1998-03-243816SENATE113701998-03-24The PRESIDENT(Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid) took the chair at 2.00 p.m. and read prayers.Questions Without Notice113711371137Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—My question is directed to the Minister for Resources and Energy. Minister, do you recall telling the Senate yesterday, in relation to your Pan Australian interests, `I have no knowledge whatsoever of any investments,' `I had no record of any investments in Pan Aust.,' `I did not know about it'? Minister, had you forgotten that on 17 November 1995, five months before you became a minister, you chaired a meeting of QCMM and involved yourself in the detail of the disposal by QCMM of Terra Firma interests to Pan Australian? Had you forgotten that the discussion on the disposal involved Bob Bryan, current chair of Pan Australian, and that the meeting determined a continued role for QCMM and Kiskin in Pan Australian? How could you claim ignorance of your interests in Pan Australian? Minister, haven't you just misled the Senate again?1137Parer, Sen WarwickSenator PARERKI4QLDLPResources and Energy10—I am delighted to answer this, Senator. You have led with your chin on this. Before I do so, let me say, quite categorically, I have no problem with you taking me on in this place, but what I do object to, with my wife walking down the corridor with you and Senator Robert Ray, when you hissed my wife just about 10 or 15 minutes ago.Honourable senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! The Senate will come to order. Senators will cease interjecting.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—On a point of order, Madam President: that is a despicable and contemptible lie from Senator Parer.Government senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senators on my right will cease interjecting. It is very important that I can hear what is being said.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Madam President, not only have I not hissed Senator Parer's wife, whom I do not know, have never met and would not know what she looks like; I have never hissed anyone in my life. I demand that that despicable and contemptible lie be withdrawn by that incompetent no-hoper of a minister.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order!LD4ALSTONSenator Alston—On a point of order, Madam President: not only was that not a point of order, but it was a flagrant breach of the standing orders to talk about `a despicable lie' and to impugn the integrity of Senator Parer, when Senator Faulkner well knows that there will be an opportunity after question time for him to make a personal explanation. But under the guise of taking a point of order, to then abuse other people and impugn their integrity is simply out of order.UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—Madam President, on the point of order. Senator Parer was asked a specific question. He did not answer it. He went on to other areas and, in those circumstances, I think senators are entitled to point out that he is in gross error in this accusation. He has my absolute word, and he has Senator Faulkner's word, that we do not even know what his wife looks like, let alone would we ever stoop to abuse her in a corridor of this parliament.Government senators interjecting—5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—You liar! You liar!10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Faulkner, I ask you to withdraw that.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Madam President, I withdraw. I would not know what Senator Parer's wife looked like and I would not hiss at anyone.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! There is no point of order. There is an appropriate—Honourable senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! I will not tolerate the shouting that is going on across the chamber at the present time. All senators who are doing so can consider themselves warned. There is no point of order. There is an appropriate time to debate these matters. Senator Parer, I draw your attention to the question that was asked and ask you to address it.KI4Senator PARER—Madam President, as I indicated, Senator Faulkner led with his chin on this. Regarding the acquisition and sale of shares by QCMM Kiskin, the shares were acquired in October 1996. I had resigned from the boards of both Kiskin and QCMM by that time. People are coming in here day after day saying, `You have an ongoing relationship with the management and operation of this company.' If I had that, I would have known about that fact. They were not acquired until after I became a minister.Regarding the other shares that were referred to—that is, QCMM (ESP)—let me put it to you this way: these shares were acquired in 1994 and they were transferred to another company not related to me or the company involved in September 1995. Hence my comment yesterday—which took me by surprise—when I said that I really did not know that they had shares in regards to Pan Aust.What did happen with ESP was that, while all the shares were acquired and rights were sought, the company then incorrectly issued back to ESP rights which should have gone to a company called Lacetal. I have gone to some lengths to find out the background to that. I have the letter here from the then solicitor of QCMM (ESP) to the solicitor for Lacetal laying it all out—that all the shares were transferred to Lacetal, that Lacetal sought to exercise some rights, that without any approval from ESP, or in fact without notifying ESP, Lacetal made application for those shares and they went to the wrong company, and that ESP only became aware of those shareholdings in July 1996, after I had been involved with the board of either QCMM, Kiskin or ESP.1138Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Minister, in order to demonstrate that you have not misled the Senate, will you obtain minutes of QCMM meetings which you have attended, at which Pan Australian was discussed, and will you table those for the benefit of senators? 1138Parer, Sen WarwickSenator PARERKI4QLDLPResources and Energy10—I made it very clear that, when I resigned as a director and chairman of all those companies, I did what everyone should do: I disposed of all those minutes. These are private company minutes.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—I said: would you obtain the minutes?KI4Senator PARER—What date are you talking about?5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—You know exactly what I said.KI4Senator PARER—I can only repeat exactly what I said: that ESP acquired the shares in 1994. It sold them in 1995. QCMM Kisken, in fact, acquired the shares. The transaction occurred in October 1996. They went on further in the report I have got that the shares were subject to restriction agreement of the Australian Stock Exchange which was not lifted until October 1997 and, as soon as the restriction agreement was lifted, negotiations commenced to dispose of those shares. Ultimately, the shares were sold in a market transaction on 2 February 1998.11381138Payne, Sen MariseSenator PAYNEM56NSWLP10—My question without notice is to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Will the minister inform the Senate of the government's generous offer to the states on funding for public hospitals? Will the minister also advise whether the patients of Australia will be affected by the states' behaviour at last week's Premiers Conference?1138Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment10—This is a very important issue, and there can be no doubt that the coalition government's health care funding offer was a generous one. It was not only generous but also innovative. I might look briefly at the facts.Honourable senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! The level of noise in the chamber is unacceptably high.BH4Senator HILL—In the last five years, the Commonwealth has spent $27.3 billion on the Commonwealth-state health care agreements. The forward estimates show that this funding would rise to $30.3 billion over the next five years. In other words, over the next five years the states will get an extra $3 billion, which is already budgeted for. But on top of that—and this is the important point—on top of the $27 billion plus the $3 billion, we have committed an extra $1.5 billion in the base funding over the next five years; an extra $750 million for funding for veterans being fully treated in public hospitals; $500 million for initiatives in efficiency and effectiveness in hospitals, particularly in the area of information technology; and another $120 million on waiting lists in public hospitals. Therefore, what we are offering over the forward estimates is $2.9 billion of new money. That is a 6.9 per cent real increase in the first year of funding, moving to a 15.4 per cent real increase over the five years of the agreement.A big advantage of this agreement, and one that stands in stark contrast to the previous 1993 agreement under Labor, is that we have given a commitment that, if the level of private health insurance coverage drops, we will add $83 million a year to the health care agreements for any one per cent reduction in the number of people covered by private hospital insurance. Therefore, contrary to what the states are saying, we have provided a safeguard in terms of funding. This is on top of the $600 million a year—or $450 a year subsidy for families—that the government provides via the private health insurance incentive scheme. So, while some states complain about waiting lists, the ACT, having signed an in principle agreement, will this week be able to draw $551,000, which will fund an extra 200 admissions.The Howard government is retaining Medicare, increasing funding by $2.9 billion, addressing the shortfalls in private health insurance and cutting waiting lists. What that amounts to is a greater contribution by the Commonwealth, in fact, than the contribution by the states. That could be starkly contrasted with what the Labor Party did in government, although it is interesting that, when the Labor Party was in government, even it was saying that it was putting more money in when the states were cutting it.You might remember former Minister Lawrence, who said, `It's not just that we are putting in more, the states are actually taking funding out.' So the states were taking money out under Labor. They have continued to take it out. Not only have we done what Labor did but also we have upped the funding in the substantial areas that I have shown, and we have provided the safeguard in relation to private insurance. What more could reasonably be expected of the Commonwealth? (Time expired)1139Payne, Sen MariseSenator PAYNEM56NSWLP10—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I understand that, under the previous government, the number of people in private health insurance dropped from around 70 per cent to 35 per cent. Will you advise the Senate what the coalition government is doing to arrest that slide?1139Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment10—That is right. That is where the real problem lies. Under Labor, private health insurance premiums increased by an average of 12 per cent over 10 years. From 1986 to 1988, under Labor, premiums went up 40 per cent. In 1983, almost 70 per cent of Australians had private health insurance. By the end of Labor, it had dropped to 35 per cent and there were 100,000 people on waiting lists.What is Labor's response to our initiatives? They are opposed to the surcharge on higher income earners to support the health system, and they are opposed to the extra $600 million we are putting in to support taxpayers to maintain private health insurance. So what is Labor's alternative? Of course nobody knows Labor's alternative. All we know is that they would take the money out of what we are putting in to subsidise private health care.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Hill!BH4Senator HILL—And they would take the money out of the surcharge that we are putting on higher income earners—a disaster.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Hill, if you were addressing your remarks through the chair, you would have known that I was calling you to order. Your time had expired.11391139Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—My question is directed to Senator Parer, the Minister for Resources and Energy. Minister, I refer to your statement yesterday that you propose to pass your shares in your family trustee company to members of your family. Are you aware of the Prime Minister's statement on radio 2GB on 14 October 1996, when he was asked by Derryn Hinch, `Well, what if I put shares into a family trust that I have no say in—just my wife and my children have access to,' and the Prime Minister replied, `Well, the guidelines don't allow you to do that if you owned the shares at the time the guidelines operate'? Minister, isn't it the case that you have not in any way removed your breach of the Prime Minister's code of conduct? Isn't it also the case that your continued presence on the coalition government front bench continues to highlight your government's absolute lack of standards and absolute lack of probity?1140Parer, Sen WarwickSenator PARERKI4QLDLPResources and Energy10—I think the Prime Minister has made it very clear indeed what he means by that. The Derryn Hinch one would have been read as to the wife and children—meaning, of course, dependent children.Honourable senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! The level of noise is far too high. Senators on my left will cease interjecting.KI4Senator PARER—Not only have I divested myself of all interests and all directorships, but my wife has done the same as well. The people who it has been transferred to are all adult children. They are all adults, the youngest of whom is 25 years of age.It is interesting to look at just what the opposition have claimed over the past little while. They have alleged that the trust could have disposed of its interests. Wrong. They have alleged that I have had talks of a private business nature in Japan on an official visit. Wrong, and proved by official minutes. It is an outrageous imputation. They have alleged that I have a conflict of interest in the Native Title Amendment Bill. Wrong. We have the opposition over there talking about apologies.RF4COOKSenator Cook—You do have. You do have a conflict.