decade that have flown in the face of a slowing and stagnant economy such as our seafood industry. I have a very high regard for the entrepreneurialism of Tasmanian business men and women that have led to those successes, such as our vibrant seafood industry.I just don't believe this Federal Liberal Government even recognises the extent of the unemployment problem in Tasmania.Tasmania is experiencing poor economic growth, but I do not believe that Tasmania's economic structure is any worse than some of the Mainland states.In saying that I also believe Tasmania has some unique problems that impede our aim to possess an expanding economy.Tasmanians are being told that benefits will accrue, once all the reforms are in place in the areas such as competition, the financial system, industry policy and industrial relations. What's hard for the unemployed of Tasmania to stomach is that the economic and industrial reforms agenda being followed by the Federal Government may to some degree lead to a raising in productivity and living standards in the Mainland cities but that they and the rest of regional rural Australia suffers.Now is the time for the Federal Government to reciprocate in providing greater levels of direct public investment with a full engagement of local government and regional bodies to select projects.I do not believe that a program of infrastructure should have to be of national significance but rather should have clearly defined objectives that are linked solely to Tasmania and tackles unemployment.I have received a letter recently as no doubt all my Tasmanian colleagues have received from The Master Builders' Association of Tasmania regarding an infrastructure project seeking funding under the Federation Fund. It is for an AFL stadium. I understand very well the significance of such a project to the building industry but do not believe with all the political involvement in the decision making process that such a project has on the face of it a demonstrated capability to be a balanced, sustainable development.That is probably a harsh view because the aim of the fund is to generate employment and stimulate development in the lead-up to the centenary celebrations of federation. The building of such a stadium would probably do that but then how can we be assured that it will generate employment once it is established and especially soak up those unemployed in the Mersey-Lyell region.There is certainly a strong sentiment in the North West of the State that an infrastructure project of such magnitude like an ALP Stadium deserves to be located in the region with the highest unemployment rate.Documents99110000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Patterson)—Order! There are 209 government documents listed for consideration on today's Notice Paper , and there is a limit of eight minutes for their consideration. To expedite the consideration of the documents, I propose, with the concurrence of honourable senators, to call the documents in groups of 10. Documents called in each group to which no senator arises will be taken to be discharged from the Notice Paper . Documents not called on today will remain on the Notice Paper . 992Debate resumed from 22 October 1997, on motion by Senator Hogg:That the Senate take note of the document.18:05:00992O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—I want to refer to a press release that I received today from ACIL Economics, which was purportedly authorised by the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business (Mr Reith). It purports to reveal an aspect of the ACIL Economics report that was delivered to the government in 1996 and which this government declares as commercial-in-confidence and cabinet-in-confidence. The press release says that the aspect of the report that it reveals has been authorised to be revealed by Minister Reith.I have also stated in this chamber—and it has not been denied—that this and other reports which are the subject of returns to order in this chamber and which have not been produced to this chamber and are allegedly commercial-in-confidence have been revealed to the National Farmers' Federation.I call on the minister responsible in this chamber, Senator Alston, to come in here and to produce for the Senate the documents which are the subject of the returns to order which relate to the waterfront consultancies, as I will call them, and which are the subject of the particular press release that I received from ACIL Economics today. If it is good enough for these items to be given to the National Farmers Federation or for parts of them to be given to the media for the purpose of the government's argument, then it is good enough for the Senate to have all of those documents. I would suggest that it is time the minister came in here and complied with the order of the Senate, stopped dribbling pieces out to suit his own purpose and came clean with the Senate. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted; debate adjourned.992Question resolved in the affirmative on the following orders of the day without further debate during consideration of government documents. National Residue Survey—Report for 1996-97Telstra Corporation Limited—Report for 1996-97Australian Hearing Services—Report for 1996-97Australian Institute of Family Studies—Report for 1996-97Australian Securities Commission—Report for 1996-97Health Insurance Commission—Report for 1996-97Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security—Report for 1996-97Dairy Research and Development Corporation—Report for 1996-97Australian Maritime Safety Authority—Report for 1996-97Murray-Darling Basin Commission—Report for 1996-97Rural Adjustment Scheme Advisory Council—Reports, including a report on the Rural Adjustment Scheme—1996-97National Board of Employment, Education and Training—Australian Research Council—Report, including the Board's comments—Reviews of grants outcomes—Atmospheric and oceanographic sciences 1989-1993 (Report No. 22)Department of Health and Family Services—Reports for 1996-97 including reports on the administration and operation of the Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service, the Therapeutic Goods Administration and the Australian Government Health ServiceCommonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO)—Report for 1996-97Aboriginals Benefit Trust Account—Report for 1996-97Private Health Insurance Complaints Commissioner—Report for 1996-97Australian Institute of Health and Welfare—Report for 1996-97National Registration Authority for Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals—Report for 1996-97Airservices Australia—Report for 1996-97Indigenous Land Corporation—Report for 1996-97Forest and Wood Products Research and Development Corporation—Report for 1996-97Aboriginal Hostels Limited—Report for 1996-97International Air Services Commission—Report for 1996-97Australian Pig Industry Council—Report for 1996-97National Native Title Tribunal—Report for 1996-97—AddendumAustralian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation—Report for 1996-97 Consideration of motion to take note of the following government documents adjourned without debate.National Museum of Australia—Report for 1996-97Department of Communications and the Arts—Report for 1996-97National Gallery of Australia—Report for 1996-97.Treaties—Text together with national interest analysis—Bilateral —Agreement between the Government of Australia and the International Bureau of the World Intellectual Property Organization in relation to the functioning of the Australian Patent Office as an International Searching Authority and International Preliminary Examining Authority under the Patent Cooperation Treaty of June 1970.Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies—Report for 1996-97Australian Competition and Consumer Commission—Report for 1996-97National Film and Sound Archive—Report for 1996-97Australian Film Finance Corporation Limited—Report for 1996-97Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation—Report for 1996-97Australian Film Commission—Report for 1996-97Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation—Report for 1996-97Pig Research and Development Corporation and Pig Research and Development Corporation Selection Committee—Reports for 1996-97Australian Pork Corporation—Report for 1996-97Australian Archives and Advisory Council on Australian Archives—Reports for 1996-97Australian Film, Television and Radio School—Report for 1996-97Australian Industrial Relations Commission and Australian Industrial Registry—Reports for 1996-97National Occupational Health and Safety Commission—Report for 1996-97Affirmative Action Agency—Report for 1 June 1996 to 31 May 1997Remuneration Tribunal—Report for 1996-97ADI Limited—Report for 1996-97Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority—Report for 1996-97Department of Primary Industries and Energy—Report for 1996-97.Australian Safeguards Office and the Chemical Weapons Convention Office—Report for 1996-97 Genetic Manipulation Advisory Committee—Report for 1996-97Department of Transport and Regional Development—Report for 1996-97Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation—Report for 1996-97Meat Research Corporation—Report for 1996-97Department of Social Security—Report for 1996-97.Australian Federal Police—Report for 1996-97, including a report pursuant to the Complaints (Australian Federal Police) Act 1981 .Australian Science, Technology and Engineering Council—Report for 1996-97.Employment Advocate—Report for the period 2 January to 30 June 1997.Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission—Report for 1996-97.ANL Limited—Report for 1996-97.Australian War Memorial—Report for 1996-97.Australian Broadcasting Corporation—Report for 1996-97.Australian Heritage Commission—Report for 1996-97.Wet Tropics Management Authority—Report for 1996-97.Defence—Report for 1996-97.Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal—Report for 1996-97.Defence Housing Authority—Report for 1996-97.Australian Institute of Marine Science—Report for 1996-97.National Competition Council—Report for 1996-97.Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research Act—Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research—Report for 1996-97.Industrial Relations Court of Australia—Report for 1996-97.Australian Political Exchange Council—Report for 1996-97.Privacy Commissioner—Report for 1996-97 on the operation of the Act.Pharmaceutical Benefits Pricing Authority—Report for 1996-97Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand—Record and resolutions—11th meeting, Darwin, 8 August 1997Cotton Research and Development Corporation and Cotton Research and Development Corporation Selection Committee—Reports for 1996-97.Sugar Research and Development Corporation and Sugar Research and Development Corporation Selection Committee—Reports for 1996-97. National Environment Protection Council and NEPC Service Corporation—Reports for 1996-97.Nursing Home Standards Review Panels—Reports for 1996-97.Anti-Dumping Authority—Report for 1996-97.Landcare Australia Limited—Report for 1996-97.International Monetary Agreements Act and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (General Capital Increase) Act—Australia and the World Bank—Report for 1996-97.International Monetary Agreements Act—Australia and the IMF—Report for 1 May 1996 to 30 April 1997.Committees994994994Debate resumed from 5 March 1998, on motion by Senator Bishop:That the Senate take note of the report.18:08:00994Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—I have spoken on this report already and would like to make some further comments on it at a later date. At this stage, I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted; debate adjourned.994994Debate resumed from 5 March 1998, on motion by Senator McKiernan:That the Senate take note of the report.18:09:00994Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—I rise to speak