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Cook, you will have an opportunity to debate this at an appropriate time, and it is not now.KI4Senator PARER—The opposition tried—and I think I have absolutely demolished you today—to establish some absurd, obscure link between me and a mining exploration company called Pan Australian. It is perfectly clear that any involvement between any of those companies and Pan Australian was either completed before I resigned as chairman and before I became a minister or occurred afterwards, when I would have had no knowledge of it.When is Senator Faulkner going to admit that I have not now, not ever, at any time, had any conflict of interest? When are you going to tell us what your policies are on the issues that really confront Australia? We have not heard one policy from the Labor Party. All they have been doing since we came back into this parliament is muckrake. They tried to unearth scandals in the Natural Heritage Trust. That went nowhere, so they thought, `Well, we'll have a go at this bloke.' I am yet to hear one example of a conflict of interest that I have had in my position as minister. I think it is about time Senator Faulkner and others started apologising to me and my family.1140Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. We are aware minister that the Prime Minister has redefined his guidelines. Are you aware that those guidelines say:The transfer of interests to a family member or to a nominee or trust is not an acceptable form of divestment?While you are at it, could you indicate to the Senate whether either the Prime Minister or the Secretary of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet certified your revised trust arrangements as being in compliance with the Prime Minister's `Guide on Key Elements of Ministerial Responsibility'?1140Parer, Sen WarwickSenator PARERKI4QLDLPResources and Energy10—The Prime Minister is fully aware of the action I have taken to totally divest myself—not, I might say, for any conflict of interest and not, I might say, before—UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—Well, why did you do it?KI4Senator PARER—Senator Ray asked why I did it. I will tell you why I did it: because it puts legally what was actually occurring in practice over a great number of years, and I said that right from the word go. My wife had managed that trust for years and for very good reasons. The very good reasons are that, when one has families like this, it is most important, I would say, that the wife is totally over the financial matters in relation to the family. Some people on that side might not agree with that. You might prefer the wives to be somewhere else, but let me tell you that that has been my philosophy for many years and it is a very important one when it comes to raising and caring for a family.11411141Macdonald, Sen SandySenator SANDY MACDONALDCX5NSWNP10—My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Family Services. Minister, I draw your attention to claims that some 1,300 people on public hospital waiting lists for elective surgery are missing out every week because the states are refusing to sign the Medicare agreement. Will you confirm these figures and will you provide specific figures for my state, New South Wales?1141Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—I thank Senator Sandy Macdonald for the question, which is very apposite considering the negotiations that are going on at the moment. I can confirm Senator Macdonald's figures because they are absolutely true. The Commonwealth is offering a $120 million waiting list bonus to the states if they sign the Medicare agreement. Until they do sign, they will be missing out on this bonus.All of us are aware of the waiting list problems in the states. I would have thought that Senator Faulkner, representing the state of New South Wales, would be getting onto his Premier to bring home to him the fact that New South Wales is missing out on $1.4 million a week instead of pursuing a relentless campaign against my friend and colleague here which has gone nowhere. He should be concerned about the waiting lists of dying people in his own state and doing something about that instead of carrying on with this futile exercise.In addition, for every one per cent drop in private health insurance, the federal government is putting in an $83 million extra bonus. What did the Labor Party do when they were in power? There was an agreement that, when it dropped below two per cent, they would reconvene and discuss the agreement. I hammered them at that time about why it was not being done. They reneged on the agreement at the time. There was a two per cent drop and they took no notice of it. They never took any notice of their own agreement. At least we keep our agreements. We have offered an $83 million bonus. But they scoff on the other side. I would like to read them something, and they might take notice of this:But as every one of them pulls out, the profile worsens for those left in. The sick, obviously, are going to stay in, so the premiums go up. More and more people get pushed out. As they get pushed out, the premiums go up more. It just feeds on itself the whole time.This was said by the then Labor health minister, Senator Richardson, who, I think, sat in this seat. On 8 December 1983 he also said:There are a couple of obvious things you should do about it. One of them is to talk about a levy for those on higher incomes. As you would no doubt be aware, my Prime Minister does not agree, neither do some people on the left of the party, but they have a different reason from him. He wants to keep it universal; they want a higher levy for higher income earners with no opt-out if you are in private health insurance. The ACTU have that same policy.What did we do? We brought in a $450 rebate for low and middle income earners so they would retain their private health insurance so it would take the pressure off the public hospitals and reduce the waiting lists. There is one government that has accepted it: the ACT government. And the Labor Party vote—Honourable senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! There is too much noise. If senators were addressing the chair, they would notice when I am attempting to attract their attention.VW4Senator HERRON—They might well scoff, but their vote went down to 27 per cent in the ACT. Chief Minister Kate Carnell signed the agreement. There are an extra 210 admissions per week in the ACT as a result of that agreement being signed. No wonder the Labor vote went down to 27 per cent in the ACT. She showed that she had the leadership.The people on the waiting lists should be getting in touch with their state governments and asking why they are on these waiting lists and why they will not sign the Medicare agreement which would mean that an extra 1,300 patients per week could be admitted. Some 1,300 patients could be admitted Australia-wide if the states signed the Medicare agreement and got on with it. As my leader said, we are giving an extra $3 billion—a 15 per cent increase—over five years. So I can see no reason why they do not sign the agreement.Honourable senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! There is too much conversation across the chamber. It makes it very hard to hear.VW4Senator HERRON—In Senator Faulkner's own state, it means an extra 451 patients could be admitted to the public hospitals each week. (Time expired)1142Macdonald, Sen SandySenator SANDY MACDONALDCX5NSWNP10—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Minister, will you further provide details of the number of patients on waiting lists missing out on treatment because their particular states and territories have refused to sign the Medicare agreement?1142Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—I thank Senator Sandy Macdonald for the supplementary question because I am happy to do so. For example, apart from New South Wales, which I mentioned before was 451, the other states make up the difference. The big argument that cuts the states' argument down is that bed stays have gone down by a third in the last five years. So they are calling for extra money when, in fact, the bed stays have gone down by a third. People are only staying an average of fewer than four days per episode.Senator Cook interjecting—VW4Senator HERRON—It is true. It has gone down because of technology. Patients are going in and out of the public hospitals faster. The states are wanting extra money when, in fact, the bed stays have gone down. So that cuts their argument down by a third straightaway. We are giving a 15 per cent increase over that period. When the Labor Party came in, they were against private health insurance. They tried to destroy it. Now they are crowing because it has gone down so low. As I said, Senator Faulkner should get onto his own Premier and do something about it. (Time expired)11421142Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—My question is directed to Senator Parer, the Minister for Resources and Energy. Minister, I refer to your failure to declare your holding of 44 shares in QCMM (ESP), which you value at $56,300, on the basis that it is, in your words, akin to a superannuation scheme. What could be plainer, Minister, than the requirement for senators to declare `shareholdings in public and private companies, including holding companies, indicating the name of the company or companies'? Where do the Senate standing orders excuse senators from declaring their interests in companies that may be akin to a superannuation scheme? Minister, is this not just another pathetic excuse to justify your concealment of your interest in QCMM (ESP) and, through it, in Pan Australian?1142Parer, Sen WarwickSenator PARERKI4QLDLPResources and Energy10—The latter one with regard to Pan Australian has been totally debunked. I think I have made that very clear right from the beginning. The ESP shares in Pan Australian were actually sold by the company in September 1995, prior to my ever coming. With regard to the other one, I have answered this a number of times in the Senate. This was called an employee share plan. The whole idea was that certain profits from the company were to be put into this plan for its employees and its directors.UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—It's a tax lurk.KI4Senator PARER—`It's a tax lurk,' he says. Senator, this involves moneys going into the company on which, eventually, when that money is taken out on retirement, full tax will be paid. There is no way of avoiding tax on it. Meanwhile, while that company has that money, the same as any sort of life benefit or accumulation fund—Honourable senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! There are too many interjections.KI4Senator PARER—I would say that probably the only difference between superannuation and this one, if my taxation is correct, is that for any income that is made by ESP in fact company tax is paid whereas with the mutual funds and things like that there is a specialised rate of tax. But the way it operates is that moneys go from the profits into the fund and, when that money is eventually taken out on retirement, full taxation is paid.1143Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Minister, can you then guarantee that QCMM (ESP) has no shareholdings—Government senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senators on my right will cease interjecting while a question is being asked.5K4Senator FAULKNER—Thank you, Madam President. Minister, can you then guarantee that QCMM (ESP) has no shareholdings in companies that operate in areas of your portfolio interest?1143Parer, Sen WarwickSenator PARERKI4QLDLPResources and Energy10—Senator, in response to your question, I do not know. I will tell you why I do not know. This particular fund is managed by one of the—5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—You can't be serious.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Faulkner, you have asked the question. Senator Parer has the opportunity to answer it.KI4Senator PARER—Speak slowly, they say. If my memory is correct, and I will just check to make sure it is, I think that the units in ESP are about 44 out of about three or four million or something. I have never had any involvement in what that company puts money into or what it does not put money into. I know the line you are getting at—that somehow I was aware of this; therefore there could have been a conflict of interest. Let me tell you, Senator, I have no control over it and never have had any control over it, and what shareholdings it has I do not know.11431143Lees, Sen MegSenator LEES8U4SAAD00—My question is to Senator Herron, the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Family Services. Minister, on Sunday, the South Australian Liberal Premier backed an earlier call from the Democrats—Honourable senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senators will stop shouting across the chamber; I wish to hear Senator Lees's question. Please start again, Senator Lees.8U4Senator LEES—Thank you, Madam President. Minister, on Sunday, the South Australian Premier backed an earlier call from the Australian Democrats for an independent financial audit of the public health system. I ask today: will your government respond to this call, which would at least serve as a circuit breaker in the current ludicrous stand-off between Liberal state and federal health ministers? Secondly, will your government also consider reinstating the gun buy-back levy in order to provide the additional funds necessary to keep our public health system going and, in particular, to repair the backlog of funding until such time as the independent audit is complete?1143Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—Senator Lees is well known for her interest in health care. Senator Lees might follow her predecessor as Leader of the Democrats by moving into the Labor Party so that the standard of knowledge on health care will go up in both places.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Herron, I ask you to withdraw that. It was an attack on Senator Lees that ought not be made.VW4Senator HERRON—I withdraw. Senator Lees well knows that the posturing that goes on by the states always occurs when the Medicare agreement is renegotiated. That is what it is about. There is no crisis in this regard. The fact of the matter is that, every time the Medicare agreement is renegotiated, the states come along, cap in hand, cry poor and talk about all the problems that have occurred. For example, Dr Wooldridge pointed out that the money they are asking for would be equivalent to 300,000 admissions. It is simply that there are not enough patients to fill those beds if that were granted. What the states are doing is exactly the same as what they did when the Labor Party was in power. I reread a speech that I gave in the Senate at that time; you could just change the names and you have the same issues going today as five years ago.For example, New South Wales reduced its own source funding on hospitals in 1993-94 by five per cent in real terms, although it has since had to increase funding due to the appalling inefficiency of its hospitals. Victoria reduced its spending by 23 per cent in 1993-94 and is still spending 18 per cent less in real terms then it did in 1992-93. Queensland reduced spending by 15 per cent in 1993-94 and did not begin spending more than in 1992-93 in real terms until 1995-96. Western Australia made a similar reduction in 1993-94 and has yet to return to 1992-93 levels of spending.Your own state, Senator Lees, reduced its spending somewhat in 1993-94 and is still slightly below real 1992-93 levels of funding. Tasmania reduced its own source spending by 25 per cent in real terms in 1993-94, and it has since reduced it by a further five per cent. So, this argument, which I heard five years ago and which Senator Lees heard five years ago, is the same sort of argument, and they keep repeating it.Senator Robert Ray asked me how many people in my own state of Queensland need not be stuck on waiting lists if the bonus were accepted. It is 238 in Queensland. In Tasmania it is 34; in Western Australia, 121; in Victoria, 328; in the Northern Territory nine patients per week—8U4LEESSenator Lees—Madam President, I raise a point of order on relevance. Minister, I specifically asked you about an audit, not for further explanation of the Commonwealth's point of view. What are you going to do about the audit that has been asked for?VW4Senator HERRON—Madam President, I pointed out at the beginning of my answer that there was no need for an audit because of the facts that I have just put on the table. The audit is being continually done. There is no need to rush out and have it. These facts are available to everybody. They are published every year in the health department's report. There is no crisis. It is normal for the states to come with their hands out wanting more money. I do not believe there is anything abnormal about that. They do it every time the Medicare agreement is renegotiated.The second part of the question was in relation to the gun levy. That was a one-off situation, as I understand it, but I am happy to refer it to the minister. My immediate response would be that that is unlikely.1144Lees, Sen MegSenator LEES8U4SAAD00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Thank you, Minister. I think you have just given us a very good example of why we need the audit. That is the Commonwealth's perspective and, while obviously there are waiting list problems, all of this money is not for waiting lists; it is to address the backlog of maintenance and the new technology that is needed in hospitals. I ask you again, Minister, to stop all this buck passing between Commonwealth and state, which, as you said has been going on for five and more years. Why don't we have a full audit of the public health system to look at where the pressure points are, what the real needs are, and then we can work out where we can get the money from?1144Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—It must be evident to Senator Lees that there is no need for that. We all know that we inherited this mess from the Labor Party when we took power two years ago. What is their policy? What is the Democrats' policy in relation to health care? Where is the Labor Party policy on anything, let alone health care? They got it down to the depths that it is in now.Honourable senators interjecting—8U4LEESSenator Lees—Madam President, I take a point of order which again goes to relevance. I do not want to hear about the Labor Party policy. I am asking for your policy and what you are going to do about the state of our public hospitals. Have you visited a public hospital, Minister, in the last few weeks to see the problems yourself?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—There is no point of order, but if there were fewer interjections there would be fewer distractions for Senator Herron.VW4Senator HERRON—The answer to the question is yes.11451145Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—My question is to Senator Parer, the Minister for Resources and Energy. Minister, isn't it true that, in the material you contrived to prevent us from analysing prior to question time yesterday, your department lists three decisions you made in relation to the coal export facilitation program—the CEF program. Bearing in mind your lucrative interest in the Jellinbah coal mine, which exports to Japan, isn't there a very obvious conflict of interest in you, firstly, making decisions in relation to a $1.49 million program and, secondly, in the words of your department, `develop the relationships needed to address coal trade and investment barriers and to open doors for Australian industry'? Why then didn't you delegate to your senior minister your decisions of 15 August 1996 to approve the general policy direction of the CEF; of 13 December 1996 to approve the order of priority and general funding levels of various elements of the program; and of 14 January to approve an adjusted structure for the program? (Time expired)1145Parer, Sen WarwickSenator PARERKI4QLDLPResources and Energy10—Madam President, just before I answer that question I would like to add to an answer which I gave to Senator Faulkner before.RF4COOKSenator Cook—Well, do it at the end of question time. Answer my question!KI4Senator PARER—No, I will do it.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—On a point of order, Madam President: you know that it is competent for a minister to add to a question or correct a answer given in question time, but at the end of question time. I do think that on this occasion it is clear that you ought to direct Senator Parer to answer Senator Cook's question and, of course, Senator Parer will have the capacity to do that at the end of question time.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—The appropriate time to add to answers is at the end of question time. It may be relevant to this answer and be a part of it, but the preliminary comment of adding to the answer given to Senator Faulkner's question would have perhaps been best left out.KI4Senator PARER—The comment is that I was totally unaware of any shareholding in ESP, but it was advised to me yesterday—RF4COOKSenator Cook—Madam President, on a point of order: that is not relevant to my question. Will you answer my question?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Resume your seat, Senator.KI4Senator PARER—It was advised to me yesterday that all shares held by ESP had been sold in order to take advantage of a real estate opportunity and this took place prior to any of this issue being raised in parliament.Getting on to your question, Senator Cook, let me say this: these coal export facilitation activities are generic to the whole coal industry. They are not specific to a particular mine. They are generic to the whole industry. If you want to take a look at them one after another, we have the facilitation program, which was developed with an annual budget—you are quite right—of $1.4 million.There was an industry mission to India. It had no relationship to the mine in which my family trust had an interest. They have never been to India. It is not the sort of thing they would take to India. It is not a market for their coal. But it is in the interests of the whole coal industry. You are saying to me that simply because a family trust was in place that had an interest in a particular mine that happens to sell a particular type of coal into a couple of markets like Japan, some part of Europe and some part of South America—which is where it was when I left it, unless it has changed—there should not be a coal mission to India. This was part of the whole program of selling Australia on a whole range of issues.If you look at the minute you will see the companies that came with me. Do you see the name of QCMM or AQR? No you do not. You see BHP and CRA. There was a coal infrastructure port study. That was to enable more Australian coals to go in particular into the steaming coal market in India. There was a combined coal gasifier. This is to make steaming coals more efficient. In fact, the attempt there is to get them to a stage where they may well be as efficient as gas.The other one—and, for goodness sake, can you imagine this having a relevance to a particular mine?—is a Philippines mine safety review and coal purchasing workshop. Then we have a China power station refurbishment—in other words, to improve the greenhouse gas emissions in China. They are the sorts of programs that you are referring to, Senator Cook.RF4COOKSenator Cook—No, they are not the sorts of programs. I gave you three dates. Answer those.KI4Senator PARER—Senator Cook, that is what the programs are all about. I am saying to you that all of those generically apply to the whole industry. They do not apply to a specific company, whether that company be BHP, Rio Tinto, Coal & Allied or any of the other coal companies.1146Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. That is evasion, evasion, evasion. I gave you three dates on which you made three specific decisions, none of which you delegated to your senior minister, and on all of which you are clearly conflicted. Minister, do you deny that Jellinbah coal mine, in which you and your family have a lucrative interest, has derived any benefit at all from the CEF program? If you say that it didn't derive benefit, why hasn't the CEF program been cut as ineffectual?1146Parer, Sen WarwickSenator PARERKI4QLDLPResources and Energy10—What a question! You ask me: why hasn't it been cut as ineffectual because it did not specifically support the Jellinbah mine? For God's sake! These are generic programs for the whole coal industry. I remind Senator Cook that the coal industry in Australia is our biggest export earner—$8½ billion of exports. The important thing is for the coal industry to have access to markets.RF4COOKSenator Cook—You were conflicted, Warwick.KI4Senator PARER—At no stage was there any conflict of interest with me in making those decisions. Senator, you are really at the bottom of the barrel.RF4COOKSenator Cook—Did your company benefit?KI4Senator PARER—No specific company gets the benefit.11461146Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Family Services. Can the minister confirm that the CSL and the department are negotiating a lucrative arrangement which would be quite financially favourable to the recently privatised CSL? Will the arrangement involve the importation of plasma into Australia to allow CSL to establish a large blood products pool? If so, how can the government provide an absolute guarantee of protection for those Australians who are to be treated with products derived from plasma imported into Australia by CSL?1146Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—I thank Senator Harradine for the question. The government has very strong safeguards in relation to the importation of plasmas from overseas. Senator Harradine would be aware of this in relation to the problem that occurred with bovine encephalopathy and the Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease scare that occurred and into which the Senate had an inquiry. The safeguards were put in place. I will seek a briefing from the minister in relation to the privatisation of CSL. But I know from other material I have read that those safeguards were put into effect at the time that this arose. I understand that since then there have been further safeguards put in place so that Australia has the very highest standards concerning the importation of material from overseas in this regard. I do not believe there will be any effect because of the privatisation, but I will seek an answer from the minister to give further detail in relation to Senator Harradine's question.1146Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Could you confirm there are negotiations going on for the establishment of the large blood products pool by CSL? If so, then what consultations have actually taken place with blood transfusion services, hospitals, consumer organisations, relevant members of the medical profession and others? When is a final decision on this particular matter to be made?1147Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—I will have to seek further advice and get back to Senator Harradine with the answers to those questions.11471147Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAYUI4VICALP00—I direct my question to the Minister for Resources and Energy. Minister, do you recall vigorously pursuing an alleged conflict of interest in the Department of Administrative Services in 1991-92? Do you recall drawing the attention of the Senate to the fact that the Department of Administrative Services had the capacity both to provide advice to agencies on IT acquisitions and to tender for public sector IT business? You pointed out, `That is where the conflict of interest lies.' You also referred to DAS as erecting `so-called Chinese walls' to remove the conflict of interest but dismissed that as being totally unsatisfactory. Can you explain what the difference is between DAS's conflict of interest and your own? Can you explain why Chinese walls such as family trusts are okay in your case but were not okay for DAS?1147Parer, Sen WarwickSenator PARERKI4QLDLPResources and Energy10—I am intrigued to know how far back the Labor Party is going to go into the past. I might say I have to tax my memory about that.UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—You have been doing a lot of that recently.KI4Senator PARER—You're right. They really are desperate.Honourable senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! There are far too many interjections. The house is not behaving in accordance with the standing orders.KI4Senator PARER—I am taxing my memory but if my memory is correct it was a so-called tendering process. Again, the detail escapes me, but it was a tendering process and the idea behind it was that when you were tender ing it was important that there was not any special interest given—I think, and I might be wrong, Senator—within the department compared with outside tenderers. Again, I do not recall exactly the detail of what it was in those days.The point we are making is that one of the reasons, as I said over and over again, as to why any disclosure is made is simply to avoid the possibility or an actual conflict of interest. At no stage has anyone suggested—we had a lame attempt before by Senator Cook because of the generic programs that apply to the biggest export industry in Australia as having some specific benefit for a particular mine, which is absolute nonsense.What you are saying is that anyone with particular expertise in the field, someone who has had a relationship in it, can actually influence things. Attempts were made—and you were dead wrong. `He went to Japan. He met with all these trading companies—a whole range of them. He met the steel mills—UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—We didn't say that.KI4Senator PARER—That