today on the report from the Senate's Legal and Constitutional References Committee into sexuality discrimination which was tabled in this place on 2 December last year. I was not able at that time to speak at length because of the pressure of business at that time of year.I would like to start by using the words of another and more famous Democrat, former US Attorney-General Robert Kennedy. In 1966, he spoke the following words that have been frequently quoted, reminding us that:Each time someone stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope and crossing each other from a million different centres of energy and daring, those ripples build a current that can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance.I hope this report is part of those ripples and that current that will help reduce and remove the oppression that currently exists in the Australian community. I address this report as the Australian Democrat spokesperson on sexuality and transgender issues. It has responsibility for the piece of legislation that was the central focus of this committee report. I hope to see that legislation debated in the Senate at some stage soon to build on the good work that this committee did and that this report does.As a political party, the Democrats have been pro-active in championing the rights of lesbian and gay Australians since our inception in 1977. The very first branch meeting of our party was held in the lounge room of Christopher Byron Carter—an openly gay man who was also a founding member of the party and who later served on the staff of former Senator Don Chipp and someone who has a strong legacy in the Democrats.It is important to remember that 1977 was only 21 years ago, but Australia was a very different place in lots of ways. With the exception of South Australia, at that time, consensual same sex activity was a criminal offence in every state and territory of this nation. Prosecutions were relatively common as was the regular pastime of police randomly raiding gay and lesbian social venues and blackmail, humiliation and intimidation of patrons was a common occurrence.It is important for the Senate to note that within the last 15 years in some places we are still imprisoning mainly gay men for being simply who they are. It took the riots at the first Mardi Gras in 1978 to set gay law reform firmly on the political agenda in Australia. I acknowledge the hard work and dedication of activists everywhere in pursuing reform. I was very proud to be part of the very large and enthusiastic Democrat contingent that helped commemorate the 20th anniversary of that civil rights movement with 700,000 other people in Sydney on 28 February this year.Regardless of the reforms and the advances that have been made in the last 20 years, complacency is certainly not warranted, as this report so strongly indicates. As recently as August 1994, Victorian police raided the Commerce Club in Melbourne—a well-known gay and lesbian night club—and unlawfully strip searched 463 of its patrons. To our great shame, the Tasmanian parliament only decriminalised same sex activity last year, with the Western Australian parliament still to catch up with the rest of the country. It still remains the fact that your human rights will be different if your are lesbian, gay or transgender depending on where you live in this country. I would like to take the opportunity to mention the work of my state colleague the Hon. Helen Hodgson MLC, who has introduced decriminalisation and anti-discrimination measures in Western Australia.If Australia is to retain its rightful place amongst the community of nations as a country which promotes human rights, then we must do so in a clear, unambiguous and universal way. Amnesty International has documented the international position in their publication Breaking the silence last year by illustrating that torture and political imprisonment are not uncommon in many countries of the world simply on the grounds of sexuality.It remains a source of some puzzlement to me that some people are perfectly comfortable with the notion of anti-discrimination on the grounds of race, gender and disability but seem to get all up in arms when we talk about applying the same principles on the grounds of sexuality or for people who are transgendered. No doubt many senators will, like me, have been inundated in the last week or so by letters claiming that the Sexuality Discrimination Bill, which was the main focus of this inquiry, constitutes everything from an endorsement of paedophilia to a concerted attack upon religious teachings. It is clear from the tone and phrasing of these letters that a smear campaign or a misinformation campaign is under way. It is also clear that the writers of these letters have, at the very least, been told some very severe misinformation about this legislation or have failed to read or understand its contents or its scope.One of the most important things about this inquiry, and its report, was the opportunity it gave lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people to put their case—for them to have a voice—and that is one of the great roles that Senate committees can play. Those people overwhelmingly informed the committee that their experience was one of significant disadvantage in many aspects of their daily lives. In areas of employment, more than 45 per cent of lesbians and gay men have experienced discrimination in the workplace including the loss of jobs because of their sexuality. Almost one-third report harassment in their schools and universities. One-fifth report inadequate and inappropriate medical treatment, while a staggering 70 per cent have had some experience of being verbally abused, threatened or bashed in a public place. In the Sydney area alone, over 35 men have been murdered in the past 10 or so years because their assailants thought they were gay. Clearly, this is an issue that must be addressed.Some concern has been expressed over the inclusion of transgender people in this bill. The status of being transgendered is a medically recognised condition known as gender dysphoria. It does not include transvestitism or what is often called cross-dressing. I am sure that senators would agree that it is inappropriate and unfortunate that some people have chosen to ridicule persons who are receiving medical treatment for a medical condition, and the report recommended that the bill's aim be to protect those people who are gender dysphoric. After all, who amongst us would like to be treated the way we as a society treat gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Australians every day of the week? The sort of treatment that those people are subjected to came out very strongly in much of the evidence that was given to the committee.It is important to emphasise that the bill that the report addresses does not force the Christian or other religions to change their beliefs or to employ gay, lesbian or transgender people. As with other equal opportunity laws in Australia, the bill includes certain exemptions including religious organisations and churches. It does not place children at risk. It does not make unlawful acts lawful. It does not require that homosexuality be taught in schools. It does not force anyone to accept anyone else's lifestyle. It does not legitimise any specific sexual practices. It does not allow people to cross-dress in schools or at work, or allow biological men to compete in women's sport. It does, at a basic level, allow people who have been unfairly discriminated against on the basis of their sexuality or their transgender status to achieve a level of justice.In essence, it seeks to protect all Australians, including heterosexual people, if they have been wrongfully dismissed or refused employment, accommodation or access to goods and services, or have been disadvantaged while attending or applying to educational institutions on the grounds of their sexuality. At its core this bill is basically about ensuring that all Australians are given a fair go through universal legislation common across the country to enable that to occur.I am quite proud of the Democrats' role in this report and in the legislation that it examines. It is a serious look at the conditions faced every day by gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people in all parts of Australia. I will close by noting a 1986 statement from the Catholic church issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith entitled The pastoral care of homosexual persons. It stated:It is deplorable that homosexual persons have been and are the object of violent malice in speech or in action. Such treatment deserves condemnation from the church's pastors wherever it occurs. It reveals a kind of disregard for others which endangers the most fundamental principles of a healthy society. The intrinsic dignity of each person must always be respected in word, in action and in law.When enacted, the sexuality and gender identity bill, which this report deals with, will implement that very important principle. I commend the report to the Senate and to the Australian public for their consideration. I know it has been a very popular report as there have been a lot of requests for copies and for information about its contents. It is a great report, and I hope everybody takes the chance to examine it.18:19:00996O'Chee, Sen BillSenator O'CHEEEU4QLDNP10—I was intrigued by the comments we have just heard from Senator Bartlett because it seemed like he was talking about a completely different report from the one that was, in fact, handed down. To be fair to him, Senator Bartlett is new to the chamber and would not be familiar with much of the work that was done by the committee, but let me point out that the bill is principally about people who are described as transgenderists. That means they are usually cross-dressers or transvestites; that is the language that most people normally understand.What Senator Bartlett omitted from his very eloquent and moving speech was the fact that, in the course of the proceedings before the committee, a number of transgenderists and transgender organisations complained that they were the subject of discrimination from lesbians and homosexuals because lesbians and homosexuals refused to accept people who were cross-dressers. So I think Senator Bartlett ought to get some of his facts right when he gets up to address this matter next time, if indeed he does so.I want to take a few minutes to address the report because it was a matter of some interest to me, and I know it is a matter of considerable interest to my constituents in Queensland. In the last two weeks my office has counted 330 letters that have been sent to me from all over Queensland complaining about the possibility that this bill could be carried. The complaints were not just about the bill. The complaints were also about the majority report of the committee, and Senator Bartlett has gilded the lily here a little bit.Senator Bartlett says that the bill does not provide that a religious institution should be obliged to employ a transvestite, or transgenderist, in an educational institution. That is correct. The original form of the bill did require that; the then Senator Spindler withdrew that—that is correct. What Senator Bartlett did not tell the Senate—and obviously does not want my constituents to know—is that the Democrat representative and the majority Labor senators on that committee argued that, in fact, the provisions of the bill should be extended and should oblige religious schools to take on people who are transgenderists even though that is contrary to the religious foundations of that school itself.WP6LIGHTFOOTSenator Lightfoot—We're not getting the whole story.WP6O'Chee, Sen BillSenator O'CHEE—We are not getting the whole story from Senator Bartlett. But that is what the majority of the committee argued and that is what Senator Bartlett conveniently neglected to tell this Senate. But, of course, I am not surprised.DT6BARTLETTSenator Bartlett—Mr Acting Deputy President, on a point of order: I do not like it being implied that I am deliberately deceiving the Senate by not giving all the facts. I suggest nonetheless that Senator O'Chee does the same thing and not misrepresent the report when he is speaking to it.