is what you were pursuing. I went over there, you said, and I used my position to push the family interests. You have backed off from that. I have heard no apology. Has anyone heard an apology for that? Not one apology. Then you tried to make a whole lot of other tenuous links and, I might say, you have got absolutely nowhere.In fact, I think Mr Beazley, in answer to a question `Has there been a conflict of interest,' said, `That's not the point.' What on earth is the whole purpose? I believe to some degree it has got out of hand. We have people standing up here and speaking in every debate. That is plain silly. As you said yesterday, Madam President, that has to be addressed. But the real purpose of it is to make sure there is no conflict of interest. There has not been and there will not be.1147Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAYUI4VICALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Whilst the minister is going through the exercise of taxing his memory, will he acknowledge that, in terms of conflict of interest, the Prime Minister has gone from perceived conflict of interest as being important to apparent con flict of interest to actual conflict of interest to conflict of interest that involves enrichment? Why are your views of seven years ago about the inability of Chinese walls in terms of conflict of interest in DAS any different from you having a Chinese wall in distancing yourself from the family trust? Why have you made that change in seven to eight years?1148Parer, Sen WarwickSenator PARERKI4QLDLPResources and Energy10—This is just another attempt to go down that track. I have yet to hear Senator Ray say—and I am sure he will not—that I have ever had in my ministerial role a conflict of interest in the decision making process or in any other way that relates to any other particular interests that I might have.11481148Heffernan, Sen BillSenator HEFFERNANC16NSWLP10—I direct my question to the Assistant Treasurer. When the coalition came to office it inherited a $10.3 billion black hole left by the Labor Party. Due to sound economic management by the coalition government, the budget is forecast to return to surplus in 1998-99. Can the budget absorb billions of dollars of unfunded spending commitments, including spending commitments in the area of health, without having an adverse impact on interest rates, debt, inflation or without increasing taxes?1148Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—I thank Senator Heffernan for that important question. You are right that you cannot increase spending at vast levels, as the Labor Party is promising.B36NEALSenator Neal—When?WW4Senator KEMP—The question was: when? There was a debate on trusts yesterday and Senator Cook said he would restore R&D syndicates worth millions of dollars.RF4COOKSenator Cook—No, I did not.WW4Senator KEMP—Yes, you did, Senator Cook. The fact of the matter is that the budget cannot absorb billions upon billions of dollars of unfunded spending commitments. There is no doubt about that. We have seen this in the past from the Labor Party.The 1997-98 mid-year review noted that the budget is moving into surplus in 1998-99. This result has been widely welcomed in the community and is thanks to the very strong fiscal policies that have been followed by the Howard government. It is thanks to the Howard government and no thanks to Labor. Of course, Labor left us, as Senator Heffernan mentioned in his question, with a $10.3 billion budget deficit. When we tried to repair that budget deficit, measure after measure was opposed by the Labor Party in the Senate.It is of interest to note the spending commitments that the Labor Party is already making. They are going out in the public arena and making statements and promises to particular groups. We have done some figures to add up the spending commitments that Labor has made in the health area. I can inform you that there have been billions of dollars of spending commitments made by the Labor Party and their health spokesman, Mr Lee.Our health minister, Dr Wooldridge, has pointed out that Labor, through Michael Lee, has promised a variety of things in the health area. I think it would be interesting if I listed these for the Senate. First of all, Labor has indicated that they would abolish the therapeutic goods premium policy for PBS medicines. The cost would be $500 million over four years. They would restore savings from the forward estimates agreed by the premiers in 1996. The cost would be $800 million. They would restore funding for the dental health program. The cost would be an estimated $400 million.Honourable senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! The level of conversation in the chamber is far too high for people, including me, to hear clearly. I ask senators to take a seat in the chamber.WW4Senator KEMP—I think we can explain the reaction of those on the Labor Party benches. They are shocked by the spending commitments that one shadow minister alone has made. Michael Lee has also indicated that he supports the states' demand for an extra $1.1 billion a year in base funding under the next five-year Medicare Australian health care agreements. The cost of that promise is an estimated $4.4 billion. This is big stuff.Senator Robert Ray interjecting—WW4Senator KEMP—I know that you are embarrassed by it, Senator Ray. Michael Lee has also indicated that there would be full indexation of the MBS standard consultation fee for GPs. The cost of that is $162 million. I have listed five or six promises that Michael Lee has made in the health area with a total cost of over $6.2 billion over four years. (Time expired)1149Heffernan, Sen BillSenator HEFFERNANC16NSWLP10—Madam President, I have a supplementary question for the young and enthusiastic Assistant Treasurer. Can the minister please outline whether the government's before mentioned strong, commendable and handsome policy of reeling in the budget deficit has been widely supported? What assistance has been given to the government to ensure that this task is successfully completed? Do other political parties deserve the thanks of the Australian people?1149Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Thank you to the very effective and mature deputy whip for that important question. The question is how would the Labor Party's—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! There is too much noise in the chamber and I would ask senators to observe the standing orders.WW4Senator KEMP—Thank you, Madam President. I think the Senate is asking how these massive commitments that the Labor Party has made in the health area alone could be funded. We know from 13 years of Labor how Labor performs. First of all, it always raises taxes. The Labor Party likes taxes; they are a high tax party. But, inevitably, even the taxes will not pay for the increased Labor spending. So what do we get back to? The old deficit spending game of the Labor Party. What we would see under Labor—make no mistake, and we can deduce the Labor tax policy from this—is rising taxes, ballooning government debt, soaring interest rates. It is the same old Labor story. (Time expired)11491149Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—My question is addressed to Senator Parer, the Minister for Resources and Energy. It follows on from an answer you gave to Senator Ray a moment ago. Minister, do you share Senator Hill's view, as expressed in this chamber, that the obligation on senators to declare any relevant interest at the beginning of a speech in the Senate and after a division is called, if they propose to vote, is, and I quote Senator Hill, `A principle that we have adhered to on this side of the chamber.' And that the coalition has, and I quote again: `always accepted that if a senator who has a conflict of interest is going to participate in speaking or in voting, then the interests that could be in conflict should be made clear, so that the public and the parliament can understand the position of that senator.' If so, Minister, why didn't you declare your extensive mining interests during two debates in 1996 and 1997 on removal of mineral export controls and why didn't you declare those same interests in the debate on the diesel fuel rebate scheme?1149Parer, Sen WarwickSenator PARERKI4QLDLPResources and Energy10—Just very quickly, first of all let us talk about the export controls. That was government policy before we came to the election and it covered all minerals except uranium; it was a generic thing as well. In regard to the diesel fuel rebate, the amazing thing about that is what we did when we came in here. We reduced the diesel fuel rebate for the mining industry, yet we have Senator Cook and other people getting up and saying that we have broken election promises.On the general question of the declaration of interests: in the past—until the last couple of days—it has always been a matter of commonsense. We have had industrial relations bills in this place. Remember when we introduced the industrial relations bills with the support of the Democrats? How many people on the Labor side who are existing trade union members got up and declared an interest? They did not. Not a single person.AX5EVANSSenator Chris Evans—That's not true!KI4Senator PARER—Hello, someone did?AX5EVANSSenator Chris Evans—Lots of us did.KI4Senator PARER—Oh! Every time a debate came up?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Parer, resume your seat please. The level of noise is unacceptably high. Order, order!KI4Senator PARER—As I said, it is a matter of commonsense in these things and people have to make reasonable judgments. I just think that, from my own perspective, when it comes to the decision making process that revolves around my portfolio, there has not been a conflict of interest and there will not a conflict of interest.1150Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—I ask a supplementary question, Madam President. Perhaps you could explain, Minister, why you have not adopted the procedure that was outlined to the Senate by Senator Hill, the Leader of the Government, then Leader of the Opposition? Why didn't you, Minister, at the time those important debates were on—that is, removal of export controls and also diesel fuel rebate—detail your mining interest? Did you not declare them before the chamber because you had not declared them in the Senate's own register of pecuniary interest? Is the principle that you work on, Minister, that two wrongs make a right in relation to declaration of interest?1150Parer, Sen WarwickSenator PARERKI4QLDLPResources and Energy10—More slur, more muck. Everyone in this place knows that going back year in, year out, it has been very unusual for anyone to actually stand up before a speech and say things. It is happening in recent times because of current events. But I can only say to you, Madam President, that when Senator Faulkner talks about the export controls, the export controls were meant to cover the whole coal industry.4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—No, you're part of it.KI4Senator PARER—No, the whole purpose of conflict of interest is not to do things that will enhance your own personal wealth when you are looking at things like that. So, the answer to your question, Senator, is no.BH4HILLSenator Hill—Madam President, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper .Miscellaneous115015:06:001150Parer, Sen WarwickSenator PARERKI4QLDLPResources and Energy10—by leave—When I came in here today, I was understandably very angry because of an event that my wife believed occurred—and she was visibly shaken by that, I might say. However, she does not want it to go any further and if she was mistaken, she wishes me to acknowledge that Senator Faulkner has said that, if anything did happen, it was not in any way meant to be intentional or any slur on her, or me, or anyone else.15:07:001150Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—by leave—Let me assure the Senate that I have no recollection in my life—Government senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Faulkner, I am sorry to interrupt, but this will be heard in silence without interjection.10000Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—I have no recollection of ever having met Mrs Parer. I may have since 1989, since I have been a senator. I certainly have no recollection of that. I do not know, let me assure you, what Mrs Parer even looks like. I want to say to Senator Parer that, if your wife believes that such a thing that you outlined at the beginning of question time took place, she is I believe quite mistaken. I want to also say that I think I have a record over the years of not—Government senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senators on my right will cease interjecting.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—I interjected when Senator Parer was making his statement. Do we have to be absolutely silent?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—It is disorderly for any senator to interject. The standing orders are quite clear.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—Of course it is.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Campbell! Senator Faulkner has the call.LD4ALSTONSenator Alston—Point of order, Madam President: it is one thing for Senator Faulkner to explain his position. We are not interested and it is entirely irrelevant. If he believes he has got some sort of character record that should be canvassed, we are happy to do that at another time, but it has got nothing to do with any explanation he might want to make which ought to be confined to the particular circumstances of this event.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Faulkner has leave to make a statement. It was not restrict ed to that matter. Senator Faulkner was granted leave to make a statement.5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—I was about to make the point—and I think it is an important one—that over the years I have been in this place I think I have very rarely, if ever, objected to a statement that has been made about me. I do not claim to be sensitive or have a thin skin. On this occasion I did during question time because the statement that Senator Parer made was utterly untrue. It is only because of that and because of the nature of the statement that I took a point of order and reacted the way I did. I accept the explanation that Senator Parer has made and, on this occasion, let me say I appreciate the fact that he has made it.15:10:001151Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment10—by leave—I thought that, as Senator Faulkner wants to put his character in issue, he might take the opportunity to apologise to the Baillieu family because he was prepared to—Opposition senators interjecting—BH4Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILL—No, it is serious. He was prepared to imply corruption on their part. He now knows that that was totally unfounded. We now know that he was defaming two dead persons, apart from the live Baillieus. If he has any sort of decency, he would come in here and apologise. He has given us a lecture today about his character and his personal standard. I just thought that he might like to clean the slate, wash his hands, come in here and say to the Baillieus, `I'm sorry. I'm sorry that I defamed you,' then we can all start afresh tomorrow and feel much better about it.15:11:001151Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAYUI4VICALP00—by leave—The matter that Senator Parer mentioned at the start of question time is all over the news bulletins right throughout Australia at the moment and my office has been rung. I am sure Mrs Parer may have taken offence. I can assure Senator Parer that neither Senator Faulkner nor I, unfortunately, have met your wife or know what she looks like. We often wander through this place. We may have been discussing something as she was walking by and she may have thought it was directed at her. Senator Parer—and I hope you will pass this on to your spouse—you have our absolute assurance.I make this point: yes, we dish it out in this chamber and, yes, we have to cop it, but we do not take it outside this chamber ever. On many occasions when I was embattled with people such as Grahame Morris we used to have to pass in the corridor and say good morning to each other and not take up the matters at that level. That is the way it is. This is a combative chamber, but again let me assure Senator Parer that not only did we not do that to your spouse, we never would.Questions Without Notice1151115115:15:001151Faulkner, 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.Both Senator Parer and the Prime Minister have claimed today that Senator Parer's companies sold their stake in Pan Australian Resources in 1995. It would appear that this claim is contradicted by current Australian Securities Commission documents which show both QCMM Group (ESP) and Kiskin on behalf of the Parer family trust as current shareholders in Pan Australian Resources Pty Ltd. We will be interested to hear Senator Parer's explanation in relation to that matter.Senator Parer has been a minister in the Howard government now for just on two years. Let us have a look at what his performance has been in terms of meeting the very low standards of ministerial conduct that were put in place by Mr Howard at the start of his government's term.The Prime Minister's own code requires ministers to divest themselves of all shares and similar interests in any company or business in any area of their portfolio. But Senator Parer, the minister for coal, held a $2 million interest in a coalmine through his family trust, personally held shares in an associated employee company, and also, as the minister for just about very other resource, held shares in Pan Australian Resources. That is the first breach of the Prime Minister's discredited code.The code also states that the transfer of interests to a family member or to a nominee or trust is not an acceptable form of divestment. But Senator Parer now purports to satisfy the code by passing his trust holdings to his adult children. And this does not fit any reasonable reading of the Prime Minister's words. That is Senator Parer's second breach of the code.The code also states that the minister should not intentionally mislead the parliament or the public. Senator Parer has misled this parliament and the public many times by not declaring his trust holdings as required by the parliament, by not declaring his personal shareholdings, by repeatedly failing to declare these interests when speaking or voting on relevant matters in the Senate on bills and legislation, by numerous public statements that he had fully disclosed everything when that was never the case, and also by his public statements that he never personally held shares in mining companies. That is five more breaches of the Prime Minister's own discredited code.The code also says that ministers should avoid giving any appearance of using public office for private profit. But Senator Parer used a taxpayer funded trip to Japan to hold discussions with the two joint venturer partners in his coalmine, who, as the major customers for his coal, increased their coal orders from Jellinbah by over 25 per cent after that trip. That is breach No. 7 of the Prime Minister's code.Of course, the code also says that a minister must not engage in any professional practice or in the daily work of any business. But Senator Parer was dobbed in by Mr Harold Shand as having had ongoing contact with Mr Shand as the managing director of the coalmine operator and as having had conversations that included discussion of industry matters. As far as we are concerned, they are just eight examples of the minister having misled the Australian public about his personal interests conflicting with his public duties. We say that this code is discredited, that the Prime Minister is utterly discredited, that Senator Parer is completely discredited, and so is the government whom he represents in this chamber. He is so discredited that it really is a gall for him to remain a minister. (Time expired)15:20:001152Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALDYW4QLDLP10—What absolute hypocrisy on the part of the Australian Labor Party yet again. When the greatest rorter and conflicter of interests in recent times in this parliament, the then Leader of the Labor Party, was conflicting in his interests over the piggery, over tax and over the Commonwealth Bank for a long period of time, there was not a whimper from the Australian Labor Party. So it is obvious why the Labor Party has lost this issue.I wish to oppose the motion before the chair—that is, that we take note of the answers from Senator Parer—and wish to move as an amendment that we take notice of the answers given by Senator Kemp and Senator Herron, because those answers and those questions were about the real issues confronting the Australian public, not the continual muckraking and slime dredging by the Labor Party. The real issues are about jobs and health. The questions that Senator Herron and Senator Kemp answered were about that.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator Macdonald, are you seriously moving those amendments?YW4Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALD—Yes, if I can.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—No, they are not in order, because they do not relate to the subject matter that is before the chair.YW4Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALD—The subject matter before the chair is that we take notice of the answer from Senator Parer. My amendment is that we take notice of the answer by Senator Herron.UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—Note or notice?YW4Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALD—Note—take note of.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—It is moving it to a different motion. Therefore, it is not in order.YW4Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALD—The motion before the chair is that we take note of the answers given by Senator Parer—just that we take note of his answers. My amendment is that we take note of the answers given not by Senator Parer but by Senator Herron. And it is simply a motion to take note of answers. I am suggesting that the motion should be amended to delete reference to the answer by Senator Parer and include Senator Herron's name in its stead .10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—And I am saying—LD4ALSTONSenator Alston—Madam Deputy President, could I suggest a way of approaching it. One of the concerns is that the whole half-hour could be taken up before we actually get to another opportunity to take note of an answer by Senator Herron. So if Senator Macdonald is allowed to simply add to it then that enables him to deal with this at the same time. If the others want to carry on about Senator Parer's answers, then they can do that as well.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—It is out of order because it is not relating to the subject matter of Senator Parer's answer.YW4Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALD—I realise that the Labor Party are just trying to stop me talking about the real issue confronting Australia, which is health. We want to talk about health.AW5CARRSenator Carr—But you don't want to defend Parer.YW4Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALD—We do not have to defend Senator Parer. Senator Parer has had not an iota, not a skerrick, of evidence brought against him that he was in conflict. But we want to talk about the real issues. So I will speak to this motion by opposing it, saying we should not take note of the answer by Senator Parer, because there are other matters more important.This issue of taking note of Senator Parer's answer is quite ridiculous. Not even the Democrats raised this issue today, which shows how absolutely irrelevant it is. But the real issue, as all Australians know, is the health issue and what happened last week that Senator Herron and Senator Kemp have spoken about. It is with some regret that the state premiers left the meeting on health because, as all Australians should know, the Commonwealth was giving a 15 per cent increase—in real terms over a five year period—in health funding.Furthermore, as the minister, Dr Wooldridge, has been saying, this government has negotiated an agreement that provides reimbursement of some $83 million a year to the states for any one per cent of further reduction in the number of people covered by private health insurance. Now these are the real issues which show what this government is doing to make sure that the health of all Australians is assured. The Labor Party do not want to talk about this health issue because their priority is to abolish—and take away from Australian families—the $450 a year subsidy that the Howard government introduced in the last year.This is the only policy that the Labor Party have enunciated. You ask the Labor Party what their policies are on anything else, and you get former senator Gareth Evans talking about negative gearing. That was countermanded within six hours by his leader. So there is a policy vacuum over there in the Labor Party. Tell us what your policy is on health. As Senator Kemp has mentioned, it seems that your policy is to spend an extra $6.2 billion, with no indication of where that money is coming from. It is pretty obvious. And Senator Carr, we know that it is part of your socialist left philosophy to increase taxes all the time to pay for this additional $6 billion that your spokesman wants to spend. That is the difference—we have policies, you have none. (Time expired)15:25:001153Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAYUI4VICALP00—Isn't it interesting that no Liberal opposite is willing to get up and defend Senator Parer on the specifics. We have got a daily event here called the Parer sprint. As soon as a question on Senator Parer is noted, we have a great sprint outside the chamber— led by Senator Parer—every day. And the best they can do is send in the Claude Erskine-Brown of the Liberal Party—Senator Ian Macdonald—to run off a few distracting lines.As an Australian who wants his country to do well—who never actually wants his country to be run by a second-rate Prime Minister—I feel just a little humiliated by his behaviour in the last two or three weeks. It has been demeaning to watch a Prime Minister changing, day by day, the definition of his own principles. I read in the newspaper the other day that Groucho Marx remarked, when someone rejected the principles he was putting forward: `Well, I've got another bunch of principles in here. How would you like to buy them?' That is the approach we have had.We have had an approach whereby Senator Short and Senator Gibson were dismissed from office—by way of their own resignations—because they were involved in a perceived conflict of interest. That was a definition that the Prime Minister and Senator Hill himself constantly used in this chamber between 10 October 1996 and 15 October 1996—that Senator Short and Senator Gibson had to relinquish their offices because they were involved in a perceived conflict of interest. Then the definition drifts off, over time, to an apparent conflict of interest. But by the time we get to March 1998, it is an actual conflict of interest. And then there is a sub-interpretation put on it. It has to actually involve enrichment of the minister. So this definition of conflict of interest has changed constantly.When the minister gets sprung, the minister panics. The minister decides to cut his losses—or his profits, in this case—cut those and move it all away from himself. He then goes into flagrant breach of another Prime Ministerial directive that says you cannot transfer those sort of assets to your family—it does not say dependent children here; it says family—or a nominee, implying that it goes well beyond family. So having done that, what does the Prime Minister's office do, but say: `Oh, sorry fellas, what we mean there is dependent children,' when it is quite clear from the Derryn Hinch interview that they did not mean dependent children then.We have a Prime Minister constantly changing his definition to fit the behaviour of his ministers. If Senator Parer does not come out of this very well, at least he comes out of it a lot better than the Prime Minister of Australia. After all, these principles were tabled first of all in this parliament as something very new: as a fresh approach. A puffed-up Prime Minister comes in and says, `I am going to set higher standards than the previous government.' When you go to the estimates committee and find out where all these principles came from, we find out it comes from the previous government's cabinet handbook; so there was nothing new here, this was just a cheap stunt by a Prime Minister trying to grab the high moral ground. Well, give him a tick, he got the brownie points for it.But what happens the moment ministers start to transgress? He does not dismiss them: Short and Prosser resign. This is not a sacking Prime Minister, as he likes to make out. The only person this Prime Minister sacks are his own resigned staff members, so they can get a higher payout than would have been the case if he had accepted their resignations. We have a weak Prime Minister totally unable to enforce his own standards. All we get from him is, `This is the politics of envy.' This is the line we get from those opposite. We got it again today about trade union officials. Look who we have got sitting opposite: a lawyer in the number one position and a lawyer in the number two position; Senator Newman—a lawyer; Senator Vanstone—a lawyer—four in a row, when they are talking about representing the widespread community. Senator Ellison makes five out of eight. All you have got is a surgeon as the odd man out. (Time expired)15:30:001154McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURANWH4VICNP10—Madam Deputy President, Senator Ray spoke of his embarrassment, but he should have looked at his own backbenchers when he addressed the chamber. There is one particular senator. It has all the look of the day after the attack on the Baillieus and the Natural Heritage Trust. They deserted the frontbench attack then and they have done the same now. This has all the look. The whole of question time has completely conked out. I am happy to jump up and join my colleague Senator Ian Macdonald. He made the absolutely correct point that this is not the issue of the day; this is not the issue that is biting out in society. The real issue is related to policy. The sale of Telstra has been the No. 1 head issue.It was only yesterday that Senator Abetz made this point and made it very well. An article in the Financial Review reported that of the 583 questions asked last year, in 1997, in this chamber, only 79 dealt with the economy. Of those 79, Senator Faulkner asked three—three questions on the economy. Yet he stands up in this chamber, gives himself a glowing character reference and glosses up his character as a man who would never slur anyone outside this chamber. But who hissed, Senator Ray? Who hissed? That is the question that has to be asked. The next thing we know, Senator Faulkner will be getting a call from the Women's Weekly. That is how much he glossed up his—Senator Robert Ray interjecting—WH4McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURAN—I knew that would get you back. That is how much Senator Faulkner has glossed up his own character. The point is, this has reached the end. It has now become a complete irrelevancy.UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—You are a lying mongrel if that is what you are alleging.