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Hogg)—There is no point of order.EU4O'Chee, Sen BillSenator O'CHEE—There is absolutely no point of order as there is absolutely no point in many of the things that Senator Bartlett has to say in this place. It is just typical of the fact that the Democrats like to have their way and their say but do not like a debate. It is the hallmark of democracy, Senator Bartlett, that you can have a debate in this place. Senator Bartlett, you were listened to with considerable forbearance on this side of the chamber and I would have thought that, as a new senator, you might at least have the decency to exercise the same forbearance even though you may not agree with the arguments I put. You might at least have the forbearance to listen to them as I have listened to you. But isn't it interesting that some of the people here seem to have different standards on tolerance when it comes to points of view that they do not support.Let me move on to another very contentious area of this report; it relates to sport. It is very important to get the facts right here. Biologically a person who is born a man has considerable physiological advantages in most sports over women. It is to do with the fact that testosterone is produced in substantially higher quantities in a biological male than in a biological female. Everybody accepts that fact. I do not need to go into the anatomical reasons why that is so. It is just a fact.9L6MACKAYSenator Mackay—Some more than others!EU4O'Chee, Sen BillSenator O'CHEE—Some more than others. That is a very helpful interjection from Senator Mackay. Senator Mackay, even women with excessively high testosterone levels do not get a testosterone level anywhere near like you would get in a man. Testosterone does a number of things. It changes the density of muscle fibre and the shape of the pelvis, for example. Another thing that it does is enhance muscle growth. If a person is born a biological male, even though they want to be a female, they cannot escape the fact that by dint of their birth they have substantial physiological advantages over women in most sports—power sports in particular, but a whole range of sports. That is why women's world records in just about any event you mention are much lower than men's world records. Men have all the physiological advantages.Let me give you an example. Susie O'Neill, when she won the Olympic gold medal in Atlanta in the 100 metres butterfly, did it in a time of two minutes and 9 seconds. The highest ranked Australian male in the same event—I think it was Michael Klim but it may have been Scott Miller—did it in one minute 59 seconds. He was third and there was a 10 second difference. Allowing a person who is a biological male, even though he may feel himself to be a female, to compete in female sporting events gives that person an unfair and unnatural advantage. Most people involved in sport recognise that and have condemned that part of the report that suggests that people who are transgender should be allowed to compete in sport.I see Senator O'Brien shaking his head. He is probably under the misapprehension that the report did not say that. The report said that they should be allowed to do it. In fact, the report believed that those provisions of the bill should be applied to sport. Senator Bolkus, were he here, would say that that is not correct because there is a provision that says that a sporting organisation could apply for an exemption. They would have to apply to court for an exemption.Senator Bolkus has also said on other instances things which were not correct. For example, he said that they have been auto matically exempted. That is not the case. The sporting body that regulates the sport would have to apply for an exemption and incur considerable legal expense to present their case and they would have to keep on doing it every five years. Sport in this country has never been well funded. Every sporting organisations will tell you that they are hard pressed for cash. Think about all those women's sporting organisations—and women's sport gets less money from sponsorship than men's sport does, and I think that that is reprehensible—going along every five years to the lawyers to kick in more money to keep applying for exemptions so that women can have a decent chance to compete against women.5L6FERRISSenator Ferris—Sounds like native title.EU4O'Chee, Sen BillSenator O'CHEE—Senator Ferris, it may create as many opportunities for lawyers as native title does. But it is unnecessary.The coalition senators were in the minority in this report. We said that we did not believe in discrimination and where there is violence we abhor the violence. We believe that all you have to do—and what has not been done in many circumstances—is to say that where you have a hate-motivated crime of violence the hate should be considered an aggravating circumstance. It should result in a mandatory higher penalty being imposed on the perpetrators. That is how you should deal with all hate-related crimes, be they racial, religious or sexual.But we do not agree with the more outrageous provisions of the report and the bill and that is why I still have hundreds of constituents writing to me. If they continue to write to me and if Senator Bartlett continues to take this point of view I might start to send the letters to him so that he can see that there are a lot of people who are very concerned about this. I do not believe the bill deserves a reading in this place, certainly not in the form in which it is at the moment. If it does come up for reading I will certainly be voting against it. (Time expired)18:30:00998Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEYSF4VICALP00—The report that Senator O'Chee talks about is a very important report. It arises following a bill that was brought into the chamber by one of Senator Bartlett's predecessors, Senator Spindler, a man of some eminence—AX5EVANSSenator Chris Evans—A good Democrat.SF4Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEY—A good Democrat, and someone who spoke very much in favour of human rights, I might say. As I understand it, Senator O'Chee—who is a considerable sportsman himself and a good coach too—has raised this issue on several occasions. I was associated with the majority report, but I have spoken to people connected with this report, the leaders who actually directed the writing of it, and their understanding is that what Senator O'Chee complains about is not contained in the report. I think Senator O'Chee has raised some mighty issues here, but they arise from a concept of the report which others would dispute. I think he turned his mind fairly to this and said that if Senator Bolkus were here he might take a different view. I suggest that this report be kept on the list, and later I will move that.May I say, having a daughter who is a considerable sportswoman, in the water and as a runner and elsewhere, that I certainly think it would be unfair that she should be put up against people who had attributes that were in addition to those that a female should have. When I think of our great woman athlete, the golden girl Betty Cuthbert, who you would not remember seeing run, Senator Evans, because she ran before your time—EU4O'CHEESenator O'Chee—I thought she ran before your time too, Barney.SF4Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEY—I was there in 1956 and saw her win the 100 metres race. Shirley Strickland and Dawn Fraser were other great Australian women athletes over the years. The most tragic circumstances were those that affected Raelene Boyle, who I think would have had two gold medals for Australia but for drugs that people from East Germany used. Senator O'Chee is correct in saying that sporting contests should be fair, but what is in dispute is the contents of the report. In those circumstances, I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted; debate adjourned.999999Debate resumed from 5 March, on motion by Senator Ian Campbell:That the Senate take note of the document.18:36:00999O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—This report is entitled Importation of cooked chicken meat into Australia . In the recent round of estimates there was certain additional material which I think needs to be put on the record in relation to this matter. On 22 January last year the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy announced a final round of tests designed to confirm the cooking parameters required to enable the safe importation of cooked chicken meat. The minister was in fact forced into undertaking further research by the findings of the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs, this committee, on the risk assessment undertaken by AQIS. The Bureau of Resource Sciences was commissioned by AQIS to supervise the trials and selected the Central Veterinary Laboratory in Weybridge, England. This facility has a very high international reputation with the scientific community and has acknowledged expertise in both Newcastle disease and infectious bursal disease. I understand that the Waybridge facility has access to virulent strains of both these diseases and has high security facilities to enable proper trials to be carried out. I also understand that the protocols for these trials were agreed by the Bureau of Resource Sciences, AQIS, the Weybridge scientists and the Australian industry. So we had arguably the best scientists in the world and we had a process agreed by the BRS and AQIS itself, and cleared by the Australian industry.The work found that the protocols recommended by AQIS were inadequate for infectious bursal disease. As a result, AQIS commissioned a special scientific working group to evaluate the Weybridge results. The terms of reference stated in part that the group should `advise as to why the results differ from previous heat inactivation trial results on IBDV.' This was no ordinary group of scientists; they were the best available. The group was chaired by Dr Gardiner Murray from AQIS and included Dr Bill Geering from the Bureau of Resource Science, Dr Trevor Bagust from the University of Melbourne, Dr Bob Steele from the CSIRO, Jeff Fairbrother and Margaret McKenzie from the industry, and Dr Andrew Turner who is Victoria's chief vet. I understand the group reported to AQIS in early January and advised that the Weybridge tests were soundly based and accurate. The group said the Weybridge results differed from the earlier AQIS work because of the virus strains used and the medium in which the virus was tested; that is, the testing carried out by Weybridge generated different and more appropriate data because it was more relevant to the nature of the product being assessed.It appears that, despite this process being accepted by AQIS and despite the fact that this laboratory has an international reputation for its expertise in Newcastle disease and infectious bursal disease, AQIS is now questioning the results of the trials. This approach by AQIS does not augur well for the post-Nairn appropriate risk assessment process; that is, the use of independent panels to undertake controversial assessments.I repeat that this work was carried out by arguably the best laboratory in the world in this field. Its results were reviewed by a panel selected and appointed by AQIS, but AQIS apparently is still not prepared to accept these findings. The scientific working group also found that the time temperature regime, I assume constructed by AQIS based on the Weybridge data, is flawed.I was advised in estimates by the executive director of AQIS, Mr