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Ray—WP6LIGHTFOOTSenator Lightfoot—Point of order, Madam Deputy President—10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—I am about to ask Senator Ray to withdraw the unparliamentary language.WP6LIGHTFOOTSenator Lightfoot—With respect, you should stand.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—I am about to ask him to withdraw. I am also about to ask Senator McGauran not to reflect upon members of either house.UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—I withdraw. I point out that Senator Parer, I thought, accepted that those events did not occur.WP6LIGHTFOOTSenator Lightfoot—You only had to withdraw; you were not given leave to make a statement.UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—That is right. Do you want to get up and have a say for once? Just pay your speeding tickets and get on with it.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Ray!WH4McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURAN—The point is that, on any analysis of question time today, this has reached an irrelevancy because Senator Parer has made his disclosures to the Prime Minister and to cabinet. He has made his disclosures to the Senate. He has even taken it a step further and completely disinvested himself. So we have come to the end of the road of the Parer attack, just as we did with the Natural Heritage Trust.But who is leading these two attacks? Of course, it is Senator Faulkner—the same man who glossed up his character today but who, in fact, owes this chamber an apology and owes the Baillieu family an apology for his attack on the Baillieu family. He said, backed up by Senator Ray, regarding the Woodhouse Pastoral Co. listed at 360 Collins Street, that Maurice Howard Lawrence Baillieu and Richard Percy Clive Baillieu benefited from the government's Natural Heritage Trust—benefited in some way directly by the government's handout.The fact is, both these men have been dead—one for 37 years, and I believe the other one for around 50 years. That scandalous attack warrants an apology in this chamber, if we are at all to believe that Senator Faulkner has a character that would never slur anyone inside or outside this chamber—particularly outside this chamber.Also, Senator Faulkner, who glossed up his character today, the man who said that he would never slur anyone inside or outside this chamber, the man that has the thick skin, is the same man who has been defending Senator Bolkus who was censured by the Senate—the first time an opposition frontbencher has been censured for some 30 years—with the support of the Democrats, with the support of the Greens and with the support of Senator Harradine. The whole chamber, other than the Labor opposition, supported this censure against Senator Bolkus. Why? Because he was caught on film releasing quite sensitive court documents which has prejudiced the government's case and chase against Skase. If that does not warrant a sacking from the frontbench, then obviously no-one on that frontbench will go for any reason at all.Just to reiterate, the point of the matter is that this has run its course. It has all the look of the Natural Heritage Trust, where apologies will have to be made at the end of the day.15:35:001156Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—This is a case in which there is a clear breach of public duty by a minister, and where his public duty has been confused with his private gain. There is no question about that. The Prime Minister set down the test. It is in his guidelines. He called them at the time, I might say, his `code'; he now calls them his `guidelines'. There is a reason for that, and I will come to it in a minute.Today in question time I asked Senator Parer about three decisions he made as a minister which affected the benefit of the coal industry. This is a minister who, when he made those decisions, had private investments in the coal industry. His defence was that they were generic, they affected the whole of the industry. Ergo, they affected his company too. If this is a question of justice being done and justice being seen to be done, the right thing being done or the right thing being seen to be done, his decisions—the three of them—affected his private fortune. There is no way in which that is not true.WP6LIGHTFOOTSenator Lightfoot—That is what you are sore about; it is the politics of envy.RF4Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOK—You can shout and rant. It stands there like a pikestaff before your eyes as a fact. It is a fact that that means he is in direct, flagrant contravention of the Prime Minister's own guidelines. What is the response of the Prime Minister in these circumstances? To reinterpret the guidelines. Remember when the Prime Minister told us these were codes? Now we have caught a minister, they are guidelines. They are not codes—you do not have to abide by them. Now they are just guides to action.I want to know from this minister why he will not answer my question. Three separate times he made decisions which affected his private fortune as a minister for this industry. Why won't he answer? In the second part of my question, I asked him, `Do you deny that Jellinbah coalmine, in which you and your family have a lucrative interest, has derived any benefit from the program at all?' Cast your mind back. When this government came to office—and we had some questions about this today, laughable though they were—it embarked in its 1996-97 budget on the biggest cost-cutting spree ever. It cut every program across the board. It kept this program—the coal export facilitation program, the CEF program—that benefited this minister.I asked this minister if his company benefited from that program. Did he answer the question? No, he did not. If the program does not work to benefit coalmining companies, why keep the program?Opposition senators interjecting—RF4Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOK—That is exactly right. Why keep it when you are cutting everything else? Why, when you have got a scorched earth policy about budget cuts, do you keep this particular program if it does not benefit that particular company? That is what this minister now has to answer.He has argued up until now there has been no conflict. `You have not caught me,' is his argument. This is the thief's argument. `I may have robbed the building, I may have the jewels in my bag, I may have got them to the fence; but I am innocent because you haven't caught me and you haven't proved that I did it.' That is the argument being put here—the thief's argument. There is now a clear case of there being three occasions on which he has made decisions on which his—5F4CALVERTSenator Calvert—Madam Deputy President—RF4Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOK—Of course you want to shut me up.5F4CALVERTSenator Calvert—Madam Deputy President, on a point of order: I just want to clarify whether Senator Cook is inferring that Senator Parer is a thief, because if he is he should withdraw it.Senator Alston interjecting—10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order, Senator Alston! Senator Cook, you may wish to clarify to whom you were referring and, if you were referring to the minister as such, then it is out of order. If you were not, if you were making a generic comment, it is not out of order.RF4Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOK—I said that he employed the thief's defence: `I stole. I've got the goods. I sold them. But you haven't caught me and, until you catch me, I am not guilty.' That is what I said and I am happy to repeat it.There is a question here, front and centre, for this government. We now know that the Prime Minister has double standards. He defines promises and core promises. If you do not understand the difference between a promise and a core promise, bad luck—you lose. We now know that he has a code and a guideline. If you do not understand that guidelines are not meant to be kept, then you lose. We now understand that, if you have investments in your own industry, that is not an offence. Even if it is seen to conflict, the fact that you then have to prove that it does means it is not an offence. We now know that, if your family benefits, as long as they are adults and not children, that is not an offence either, although it is very directly front and centre in conflict with the Prime Minister's own guidelines.We have here a Prime Minister who redefines the issue as he goes along to protect his ministers. This is a weak Prime Minister. This is someone without the guts to defend the position he puts publicly. This is a Prime Minister with no leadership power or strength. If he had any, he would enforce his own standards. (Time expired)Senator Ferguson interjecting—10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator Ferguson, interjections are disorderly at the best of times, and they are even more so when you are not in your seat. So I would ask for some silence, please.15:41:001157Knowles, Sen SusanSenator KNOWLESTH4WALP10—I was interested to listen to Senator Cook's explanation of the point of order that Senator Calvert took on what Senator Cook, I am sure, said about Senator Parer. We will check Hansard very carefully tomorrow to see just what Senator Cook did call Senator Parer. I think the Senate needs to be reminded that, on 7 April 1989, Senator Cook, the then Minister for Resources, was actually censured by this Senate for improper alteration of the Hansard record of an answer that he gave in response to a question without notice. We know Senator Cook's track record, so it will be interesting to see the Hansard tomorrow.What is even more interesting is that, throughout this debate that we now have had raging over a number of days, the opposition cannot bear to look at their own record. They have pursued one minister in the Liberal government, the coalition government, after the other. But, when we look at what their track record is, I do not recall Senator Cook, Senator Faulkner, Senator Ray or anyone else on that side talking about Alan Griffiths owning a sandwich shop while he was Minister for Industry. I do not recall them complaining about Graham Richardson being a director of 2HD while he was Minister for Communications and not declaring his interests. I do not recall them complaining about Senator Richardson using his position as a minister to try to influence the President of the Marshall Islands on behalf of his cousin, Greg Symons—there was not a whimper.I do not recall the opposition complaining about John Dawkins's mother owning Bell shares while Holmes a Court was trying to take over BHP. I do not recall them complaining about Bob Hawke being a personal friend of Sir Peter Abeles when Abeles was trying to crush the pilots union in 1989. I do not recall them complaining about Bob Hawke using his position as PM to collect $1 million from four Western Australian business leaders, otherwise known as the `gold tax' lunch, as Senator Cook would well remember.They did not complain either about Gareth Evans. While foreign minister he wrote the blue book on diplomacy—that would be a first, wouldn't it?—using ANU academics without acknowledging their contributions. That is otherwise known as plagiarism, of course. Paul Keating and Gareth Evans used their positions to attack Justice Marks in the royal commission on the Easton affair. The list goes on. I would need half an hour to go through this—I have got pages and pages of it. But not a whimper came out of the Labor opposition, the then government, saying, `You've got to go. You've disgraced the government. You've got to go.'Yet opposition senators come in day after day attacking Senator Parer, who has not made one, single, solitary decision in conflict with his interests. These weak-kneed little people over the other side keep trying to bring successful people down. Why don't they concentrate on the main issues? Senator McGauran mentioned earlier, for example, that the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, Senator Faulkner, had asked three questions without notice on unemployment in 12 months. This amounted to three questions in 85 sitting days—and there would have been more sitting days than that now—but no questions on jobs since August 1997. Senator Cook, who is in the chamber at the moment and who supposedly represents the shadow Treasurer in the Senate and is the shadow minister for trade, has asked only two questions. Why don't they concentrate on the main issues?At the end of 1997, the Labor Party had asked a mere 21 questions without notice on unemployment out of a total of 583 questions. That represents four per cent of the total questions asked, but certainly no direct questions on unemployment have been asked in 1998. It is just absolutely absurd. They do not want to focus on the main issue. At the end of last year, Labor had asked a lowly 79 questions out of 583 on the economy. Why? Because they do not like the message on the economy. They do not like all the good economic indicators. They want to muckrake. They want to go through the whole scaremongering exercise. They have just concentrated on diversions, muckraking and smears in the whole of 1997 and nothing at all has changed in 1998. They are not inter ested in the real issues. They have not released one single, solitary policy in over two years in opposition. Where are the policies? Where is your health policy? Where is your tax policy? Where is your trade policy? Not one has been released.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! The time for the debate has expired.Question resolved in the affirmative.115810001CLERK ASSISTANTThe Clerk—Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows:115811803I6Stott Despoja Sen NatashaA call to label genetically engineered foods and food products.We, the undersigned citizens and residents of Australia, call on all Senators to support implementation of the following: a requirement to label with the production process, all foods from genetic engineering technologies or containing their products; real public participation in decisions on whether to allow commercialisation of foods, additives and processing agents produced by gene technologies; premarket human trials and strict safety rules on these foods, to assess production processes as well as the end products.Precedents which support our petition include several examples of foods already labelled with the processes of production: irradiated foods (internationally); certified organic foods; and many conventional foods (pasteurised; salt-reduced; free-range; vitamin-enriched; to name only a few).We ask you all to accord a high priority to supporting and implementing our petition.Senator Stott Despoja3I6Senator Stott Despoja(from 1,180 citizens)1158361X4West Sen SueTo the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate assembled in Parliament:This petition of certain residents of the State of New South Wales notes with concern the impact of the policy of charging entry fees—often necessitating the sale of the family home—for people needing nursing home care. Furthermore, the petitioners note with concern the impact of the policy of charging residents of aged care facilities an extra daily fee which provides no additional benefit to the resident and is nothing more than a disguised tax. Your petitioners therefore request that the Senate act to ensure that nursing home care is equally available to all who need it and further that the family home is exempted from any asset test relating to payment for such care.And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.Senator West1X4Senator West(from 36 citizens)1159383I6Stott Despoja Sen NatashaTo the Honourable, the President and Members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled.The Petition of the undersigned demand the Australian Government recognise that taxing part-time scholarships will:(a) jeopardise links between universities and industry;(b) increase the costs of scholarships resulting in fewer part-scholarships or part-time scholarships of less value; and(c) represents another attack on the education sector; and(d) calls on the Government to amend Income Assessment Act 1936 to make clear part-time scholarships are not taxable.Senator Stott Despoja3I6Senator Stott Despoja(from 38 citizens)115925HX5Woodley Sen JohnTo the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled.This petition from the undersigned shows that: there is an increasing and urgent demand from the people to protect all remaining high conservation value forests which support flora and fauna unique to Australia. We have a responsibility to future and present generations to act now on the following achievable solutions.Your petitioners therefore request that the Senate legislate to:(1) immediately stop all logging and woodchipping activities in high conservation value native forests;(2) ensure intergenerational equity by planning for the rights of future generations, and protecting in perpetuity all biologically diverse old-growth forests, rainforests and habitats of endangered species;(3) facilitate rapid transition of the timber industry from harvesting high conservation value native forests, to establishing mixed-species farm forestry on existing cleared and degraded lands;(4) maximise use of readily-available plantation timber for industry needs, using progressive minimal-waste processing methods, and where possible, reuse and recycle wood and paper products;(5) support incentives for nationwide composting and soil remineralisation;(6) encourage environmental education tourism with respect for natural ecosystems, Aboriginal cultural heritage; and(7) utilise expertise and resources from the military sector to help implement these tree planting solutions.Senator WoodleyHX5Senator Woodley(from 25 citizens)1159853I6Stott Despoja Sen NatashaTo the Honourable, the President and Members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled.The Petition of the undersigned requests that the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples of this country are treated justly and fairly. It is in the interest of all to build this nation in a spirit of reconciliation and cooperation with Australians of diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds.We call on you to ensure that regional agreements with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are pursued in good faith, so as to determine their rights to their land in a spirit of reconciliation.The co-existence of Native Title and Pastoral Leases on Crown Land is supported by legal principle and historic fact, upheld by the High Court. The people and Governments of Australia have a moral responsibility to give this fact real and just effect.We call on members of the Senate to ensure that legislation regarding Native Title(i) complies with internationally recognised principles of non-discrimination; and(ii) promotes Reconciliation with Australia's first peoples.Senator Stott Despoja3I6Senator Stott Despoja(from 85 citizens)1159173N26Abetz Sen EricThe Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament AssembledThe humble petition of the Citizens of Australia respectfully showethThat we: affirm the pre-eminence of parents' rights to give wise guidance and direction to their children affirm the primary and inalienable rights and responsibility of parents to nurture, educate, control and discipline their children oppose the autonomous rights given to children by Articles 12 to 16 of the Convention, which may allow them access to morally harmful material and people (with no adequate protec tion) and which undermine parental rights and disrupt proper family life.Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate advise the Government to withdraw their support for the Convention on the Rights of the Child by denouncing the Convention and by indicating that the Government will not enact any laws which invade the primary and inalienable rights of parents in Australia.And your petitioners as duty bound will ever pray.Senator AbetzN26Senator Abetz(from 173 citizens)116013I6Stott Despoja Sen NatashaTo the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled.The Petition of the undersigned draws to the attention of the Senate, the deleterious effects of the Multilateral Agreement on Investment.Your petitioners ask the Senate to call on the Australian Government to:1. Make available the draft text of the Agreement2. Make a public statement about its intentions with regard to the signing of the MAI, detailing the beneficiaries of the Agreement, and accountability measures for all corporations3. Not sign the MAI unless substantial amendment is made, including the observance of international agreements including environment, labour, health and safety and human rights standards4. Extend the deadline for signing the MAI to enable full and proper public consultations to be heldSenator Stott Despoja3I6Senator Stott Despoja(from one citizen)1160621X4West Sen SueTo 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 decisions by the Howard Government affecting the price and availability of medicines.The decision to remove (delist) a number of drugs from the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and also the decision to pressure people to switch to cheaper, older and less effective drugs, will disadvantage the less well off in our community who will not be able to afford the best most suitable drugs, the drugs their doctors have prescribed for them.Your petitioners therefore pray that the Senate recognises that these changes are unfair. We call on the Government to reverse these decisions immediately.Senator West1X4Senator West(from 62 citizens)Petitions received.Notices116011601160Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the Senate—(a) notes the Federal Court decision of 24 March 1998 to dismiss an appeal by four La Trobe University student editors attempting to overturn a censorship ban on an article on shoplifting published in 1995;(b) expresses its concern that the current classification laws are limiting legitimate freedom of expression and political dissent; and(c) calls on the Government to urgently review these classification laws.11601160Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEYO15NSWLP10—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the Senate—(a) notes: (i) the continuing poor performance of the Australian waterfront and the failure of the members of the Maritime Union of Australia (MUA) to lift productivity, and (ii) the fact that Australian crane rates fall well below world best practice, with an average of just 18.3 container moves an hour;(b) condemns MUA resistance to Federal Government attempts to improve waterfront productivity;(c) recognises the proof, established in the week beginning 22 March 1998, that container rates can be immediately improved because in Fremantle in January 1998 world best practice container lifts of 29.7 per hour were reached with certain incentives; and(d) notes: (i) that the ship being serviced was loaded at a rate of 10.4 containers an hour during the first shift, 16.8 containers an hour during the second, and 29.7 containers an hour by the third shift, and (ii) world best practice was evidently achieved by workers on the third shift after they were told they could knock off early to attend a strip show at the local pub. 11611161Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the Senate—(a) notes the Government's proposal to `revolutionise' on-line services from government departments and agencies;(b) encourages the Government to seek agreement with the States and Territories for a common platform;(c) encourages the development of Australian search engines; and(d) welcomes the Government's commitment to recognising the leading role of Government in Australia in stimulating the information society.11611161Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAYUI4VICALP00—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the Senate notes that:(a) the Prime Minister's guide on the key elements of ministerial responsibility states that `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'; and(b) it is now 14 days since the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) defied his own guidelines.11611161Quirke, Sen JohnSenator QUIRKEZS6SAALP00—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the Senate notes that:(a) on 14 November 1995 (Hansard , p.2890), the now Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Parer) said, `it is no wonder the battlers of Australia are fed up with this uncaring and arrogant Government which has clearly shown that it is out of touch with the vast majority of Australians';(b) Senator Parer failed to add that, in addition to his parliamentary salary and allowances and a network of other share holdings, he owned 16 C-class shares which cost him $16, and which have come to be worth in excess of $2 million; (c) Senator Parer has failed to inform the battlers of Australia that his $16 worth of shares provided him with an income stream of $850 000 over the period 1993 to 1997;(d) Senator Parer is guilty of his own accusation of arrogance in Government, as demonstrated by him on 23 March 1998 when he claimed he was `with the worker', but failed to explain why he, as Minister with responsibility for mining, showed more concern for his personal financial interest in the mining sector than he showed for the personal and legitimate financial interests of the Cobar mine battlers; andLI4PATTERSONSenator Patterson—Remember today—you'll pay for this!ZS6Quirke, Sen JohnSenator QUIRKE—I am quivering, Senator. If you are the best they could turn up with for intimidation, I am really shaking.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Quirke, will you please address the chair. Senator Patterson, order!ZS6Quirke, Sen JohnSenator QUIRKE—Thank you for the advice, Madam Deputy President. To continue:(e) Senator Parer is also guilty of his own accusation of being out of touch with the vast majority of Australians, insofar as all battlers know that you can't be the minister for coal and own mining shares in a coal company.Opposition senators interjecting—ZS6Quirke, Sen JohnSenator QUIRKE—Any time you want to, love. Any time.Government senators interjecting—ZS6Quirke, Sen JohnSenator QUIRKE—At least I've never been a bloody Democrat.HX5WOODLEYSenator Woodley—Madam Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. That is the second time this afternoon that Senator Quirke has referred to the Democrats as `bloody Democrats'. We really are not bloodied. I am just wondering if he could explain where the blood comes from and if you could say whether or not that is unparliamentary language.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—I would ask Senator Quirke to improve his language and to not use profane language when referring to other political parties.ZS6Quirke, Sen JohnSenator QUIRKE—Is it the `bloody' or the `Democrat' that I am supposed to regret?10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator Quirke, you are not helping this issue! Senator Forshaw has the call.11621162Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the Senate condemns the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) for his total lack of leadership and the total failure of his Government's health policies, as evidenced by:Senator Alston interjecting—656Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW—Why don't you shut up and listen!10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Alston, I will have silence from you, please. You have been interjecting all afternoon.656Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW—In case Senator Alston did not hear it, I will recommence. I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the Senate condemns the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) for his total lack of leadership and the total failure of his Government's health policies, as evidenced by:(a) the rejection by all States and the Northern Territory of the inadequate funding proposals for a new Medicare agreement;H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—Madam President, I rise on a point of order. Is Senator Forshaw going to be asked to withdraw that unparliamentary remark.AW5CARRSenator Carr—Which one?UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—What a wimp! You can dish it out, but you can't take it.