Paul Hickey, that issues about the construction of the time and temperature parameters were raised by this group. Mr Hickey confirmed that, subject to further input from the Weybridge scientists, the time temperature regime released in November by Minister Anderson was inadequate. The times, it appears, were too short and the cooking temperatures may well be too low. This outcome does little to improve the confidence in the quarantine import risk assessment process.This is an outcome that must be of considerable concern not only to the chicken industry but also to those other industries that currently face exposure to imported product if the markets are relaxed or access to our markets is relaxed by determinations by AQIS. They include the salmon industry; the pork industry, which has been the subject of some recent relaxation of controls on the importation of pork products; and the apple and pear industry, on which I note there have been articles in the newspaper about the renewal of the consideration of applications by New Zealand to introduce those products into Australia. I think this is a matter of great concern and this is a matter that will be watched closely by the opposition.18:41:001000West, Sen SueSenator WEST1X4NSWALP00—I have just learnt the facts that were discovered at estimates—that AQIS made a mistake. The tests were not as we thought at the time and, as has obviously now been proven, assumptions were not able to be made based on the original tests and carried through. With what AQIS and the minister responsible have nearly done there is still the potential, unless it is sorted out, to undermine and erode this very important industry to Australia and particularly to New South Wales.It is essential to remember that the chicken industry is the largest employer in the Hunter Valley. This government has done very little for the Hunter Valley. We have seen the retrenchment of steelworkers and we have seen the impact of their industrial relations upon the mines. But now we see that they are continuing to not care about the Hunter Valley and they are continuing to put at risk the largest employer in that area. You move up the Hunter Valley and up the New England Highway to the Speaker's electorate of New England and there you have another significant chicken industry. That area is a major employer also. The central coast of New South Wales, the north of the Illawarra and the MIA are other significant chicken industry areas in this state. They are significant employers. We know that Bartters in Griffith has just announced plans to employ an extra 1,000 people.This is a government that has done nothing for regional development—nothing at all. They gutted the regional development part of their department. They got rid of it. They got it from 230-odd employees down to about six. Now they are not prepared to bite the bullet and say, `We were wrong about what we were going to do. We should not be allowing imports of cooked or other chicken meat into this country because the danger of disease is too great.'This government just does not seem to be able to comprehend that AQIS has not been able to get it right. They do not seem to be able to comprehend that a decision needs to be made to give certainty and assurance to this very important industry, and that it needs to be able to continue. The investments need to be able to continue. People like the Bartters at Griffith need to be certain that the current government is not going to allow the importation into this country of diseases that will not only decimate the chicken industry but will also decimate the bird population of this country.I think it ill behoves the government to sit here and continue to do nothing. A number of us have been making pleas for some considerable time. We have sat on committees, moved around the state and taken evidence and, if the government does nothing, it will be on their heads that they have chosen to ignore the work of the committee, which has been a bipartisan committee and the findings have been bipartisan. We are now having expert evidence being brought to the estimates committee to indicate that the concerns of the industry which were brought to our attention are correct. I think that it is disgusting. It needs to be remedied and the government has it within its power to do so, instead of going around saying, `Oh, we need new research. We need new evidence.' The evidence is actually there. It actually got Dr Alexander to do specialist work on the specific issues and the specific diseases that they were trying to extrapolate from his original research that would apply to the other organisms.The fact that Dr Alexander's work does not prove what AQIS thought was right is significant. It proves there are the dangers, and we cannot afford to see further attacks on rural Australia, particularly rural New South Wales in this particular situation. As I have said, this is a major employer of people in areas of this state. When we are talking about the introduction of any of these diseases, we are talking about the loss of thousands and thousands of jobs, we are talking about the possible safety of people who eat the product, and we are talking about the decimation of the avian population in this country.It really concerns me that a number of the green groups have not actually looked at this particular issue and do not seem to be cognisant of the danger to the avian species in this country, to the biodiversity of this country, and to the uniqueness of our avian population. We have a number of birds in this country that are only found here, and it would be absolutely criminal, in an environmental context, to run the risk of destroying that very beautiful and very special unique population that we have. I certainly urge the green groups to start to take an interest in this. This is the sort of devastation of our native fauna that, once it happens, it is too late—it is gone, we will have lost it. We will not have just lost one or two species, we could lose whole genera.It is a very sad situation. I think it behoves the government to very speedily make a decision, for a number of very valid and very important reasons that I have outlined here. It is an important issue. There is a major industry in this country that is put under threat. The longer this government goes on not taking into consideration those points, the greater at risk this industry will be. The government must do something quickly and make the announcements so that the industry has certainty and surety and people are sure that their jobs will remain. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted; debate adjourned.1001Question resolved in the affirmative on the following order of the day without further debate during consideration of committee reports and government responses.Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee—Report—Helping Australians abroad: A review of the Australian Government's consular services—Government response.Consideration of motions to take note of the following committee reports adjourned without debate:Community Affairs References Committee—Report—Housing assistance.Publications—Joint Standing Committee—Report—Future of the parliamentary papers seriesSuperannuation—Select Committee—Report—Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Scheme & the Judges' Pension Scheme—Government responsePublic Accounts—Joint Statutory Committee—Report 355—Aboriginal Councils and Torres Strait Island Councils: Review of financial accountability requirementsPublic Accounts—Joint Statutory Committee—Report 354—Annual report 1996-97Finance and Public Administration References Committee—Report—Contracting out of government services—First report: Information technology.10011001Motion (by Senator Chris Evans, at the request of Senator Bishop)—by leave—agreed to:That the Community Affairs References Committee be authorised to hold a public hearing during the sitting of Senate on 23 March from 4 p.m., to take evidence for the committee's inquiry into the provision of public dental services in Australia.Miscellaneous100118:50:001001Ferris, Sen JeannieSenator FERRIS5L6SALP10—by leave—The particular aspect of the delegation's visit to the United States that I would like to focus on tonight concerns a visit to the city of New York and, in particular, briefings that were given by the police commissioner in New York. The city of New York—the Big Apple as we know it—conjures up all sorts of visions in people's minds. We have seen it on film and we have seen it on television. There is no doubt it evokes quite powerful images for many Australians and, in fact, for many people all over the world.I think one of the aspects of the city's urban mythology focuses on Central Park. It is known as the lungs of the city and it is probably the focus of the city for many millions of people, both residents and visitors. When I went to New York in 1992, I was warned about Central Park: it was off limits if you went there alone; you should not take a handbag there; you should not visit late in the afternoon; and you certainly should not go near the park after dark—although, of course, it is actually closed to the public after dark. It was certainly seen as an area of particularly high crime and a good deal of violent crime. These days millions of people are using that park for family activities and doing so in quite amazing safety, just a couple of years after it was one of the most dangerous parts of the city.This has happened because the police in New York, under the guidance of the Police Commissioner Howard Safir, have taken on the responsibility of making the city and, in particular, the park, safe for families. The police go into the park on foot, on horses, on scooters and on bicycles. They go in uniform and they go in plain clothes. They are everywhere in that park, and that park is now known as an area which is policed to the extent that it is safer now than it was 30 years ago.Howard Safir briefed the delegation about the ways in which he has taken on this challenge together with the mayor of New York and how he has made New York one of the safest large cities in the world and certainly in the United States. They have done quite an astonishing job. It is now a pleasure to walk the streets and the parklands of New York. You see small children playing without apparent close supervision, and the streets are noticeably free of panhandlers and beggars, which are things you see in some of the other larger cities in the United States. There has been a 60 per cent decrease in murders in New York and 165 fewer murders just during the last year alone. In fact, it is back to the levels of the late sixties.Howard Safir told us about the strategy that he has implemented to bring about this remarkable change. I would like to share it with the Senate tonight. It is a concept known as the broken window strategy. It is based on the idea that taking no action on minor crimes such as graffiti, broken windows, panhandling, bag snatching, and so on, gives a very clear message that the community at large is prepared to tolerate this sort of crime, that it really does not matter all that much. People would think, `Oh well, there is already one broken window, another one will not make much difference at all,' and, `I have seen some graffiti on that building, but it is not too bad, so I will not worry about it.'The broken window strategy targets police efforts with the small core of criminals, both hard criminals and petty criminals, who are responsible for the major crime on the streets of New York. This quite fresh approach of what I would call zero tolerance of crime has deterred quite an amazing amount of crime from the streets and parklands of that city. It targets crime before it gets out of hand, before it gets to be big crime and before it gets to be serious, violent crime.These efforts to fight the city's crime rate have been a remarkable success. If only we could say the same for Australia. Our cities are a visual disgrace. Graffiti appears on some of our more historic and beautiful buildings. Then there is the bag snatching, the assaults on the elderly, the shoplifting and the house break-ins, and so on. Most of all, there are the assaults on, and even murders of, the very men and women whom we employ in this country to enforce our laws—our police officers.Our cities have become a terrifying prospect for people who are alone at night on the footpaths, in the car parks and in the quite beautiful park lands, where as soon as it begins to get dark you cannot go to them. After dark, our cities become dangerous ghost towns. They are run by the lawless, the gangs, the dealers, the pimps and the standover bullies. Criminologists have identified the cost of this upsurge in crime. Motor vehicle theft is now costing the Australian community over $1 billion a year. There were 351 murders in Australia in 1995, and 334,000 Australians were victims of assault or threats of violence. Many of them were elderly and many of them were in their own homes at the time. In one year alone 300,000 burglaries had cost us almost $1 billion. What a tragic set of statistics and what a tragedy for Australia.Howard Safir, the New York police commissioner, is an impressive man. He is a police commissioner who has accepted and implemented the challenge of returning the city of New York to its people and to the tourists who go there. There is no doubt our police do the very best they are able, but resources and the sheer weight of the bully boys has even daunted them. We saw the terrible evidence of that in Sydney just this past week.Our community, the same as the community of New York, wants safer streets, cleaner cities and less dangerous parklands. So do the people of New York, and Howard Safir has delivered it. He has shared his broken window strategy with us, and I would commend that everybody read the document and think about the suggestions that he has made in it.Adjournment100310000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Hogg)—Order! I propose the question:That the Senate do now adjourn.100318:57:001003Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY9L6TASALP00—I rise tonight in the adjournment debate to discuss a matter which goes to the heart of this government's inability to recognise the consequences of its decisions on regional Australia. Over the next few minutes, I wish to discuss a matter which, when you look at the issues in detail, raises a number of questions about the commitment of this government to our regions. In doing so, I will highlight the hypocrisy of the government, who for years have claimed the small business constituency as their own and who went to the last election promising to give small business a bigger slice of the government procurement cake through changes in purchasing policy and practice.The matter I wish to raise tonight is the decision of the Australian Taxation Office to terminate a contract with a small Tasmanian security firm in favour of a national contract with an international security services provider. Senator Newman should be well aware of this case because, as I understand from the constituents concerned, the firm has forwarded to her all the relevant documents. However, we have not heard anything from Senator Newman, so I intend to take up the matter directly with the Minister for Finance and Administration (Mr Fahey) myself. It is his responsibility to ensure that the government's promise to small business on purchasing policy is delivered.I would like to begin by telling the Senate a little bit about the security firm concerned, which is Pelham Security. Pelham Security are a Tasmanian owned and operated company. The directors, Kevin and Gail Pelham, advised me they employ directly and indirectly 75 Tasmanians. It has provided 75 jobs in the state with the nation's highest unemployment rate. I am also advised that all profits from this business are spent in Tasmania.Pelham Security have been providing security services to the Australian Taxation Office at their Collins Street offices since 1995. The original contract was for two years, and it was renewed last October for a further 12 months. This all may seem pretty straightforward to most senators, except for the fact that the government has decided to terminate this contract with effect from 31 March—a decision which is all the more outrageous, given that Pelham Security have neither breached, nor been accused of breaching, their contract at any time. Whilst the contract provides for early termination, what is particularly concerning for me is that, for Pelham Security to seek just compensation, in accordance with section 9.1 of their contract, expensive and resource intensive legal action will now be required.This now takes me to the substance of my concerns: the failure of the government to understand the connection or nexus between decisions such as these and their inevitable and exponential impact on employment in regional Australia. The issue of costs associated with seeking compensation is an important one for small business. Pelham Security have advised me that, on the basis of this contract, business decisions were taken to increase investment in capital equipment—investment that is critically important to regional Australia; investment that, in turn, delivers the jobs growth that regions require to continue to be viable in social and economic terms.The decision to make significant investments is a difficult one for most businesses, but it is particularly difficult for small businesses. A situation where a small business can have its contract cancelled—the carpet pulled out from under them—at any time does not augur well for future investment and employment growth. It is important to remember that, when we look at employment growth, the small to medium business sector is the key contributor.So, in a nutshell, what we have here is a government which is gushing in its rhetoric with respect to small business, employment growth and regional development. But it is a government that fails to understand the important role that its expenditure plays in this cycle of development.In conclusion, I would like to return to the plight of Pelham Security. It is critical that the government resolve this matter quickly and with minimal inconvenience to Pelham Security and its staff. Quite apart from the fact that this problem should never have occurred in the first place, it is important that the government learn from this case study in small business insensitivity.As I mentioned earlier, the contract concerned allows for early termination, but it does so in conjunction with clause 9.2, which allows for `fair and reasonable compensation'. I urge the government to abide by this clause, and to do so swiftly. I also urge the government to move beyond rhetoric and deliver on its commitment to give small business a fair go—and to particularly sort the situation out with regard to Pelham Security. If it fails to do so, it will—as far as Mr Pelham, his security firm and myself are concerned— continue to demonstrate its complete contempt for regional Australia.100419:02:001004Payne, Sen MariseSenator PAYNEM56NSWLP10—This evening I rise to bring to the attention of the Senate some of what I believe is the very good news in the Australian film industry and arts community, in particular. I think even we allegedly out of touch parliamentarians manage to recognise that Australia has a thriving film industry.In the last two years we have had several top Australian films competing at the Cannes film festival. In 1996 we were represented by the Quiet Room, Love Serenade, and No Way to Forget; and two short films, My Film is a Dog, and Noir. Again in May of last year, The Well and the short film Final Cut were featured at Cannes, while many films were launched there, including Blackrock, Doing Time for Patsy Cline, Kiss or Kill and Thank God He Met Lizzie. The next few weeks will see the launch of the second film of Children of the Revolution director and university contemporary of mine, Peter Duncan—A Little Bit of Soul.There are many Australian films in the international market which reflect the exciting range of skill and talent in our film industry. Many of our film makers and actors have now established outstanding international reputations, and a growing number of Australian productions are earning valuable export income for this country in a hugely competitive industry. I think it is worth noting that women, in particular, in the Australian film industry have been very successful in leading the way in recent years. At the highly commercial end of proceedings, Australia has seen the success of Mel Gibson at the 1996 Academy Awards with Braveheart winning the best film and best director; and also, of course, the highly popular Babe—which was filmed in my family's local area, the Southern Highlands—being awarded an Oscar for best visual effects.It is a sign of the growing successes of our film industry that last year Australian films and film makers received more Academy Award nominations than ever before in the history of our participation in the industry. The crowning glory for many in 1997 was, no doubt, Geoffrey Rush's achievements in Shine, emerging from both the Academy Awards and the Golden Globe awards with the Best Actor award. I note that Geoffrey Rush is also a star of A Little Bit of Soul. John Seale was also awarded an Oscar for cinematography in The English Patient.In December last year, the Australian film Road to Nhill won the Best Film category at the Sebrika Film Festival in Greece, following on from our own AFI award night where Kiss or Kill scooped the pool. Australia had four `road' movies which particularly featured in last year's AFI awards—and they could have been stories from any corner of the globe. But critics recognise that why they stand out is because of a boldness of vision, at times an almost feral quality, and a confidence in telling the stories that rejects gimmicks and studio compromises. This underscores the reality that our film industry is, by its nature, very independent. Our contemporary films consistently display richness and diversity, great self-confidence, and industry depth.The knowledge that our film makers can take a risk, can be true to their original vision, means that passions are not left in the bottom drawer for want of money. Coming from Sydney as I do, aircraft noise is often a major issue on our front pages—but the film The Castle, financed largely by the Frontline team, was brought to international prominence on front pages in that it was made in only six weeks, for $700,000, and grossed $10.3 million at the box office. It also picked up a 1997 AFI award for best original screenplay.Industry investors such as producers, distributors, exhibitors and broadcasters are increasingly sharing the faith, and I think the passion, of the industry. According to the Australian Film Commission, investment by these players rose significantly as a proportion of budgets in 1996-97. This is an important sign that we have an industry that can attract increased revenue from domestic and export sales. One must also recognise the role of the Film Finance Corporation in facilitating increasing levels of industry investment.Our film and television industry is a powerhouse. Indeed, in the last 12 months it has gone from strength to strength, and there is no doubt that the Australian film and television industry currently enjoys great international recognition. Australians are being sought for their skills in every field of film making—from editing to cinematography to the brave new world of multimedia.While international recognition is important, and in fact crucial, we must never lose sight of the importance of the industry to Australia, especially to our future on both cultural and economic fronts. We all know how much pride we take in seeing our nation celebrated at film festivals around the globe. We like to read of high praise for our actors, like LA Confidential stars Russell Crowe and Guy Pearce in Hollywood; and see script writers like Laura Jones in so much demand overseas. We do have something unique to offer. The world knows it and wants it.Last year a Roy Morgan poll found that 88 per cent of Australians believe the Australian film industry is important in raising both the general image of Australia and awareness of our country overseas. More importantly, the poll also found that 75 per cent of Australians believe that films produced by our film industry are equal to, if not better than, those made overseas. So faith in the industry and the arts world is solid at home.But it is not an overnight success; it comes from years and years of creative toil. Australia, many would say, is approaching its finest hour in terms of international profile at least. Our foray into the next millennium will be a very public one, as the world's eyes focus on Sydney during the 2000 Olympics and later our centenary of federation celebrations. It is during times of national reflection such as the centenary of federation that we will appreciate more than ever the role film plays in capturing key moments in a nation's life.I well remember the film showed earlier this year at the beginning of the women's constitutional convention—a film about federation, which at the time was intended to depict the process of federation itself but was shown at the women's constitutional convention to show the involvement of women in the process. It was a very telling and a very interesting reflection on that period.Our ability to critically analyse our history is enhanced by the preservation of the work of previous generations of film and television creators. Clearly, the National Film and Sound Archive and Film Australia are key players as we celebrate the turn of the century and, in particular, the documentary will prove to be an ideal vehicle for telling our stories. But the reality is that the social documentary is the least commercially viable but one of the most culturally relevant film genres. Ongoing market failure and occasionally lack of government support could have meant that programs such as Rats in the Ranks and The Year of the Dogs might not have been made. For either football or political followers, we would have been the poorer.The government wants as many Australians as possible to enjoy the insights, reflections and often unique perspectives that the documentary provides. To this end, the Minister for Communications, the Information Economy and the Arts (Senator Alston) announced in November last year, as part of the government's response to the Gonski report, that we will continue Film Australia's national interest program at current levels of $6.4 million per annum from 1999-00 to 2002-03.Film Australia is the jewel in the documentary crown, through not only the management of the national interest program but the marketing and the distribution it undertakes on behalf of other producers; its archives, described often as Australia's photo album of more than 80 years of film making; and its Lindfield site.I am also actively pursuing the question of continued funding of SBSI, the production arm of SBS. SBSI is in the rare position of being a government funded production arm looking for a specific network and audience. Because it is audience and topic specific, as well as dedicated to broadening the base of storytelling on our screens, its programs often find a much wider audience.Our industry infrastructure, while still being finetuned, is working well enough to attract international production to our shores. The government recognises the capacity of that production undertaken in Australia to assist local industry through skills development and employment, particularly of technical crews.We are working towards achieving a mature, dynamic and sustainable film industry. To this end, we initiated the Gonski inquiry, which investigated the operations of the film industry in Australia. The report called for new measures to increase private investment while retaining direct funding as a principal mechanism of government assistance, refinement of current Commonwealth film agencies' functions and a changed role for Film Australia.The report was responded to last November. The details of that response are well known, but I do want to stress its main points, including the retention of Film Australia as Commonwealth owned—a vertically integrated company—and retention of their Lindfield facilities; retention of Film Australia's archives; extension of their national interest program until 2003; and the introduction of a new pilot scheme—the film licensed investment scheme—providing a 100 tax concession to investors in companies which are licensed to invest in a slate of film and television productions. This will raise concessional capital of up to $20 million a year for two years from 1998-99.The Gonski model offers an innovative approach to balancing the needs of government for efficiency and accountability with the needs of investors for incentives to invest in Australian film and television. Any opportunities to increase the efficiency of support to industry should be pursued. The FLIC model offers a number of advantages in this regard, in particular in terms of transparency, accountability and certainty of funding.Our response to the report was well received as a whole. This is as a reflection of the government's approach to the arts community and as we see the role of government not to dictate or impose cultural norms but to create an environment which fosters—(Time expired)100719:13:001007Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—Tonight I rise to say a few words about the passing of two great figures of the trade union movement. The first person whom I wish to refer to is Edgar Williams, who passed away in December last year. Edgar was a renowned figure in the Australian trade union movement, particularly the Australian Workers Union, and the Australian Labor Party.My colleague Senator John Hogg made a most moving and eloquent speech yesterday in which he recorded the achievements of Edgar. I compliment John on his remarks. John, like me, had the great pleasure of knowing Edgar for many years. I certainly endorse Senator Hogg's remarks yesterday, but I just want to add a few of my own.I first met Edgar Williams in 1976, when I commenced employment with the Australian Workers Union as a junior industrial officer. I was pretty green but I learned quickly, as you have to in the world of trade unions and industrial relations. You often find that there are more jobs to be done and causes to fight than you have time for.Edgar Williams was an inspiration to me, as he was indeed to all the officials of the Australian Workers Union for well over 40 years. When I met him, he was the federal president of the AWU and the AWU's representative on the ACTU executive. I attended annual conventions each year after that at which Edgar presided as the federal president of the union, up until his retirement in 1982.One of Edgar's great strengths was his ability as chairman of the AWU's conventions. As I am sure honourable senators would be aware—if they have not heard it or read about it, they could certainly imagine—conventions of the AWU, given the long history of that union, were often very interesting and very fiery occasions. But Edgar had this incredible ability to earn the respect and the admiration of all of the delegates at those conventions, whether they supported him or opposed him. This was so much so that I think Clyde Cameron carried on for many years a struggle in the union against Edgar. Even when Clyde entered this parliament, he carried it on. He, nevertheless, I am sure, would pay tribute to Edgar's strength of character, strength of purpose, and dedication to working men and women.Edgar was honoured with life membership of the AWU, with life membership of the Australian Labor Party and as one of the great figures of the Australian trade union movement. I, as I said, learnt much from Edgar and I certainly pay tribute to his lifelong dedication to his union, the AWU, and to its members.I also want to record the passing of and make some comments about another great trade union official who was very much like Edgar, and that was Maurie Rudd. Maurie Rudd was an official of the Federated Ironworkers Association, which in 1993 amalgamated with the AWU. When Maurie passed away on 7 February this year, he also was an official of the AWU. I think it is probably best if I quote from an article that appeared in the Australian written by a lifelong friend of Maurie Rudd's, because it sets out far better than I can Maurie's achievements. It states:Maurie Rudd was born in Goulburn, NSW, in 1942, the son of a working-class rural family with strong labour-movement links.He left school at an early age and was largely self-taught, being an avid reader. He held many jobs, mainly unskilled; he was working in a shearing shed when he first became a member of the AWU.The similarities with Edgar are very relevant there. It goes on to say:He became a beltman's assistant in the sinter plant at BHP Newcastle steelworks in July 1970. It was a hard and dirty job. He said he took it because it involved so much overtime and he needed the money for his family. In his time there he saw four men killed at work. The need for safety on the job and improved working conditions and wages were the motivating factors in his becoming a steelworkers' delegate. In June 1985, he became an acting organiser of the Federated Ironworkers Association. Later that year he became a national organiser, was elected as a branch organiser and then became acting assistant secretary. He was elected branch secretary in 1989, a position he held until his death.Like Edgar, Maurie had the opportunities to become a member of parliament and accept higher offices. But Maurie, like Edgar, spurned those opportunities and spent his entire life working in the trade union movement for his fellow working men. He also was active in the Australian Labor Party and played a notable role in that regard, particularly in the Newcastle region.The sad part about Maurie Rudd, but nevertheless it is something that demonstrates his strength of character, relates to the fact that, when BHP announced last year that it would close the Newcastle steelworks, Maurie was once again called to action. He took up the challenge and led the campaign by the workers at BHP in Newcastle and the citizens of Newcastle to face that shock announcement by BHP. It came very much like an earthquake to Newcastle. He led delegations down here to Canberra to lobby the Prime Minister and other politicians to do something on behalf of Newcastle so that we would not see that great industrial city die.But, whilst he was doing that, whilst he was spending 24 hours a day seeking to represent his members and the people of Newcastle, he was dying of lung cancer and was receiving chemotherapy treatment. He carried on throughout that campaign, notwithstanding the great illness that he was suffering. I know that the workers of Newcastle and the members of his union are proud of his dedication and his work on their behalf in that dispute.Both Edgar Williams and Maurie Rudd were big men in size. They were big in heart and they made big achievements throughout their working lives. They were big Australians. I think it is appropriate that we record in this parliament their achievements on behalf of their fellow working men and women.Whilst I note that quite often members of the coalition take great delight in attacking the trade union movement and trade union leaders, I would ask, in closing, that maybe they pause a while and read and examine the stories of people like Edgar Williams and Maurie Rudd—people who started their lives in poverty or in hard times; who saw that there was a need to represent workers and did so; and who also strongly believed in democratic trade unionism, something which ultimately is a protection for all citizens whether they be trade union officials or not. As I have said before, when tyranny raises its head, it is very often the trade union movement, along with the churches, that are first attacked and silenced. People like Edgar Williams and Maurie Rudd were great Australians who achieved much for their fellow Australians. (Time expired)100819:23:001008Abetz, Sen EricSenator ABETZN26TASLP10—Yesterday, the Senate passed an historic censure of a shadow minister—the shadow Attorney-General, Senator Bolkus. The censure was based on Senator Bolkus knowingly and deliberately revealing to members of the media the contents of a confidential Federal Court document, putting at risk the taxpayer-funded pursuit of Mr Skase's assets. This action is in breach of any code of acceptable conduct. The shadow Attorney-General—the would-be first law officer of this country—deliberately and knowingly revealed sensitive information from a confidential court document.In the unlikely event that Labor wins the next election, we now know the standards Mr Beazley will set for his ministry. If Senator Bolkus were to become Attorney-General, he would deal with confidential and sensitive matters every day. Indeed, he would have carriage of the Skase matter as Attorney-General. He would thereby become privy to the actions being taken against Mr Skase. And what would he do? If he saw a short-sighted political benefit in revealing certain information, Senator Bolkus, by his actions, has revealed he would have no compunction about revealing it to the media. And Mr Beazley, by allowing Senator Bolkus to remain in the Attorney-General portfolio, is also saying that he would condone such behaviour.This lack of commitment to any standards by Mr Beazley has exposed Mr Beazley's weakness as leader which, in itself, is another issue of standards aside from the scurrilous activities of the rusty pipe opposite. It is in that light that Labor's attack on the Minister for Resources and Energy has been so duplicitous. It is also in that light that I express my regret that the media has seen fit to publicise and peddle the Labor-orchestrated campaign against the minister for resources and largely remain silent in relation to the overwhelming vote of censure against a shadow minister for his unacceptable conduct, his failure to resign and his failure to be sacked.These are matters of genuine public interest. The public do have a right to know and the media has failed in its duty. In saying that the media failed, I trust this silence was not to protect a person who has gained an unenviable record around this place for giving unauthorised information to the media. As one member of the media is reputed to have said, `We won't bite the hand that feeds us.' That type of cynicism is regrettable and, I trust, is not widespread, let alone the reason for this strange silence.I ask my friends in the media to look through their records and then their consciences, and see how much coverage they gave to the Senate's vote of condemnation—not censure—of a Liberal opposition backbencher three years ago for his inadvertent—and I stress inadvertent—disclosure of a tax file number—something he did, might I add, by leave granted to him by a Labor senator. Or they might search their records and then their consciences as to their actions when a Liberal frontbencher in opposition unwittingly divulged confidential information in the Hindmarsh Island matter.Yesterday's vote was not only historic in itself; it was an overwhelming vote of censure for the unparalleled and unprincipled release of confidential court documents by the alternate Attorney-General. This breach of standards, on any objective analysis, was worthy of at least equal to, if not greater than, time and space in the media as the scurrilous accusations being made against the minister for resources. I do not seek special treatment for my party, just equal treatment.100919:27:001009Lightfoot, Sen PhillipSenator LIGHTFOOTWP6WALP10—I want to spend a few moments and incorporate into Hansard an anomaly, as I see it, within the diesel fuel rebate scheme. There was at first a tax on petrol in 1929 that had nothing to do with the Depression but certainly did not assist it. The first diesel fuel tax was imposed in 1957, and it was imposed as a measure against road-using vehicles only. It was never intended for that to be used for any vehicles or engines or other mode of consumption of diesel off road. It was always envisaged that mining, agriculture, forestry and the fishing industries would be exempted. Without that exemption, some businesses would surely close and would close in the immediate and medium term.The survivors would endure some hardship—and there is no argument against that. Australia would experience a significant short-term drop in income, plus a diminution of expenditure outlays. Australian shares and stocks would certainly drop. Future exploration, on which this country so vitally depends for its standard of living, would be inhibited, and low-grade mining ventures would also close or at least be curtailed. Certainly, we would lose overseas markets and an imposition of excise would, by all reasonable economic measures, be revenue neutral in those cases.Western Australia is the biggest per capita user or consumer of diesel and heavy fuel in the nation. It is, paradoxically, the biggest producer now of petroleum and petroleum and gas products. National export income totals about 30 per cent from Western Australia. So that ties the economy of Australia in very real terms to the health of Western Australia.Western Australia is by far the biggest mining state in the nation. It happens to have within its boundaries the biggest diamond mine in the world, mining some 38 million carats in the last complete fiscal year. It mines 80 per cent of Australia's gold. It has the biggest iron ore mines in the world. It is the biggest producer and exporter of alumina powder in the world. It produces more heavy mineral sands, particularly ilmenite, from which it produces synthetic rutile, in the world.If we recognise that, we must surely recognise that other aspects of mining in Western Australia are very important to the mining industry. I speak specifically of the mining of limestone in Western Australia. Limestone throughout Australia is a fundamental part of mining and a fundamental part of the steel and building industry. Some of the producers of limestone in Australia are Swan Portland Cement Ltd, Adelaide Brighton Cement Ltd, Blue Circle Southern Cement Ltd, Lime Industries Pty Ltd, David Mitchell (NSW) Pty Ltd, Cockburn Cement Ltd, Pacific Lime, Northern Cement Ltd, BHP Steel, Queensland Cement, Amalg Resources of Kalgoorlie and Westlime (WA) Ltd.Limestone, regrettably, initially did not attract the diesel fuel rebate. An appeal was made to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and it found, not illogically, that the mining of limestone was, in fact, mining, and they reinstated the diesel fuel rebate to the limestone miners. However, with bureaucracy gone mad, I believe, in this instance, the Australian Customs Service has now appealed that decision and the limestone producers in Australia are now awaiting the outcome of that decision. Justice, it would seem, is not quick and is certainly not cheap. I do not want to take the issue too far but I do appreciate the time and the forum of this chamber to bring it to the attention of members here—those members who are diehard and left here. I appreciate the three who are in the chamber tonight.In the few minutes left, I wish to give an example of two areas that I believe are wrong. The mining of marble in Australia is considered to be mining, yet marble is predominantly, if not exclusively, calcium carbonate. Limestone is calcium carbonate, yet the Australian Customs Service, which I think is an anomaly—the last word is anyway—has said that it is not; it is an extractive industry. Extractive industries in the United Kingdom, for instance, are classified as miners or miners are classified in the United Kingdom exclusively as extractive industries. Why there should be a distinction drawn between the mining of marble and the mining of its cousin, its very close relation, limestone, I do not know, but I would be very interested to find out. Dampier Salt is also in Western Australia. At the risk of bragging once again, it is the biggest solar operation in the southern hemisphere. Although it harvests the salt, Dampier Salt is subject to the diesel fuel rebate scheme. It is not a tax that they should pay. It was never imposed and never meant to be a tax and it should not be seen as such. But Dampier Salt is allowed to windrow its sodium chloride. It is allowed to pick up the sodium chloride in mechanical harvesters, load it on to trucks and take it to a stockpile where it dries out, because it is quite wet. That part of the operation is subject to the rebate. But once the stockpile is taken from the same mining lease to the wharf for export, that is not subject to the diesel fuel rebate.These are some areas in our mining industry on which this country depends for its standard of living, for its wealth, for its value added and for its employment. We should look to enhance that, not to inhibit it. Any tax on the mining industry is a tax on exports. That is something that I find convoluted and not in the best interests of Australia.Thirty per cent of diesel is used on roads but 70 per cent is used off roads in the mining industry, the farming industry and the fishing industry, et cetera. We should make this uniform within the mining industry. I believe it is an anomaly to attempt to exclude the limestone extractors. I appreciate having the time to draw this to the Senate's attention. I trust that those people who are responsible for the Australian Customs Service will let a little logic apply and consider the mining of limestone mining.FY5DENMANSenator Denman—Madam Acting Deputy President, I just ask for a point of clarification. Senator Lightfoot asked for permission to incorporate. Is that from the document he has just quoted from?10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Patterson)—Senator Lightfoot said, `I wish to incorporate.' I think he meant that he wished to put it on the record. He used `incorporate' in a way that means something special to us in the Senate. I do not think he wanted to incorporate a document.19:36:001010Senate adjourned at 7.36 p.m.Documents10111011The following documents were tabled by the Clerk:Civil Aviation Act— Civil Aviation Regulations—Civil Aviation Orders—Exemptions Nos CASA 07/1998 and CASA 08/1998. Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 Nos 31 and 32.Coarse Grains Levy Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 28.Customs Act—Instrument of Approval No. 39 of 1997.Extradition Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 27.Judges' Pensions Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 25.Employment Services Act—Employment Services (Case Management Documents) Determination, No. 1 of 1998.Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 26.National Residue Survey Administration Act and National Residue Survey (Aquatic Animal Export) Levy Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 29.Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection Act and National Residue Survey (Aquatic Animal Export) Levy Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 30.Public Service Act—Senior Executive Service Retirement on Benefit Determinations 1998/10-1998/19.Social Security Act—Pension Loans Scheme (Social Security)—Rate of Compound Interest Determination No. 2 of 1997.Veterans' Entitlements Act—Pension Loans Scheme (Veterans' Entitlements)—Rate of Compound Interest Determination No. 2 of 1997.1011The following documents were tabled pursuant to the order of the Senate of May 1996:Indexed lists of departmental and agency files for the period 1 July to 31 December 1997—Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies.Australian Institute of Marine Science.Australian Sports Drug Agency.Department of the Treasury.International Air Services Commission.Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman.Treasury portfolio agencies.Answers to Questions on Notice1012The following answers to questions were circulated:1012(Question No. 1008)10081012Allison, Sen LynSenator Allison1M6VICAD00 asked the Minister for Communications and the Arts, upon notice, on 26 November 1997:With reference to the $4.5 million set aside by the department for research into electromagnetic radiation and public health:(1) By what process does the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) select members to the committee of experts involved in the dissemination of funds to prospective researchers in this area.(2) What are the selection criteria for admission onto the committee.(3) Who is currently on the committee.(4) How often and when does the committee meet.(5) Does the NHMRC have any policy concerning membership on selection committees that deal with dissemination of funds for research into industry issues of people who are concurrently employed by the same industry.1012Alston, Sen RichardSenator AlstonLD4VICLPCommunications, the Information Economy and the Arts10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:The $4.5 million RF EME program comprises an Australian research program, managed by the NHMRC, participation in the World Health Organisations' EMF Project and a public information program.The Office of NHMRC, within the Department of Health and Family Services has advised that:(1) The NHMRC EME Expert Committee is a sub-Committee of the Strategic Research Development Committee (SRDC), which is a Principal Committee of the National Health and Medical Research Council. The Expert Committee was established by the SRDC to oversee all aspects of the research process. The SRDC, at its meeting in July 1997, selected two SRDC members to co-Chair the EME Expert Committee.The first step in the nomination process for the Expert Committee was to determine health and professional fields relevant to the issues identified in the document developed by the Committee on Electromagnetic Energy Public Health Issues titled "Strategy for an Australian research program into possible health issues associated with exposure to communications radiofrequencies". These fields included Epidemiology, Cancer Biology, Physical Dosimetry and Nuclear Medicine.The Committee co-Chairs, with Secretariat assistance, initially investigated membership, with final membership endorsed by the SRDC at its September 1997 meeting.(2) Members of the NHMRC EME Expert Committee were appointed on the basis of their widely recognised expertise in areas of science relevant to the responsibilities of the NHMRC in managing the EME research program.(3) The Committee currently consists of: Dr Donald Cameron (Co-Chair); Prof Judith Black (Co-Chair); Prof Bruce Armstrong; Prof Tony Basten; Prof Annette Dobson; Dr Alan Harris; Dr Ken Joyner; Dr Frederick Khafagi; Dr Keith Lokan; Prof Colin Thompson.(4) The Committee meets on an ad hoc basis, as required. Meetings to date have been held in October and December 1997, with a further meeting anticipated around May/June 1998.(5) The NHMRC has well established conflict of interest guidelines for a range of situations. These include a requirement for "Disclosure of interests" section 29 (1-5) of the NHMRC Act 1992. In addition, each Committee develops its own, more specific guidelines designed to optimise the range and level of expert advice while removing influences from conflicts of interest in committee members. For example, these principles may include that—no scientific collaborator or departmental colleague of an applicant is called upon to assess a grant application.The SRDC has developed conflict of interest guidelines for the NHMRC EME Expert Committee. The guidelines apply to all members of the NHRMC EME Expert Committee. All members have declared their actual or potential conflicts of interest. This is an ongoing requirement for the term of the membership. An excerpt of the EME procedures regarding conflict of interest follows:- In the case of direct pecuniary interest, members may not take part in any decision to which the potential conflict of direct pecuniary interest applies, and must physically absent themselves from all or any part of a formal meeting or other discussion at which the matter in question is being discussed.- Where there is a potential indirect pecuniary or non-pecuniary interest, the Chair of the Expert Committee, in consultation with the other uninvolved members of the Expert Committee, will determine the extent to which a member may be involved in the discussion or decision concerning the matter involving the potential conflict of interest.1013(Question No. 1067)10671013Allison, Sen LynSenator Allison1M6VICAD00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Family Services, upon notice, on 9 February 1998:With reference to the report in the Age on 28 June 1997 that the Federal Government would continue to exempt the Melbourne Formula One Grand Prix from section 18 of the Tobacco Advertising Prohibition Act 1992:(1) Was this an accurate report of the Government's intention; if so, was the Government at that time satisfied that failure to specify the event would be likely to result in the event not being held in Australia.(2) (a) On what date was an application made to the Federal Government by the Australian Grand Prix Corporation for an exemption from section 18 of the Tobacco Advertising Prohibition Act 1992 for the purposes of the proposed event in March 1988; and (b) can a copy of the application be made available.(3) (a) When will the exemption be granted; (b) what conditions will apply to the exemption and can a copy be made available; (c) will tobacco companies be permitted to use the image of a kangaroo in their advertising at this event; (d) on what basis exactly was the Minister's opinion formed that the event would be lost; (e) whose views were canvassed in forming that opinion; and (f) can copies be provided of relevant material in forming this opinion.(4) Is the Minister aware that Oxford University will be sponsoring a team in the British Silverstone Grand Prix in place of tobacco advertising.(5) (a) What evidence is there that alternatives to tobacco advertising revenue are not also available in Australia; and (b) can such evidence by provided.(6) Is the Minister aware that Belgium has, in the past 12 months, refused to allow tobacco advertising at its Grand Prix.(7) Has the Government acquainted itself with the latest status of tobacco advertising permissible at such events in other countries; if so, can the data be made available.(8) Has the Government collected data on the conditions set by other countries which permit to bacco advertising; if so, can the data be made available.(9) Has the Government collected data on the way in which tobacco advertising at previous events has been used in the print and electronic media during the event and subsequently; if so, can such data be made available.1013Herron, Sen JohnSenator HerronVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—The Minister for Health and Family Services has provided the following answer to the honourable Senator's question:(1) The report in the Age on 28 June 1997 that the Federal Government would continue to exempt the Melbourne Formula One Grand Prix from section 18 of the Tobacco Advertising Prohibition Act 1992 is not accurate.Decisions in relation to any future event are made in accordance with the Tobacco Advertising Prohibition Act 1992 and the Guidelines which were tabled in June 1993. Each decision is made on a case by case basis.The report also states that seven events are now exempt from the ban. This is also not accurate. An event may have been granted an exemption for 1997, however, an exemption in one year provides no guarantee of an exemption in the following year.At the time of the report of the Age in June 1997, the Government was satisfied that failure to specify the 1997 event that had been held earlier in the year would have been likely to result in the event not being held in Australia.(2) (a) The Australian Grand Prix Corporation's application for the March 1998 event was dated 5 November 1997 and received by the Minister for Health and Family Services on 7 November 1997.(b) A copy of the application cannot be made available as the application was submitted on a confidential basis and contains sensitive commercial information.(3) (a) An exemption for the 1998 Australian Formula One Grand Prix was granted on 4 February 1998.(b) The exemption and the conditions which apply to the exemption were published in the Commonwealth of Australia Special Gazette No. S 51, Monday, 9 February 1998. A copy is attached.(c) The use of the image of a kangaroo in advertising by particular companies is a commercial decision which is not covered by the Tobacco Advertising Prohibition Act 1992. It is not a matter over which the Minister for Health and Family Services has any control.(d) As required by the legislation and the Guidelines, the Minister took into account (a) whether the organisation responsible for allocating the event is not located in Australia (b) if other countries are eligible to hold the event, the strength of their claims to do so, and (c) other information the Minister felt relevant in determining the likelihood that the event would not be held in Australia.Given that the information provided in the application in relation to these matters is commercial-in-confidence, the details cannot be revealed. The Minister was satisfied that the event was an event of international significance which would be lost to Australia if an exemption was not granted.(e) The Minister took into account all of the material submitted by applicant which included information provided by the overseas promoters.(f) Copies cannot be provided of relevant material in forming this opinion given that the application and discussion of the contents of the application is commercial-in-confidence.(4) The Minister was not aware that Oxford University will be sponsoring a team in the British Silverstone Grand Prix in place of tobacco advertising.(5) In assessing applications under section 18, the Minister requests applicants to provide evidence that they have sought alternative sponsorship.With respect to the Australian Formula One Grand Prix, sponsorship arrangements are controlled by the international event organisers or promoters, not the local event organiser, the Aust-ralian Grand Prix Corporation. Any possible availability of an alternative to tobacco advertising revenue does not of itself guarantee that Australia would continue to be granted the right to host a round of the Formula One Championship.The information provided in applications is submitted in commercial-in-confidence and thus not available.(6) The Minister is aware that Belgium has, in the past 12 months, refused to allow tobacco advertising at its Grand Prix.(7) The Government has acquainted itself with the latest status of tobacco advertising permissible at Grands Prix in other countries.(8) The Government has not collected data on the conditions set at each Grand Prix by each of the countries which hold such events and which permit tobacco advertising, but it has collected data on the type and level of tobacco advertising restrictions in each of these countries. This data can be made available.(9) The tobacco advertising that has appeared in the print and electronic media during or subsequent to previous Australian Formula One Grands Prix has either been permitted by the exemption applying to the event or has been accidentally or incidentally present during coverage of the event.