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—No, he did not say it to me. If senators are allowed to come to this place and say `shut up'—and I know Senator Cook said it in an estimates committee—and if you, Madam Deputy President, think that is now parliamentary language, please make that ruling. But I suggest the phrase `shut up' is not parliamentary, and he should be asked to withdraw.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator Campbell, there has been a lot of language flying in the chamber.Senator Ian Campbell interjecting—10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Campbell, I have not given my ruling yet, but I am making the comment that there has been a lot of language flying on both sides this afternoon. If I choose to hear it all as unparliamentary, I would ask Senator Forshaw to withdraw his words of `shut up', but please would you remember that the language from the right side must be the same as the language from the left side.656Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW—I am happy to withdraw, Madam Deputy President. I notice that it worked, though. Senator Alston has not opened his mouth since, but the monkey down here has.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Forshaw!656Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW—I continue:(a) the rejection by all States and the Northern Territory of the inadequate funding proposals for a new Medicare agreement;(b) the reduction in funding for public hospitals of $800 million;(c) the failure of the private health insurance incentive scheme to increase levels of private health insurance;(d) the increased cost of necessary pharmaceuticals due to the Therapeutic Group Premium changes;(e) the abolition of the Commonwealth Dental Health Program;(f) reduced funding for the Public Health Program; and(g) the reduction in funding for medical research.11621162Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the Senate—(a) notes: (i) the findings of a study that 20 per cent of all male workers aged between 25 and 44 in Australia take home less than $300 per week before tax, and (ii) that this percentage is much worse amongst migrant workers from non-English speaking backgrounds and workers in rural areas; and(b) calls on the Government to direct more attention to ensuring that there are adequate services and employment opportunities for migrants and for people in rural areas.11631163Gibbs, Sen BrendaSenator GIBBS6L6QLDALP00—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the Senate—(a) notes that $399 million of the $1 billion Federation Fund has already been allocated to projects in Australia;(b) recognises that, of this amount, $5.4 million will be distributed to federal electorates within Queensland to comply with the commitment made in March 1998 by the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) to grant each electorate $200 000;(c) notes that the Prime Minister has outlined that a further $70 million, in addition to the $399 million already allocated, will be set aside for medium-sized cultural and heritage projects costing up to $5 million;(d) condemns the Howard Government for neglecting Queensland's project proposals in grants already promised;(e) recognises that the Prime Minister has stated the Federation Fund will be committed to projects which will generate large numbers of jobs;(f) condemns the Howard Government for neglecting unemployed Queenslanders by not allocating any projects in Queensland at this stage; and(g) calls on the Howard Government to ensure Queensland receives a significant amount of the remaining monies available in the Federation Fund.11631163Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the Senate—(a) notes: (i) the decision by the Queensland Minister for Primary Industries (Mr Rowell) to end the practice of face branding cattle in Queensland, and (ii) the ongoing support of the Federal Government for the introduction of humane methods of cattle identification;(b) expresses its support for the decision of the Queensland Government to cease the face branding of cattle; and(c) calls on the Northern Territory Government to follow the lead of the Federal and Queensland Governments and cease the practice of face branding cattle immediately.11631163Gibbs, Sen BrendaSenator GIBBS6L6QLDALP00—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the Senate—(a) notes that the recent electricity blackouts throughout Queensland caused chaos and confusion for householders and businesses;(b) recognises the reported recent comments by senior industry officials that there is potential for Queenslanders to experience further electricity shortages during the coming winter period;(c) expresses its concern at the further damage this could do to suffering householders and businesses; and(d) condemns: (i) the Queensland Government for its inept handling of the crisis and for misleading Queenslanders about the potential risk for future shortages, and (ii) the Queensland Deputy Premier and Treasurer (Mrs Sheldon) for her union-bashing conspiracy theory in blaming the electricity unions for the disruption to the power supply.Business11631163Motion (by Senator Lees) agreed to:That business of the Senate notice of motion no. 1 standing in the name of Senator Lees for today, relating to the disallowance of the Energy Research and Development Corporation Regulations (Repeal) contained in Statutory Rules 1998 No. 6, be postponed till the next day of sitting.1163Motion (by Senator Margetts) agreed to:That general business notice of motion no. 1003 standing in the name of Senator Margetts for today, relating to human rights in East Timor and Indonesia, be postponed till the next day of sitting.1164Motion (by Senator Stott Despoja) agreed to:That general business notice of motion no. 1014 standing in the name of Senator Stott Despoja for today, relating to cloning technology, be postponed till the next day of sitting.1164Motion (by Senator Margetts) agreed to:That general business notice of motion no. 1007 standing in the name of Senator Margetts for today, relating to refugees on the Thailand-Burma border, be postponed till the next day of sitting.1164Motion (by Senator Bartlett) agreed to:That general business notice of motion no. 1015 standing in the name of Senator Bartlett for today, relating to duck hunting, be postponed till the next day of sitting.1164Motion (by Senator Margetts) agreed to:That general business notice of motion no. 1012 standing in the name of Senator Margetts for today, relating to the proposed Jabiluka uranium mine, be postponed till the next day of sitting.1164Motion (by Senator Calvert, at the request of Senator Payne) agreed to:That general business notice of motion no. 1008 standing in the name of Senator Payne for today, relating to youth suicide, be postponed till the next day of sitting.Miscellaneous1164Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell, at the request of Senator Hill) agreed to:That the provisions of paragraphs (5) to (7) of standing order 111 not apply to the following bills, allowing them to be considered during this period of sittings:Child Care Legislation Amendment Bill 1998Legislative Instruments Bill 1996 [No. 2]Parliamentary Service Bill 1997 [No. 2]Public Service Bill 1997 [No. 2]Public Employment (Consequential and Transitional) Amendment Bill 1997 [No. 2]. Committees116411641164Motion (by Senator Chris Evans, at the request of Senator McKiernan) agreed to:That the Legal and Constitutional References Committee be authorised to hold a public meeting during the sitting of the Senate on 26 March 1998, from 4 pm, to take evidence from the Australian Law Reform Commission, the Administrative Review Council and the Commonwealth Attorney-General's Department, as part of the committee's inquiry into legal aid.Bills1164s1511164Motion (by Senator Woodley) agreed to:That the following bill be introduced: a bill for an act to require labelling of food, and for related purposes.Motion (by Senator Woodley) agreed to:That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.Bill read a first time.116416:03:001164Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEYHX5QLDAD00—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—This Private Senator's Food Labelling Bill is introduced with two very simple aims: (1) to enable consumer choice to be informed choice; and (2) to ensure competition and trade is conducted in a transparent and fair manner.The Bill ensures that all food which is being sold in Australia is labelled to indicate the extent to which Australia benefits from the sale of the product. It also includes countries involved in the supply of raw materials. By ensuring truthful labelling, Australian businesses, consumers and unemployed people will all benefit.I would like to acknowledge the work of Senator Lees in her conduct of successful supermarket trials and the subsequent preparation of a Food Labelling Bill in 1993. Unfortunately, the 1993 elections came soon after the second reading and the issue was swept under the carpet. It should be noted that, in the past, special meetings between farmer organisations, government and processors resulted in agreement for labelling legislation.Even though both the Labor and Coalition governments have promised food labelling legislation, neither have delivered on their promises. Now is the time for both the Coalition and the Labor Party to make good their fallen promises.It is in the interests of consumers, rural people, business people and unemployed people of Australia that this very important issue is now addressed.In the Government's Background Information Sheet on Country of Origin Labelling it states that "The Government believes that ANZFA, a joint Commonwealth/ State/ New Zealand body, is the appropriate organisation to determine any extra labelling requirements for food."A letter from the Minister Truss' office states that the World Trade Organisation is working towards the development of rules of origin. It is being assisted by a Technical Committee which has been established by the World Customs Organisation. The strongest assurance from the Minister about the impact on Australian food labelling by the international standards which may be several years away, is that "Domestic labelling will be kept firmly in mind as we move closer to the adoption of internationally harmonised rules of origin."I was under the impression that the Australian Parliament was elected to make food labelling legislation for Australia, and not ANZFA or the WTO. Of course submissions from ANZFA and the WTO would be well received, "to keep firmly in mind" their viewpoints. I was also under the impression that we were here to represent the interests of Australian consumers, Australian companies and businesses, and most importantly, Australia's unemployed.I thoroughly endorse the Minister's intention to get around to amending existing legislation to better address food labelling concerns. It was disappointing to note that the Minister neglected this task until our Democrat announcement about this Food Labelling Bill, however at least he's now thinking about the problem.Unfortunately, the Government endorsed approach is still about getting the unsuccessful model of an "either/ or" labelling system in place.Either the product is made in Australia or it isn't.Either the product is a Product of Australia or it isn't (even with the proposed Cost of Production test).The reality of the situation is that because of our geography and our varying ability to grow, synthesise, process or package the multitude of food additives and raw materials, the situation is: "to varying degrees the product: - includes ingredients from Australia, - was value added by processing conducted in Australia, - was packaged using Australian raw materials; - and was actually packaged in Australia".We, in the Democrats, advocate for Australian consumers, Australian business and the unemployed people of Australia. As their representatives, we can no longer just wait, hoping the Government of the day will gain enough knowledge about the food industry to develop a system which reflects the reality of industry practices.The Australian Democrats have developed a graded system, so that the amount of benefit to Australia is what is placed on the label. Each and every food supplier whose sale to some extent benefits Australia is, in return, able to benefit from the marketing advantage of using a standard symbol which simply varies in colour.We are not about punishing use of imports, but rewarding effort and focus on Australian business and Australian employment opportunities.We are not about blocking imports, but about fair and truthful trade and business practices.If it truly is the intention of the government and the opposition to ensure fair practices for the benefit of Australian consumers, businesses and unemployed people, then they will have no problem endorsing this legislation.I don't believe all of the big players in the food industry would want food labelling legislation which is as fair as ours. This could be because their maximum profits depend on high usage of imports, or it could even be because the corporations have significant levels of foreign ownership.However, the Australian owned and controlled small to medium sized businesses and companies do want it. They want to provide benefits to their Australian shareholders, owners, employees, and consumers.The unemployed people of Australia want this truthful labelling because they know fair trade and competition converts to more jobs for Australians. The final result, of course, is a healthier economy, something to benefit both current and future generations.The sale of foods which have been partially or wholly produced, processed or packaged overseas is on the increase.Australia imports many foods which are being produced in Australia: beef, rice, vegetables, fruit, jam, fish, biscuits, beer, wine, mineral water, dairy products, breakfast cereals. The philosophy of this Bill is in line with that of the "Buy Australian" program.According to the Australian Owned Companies Association, if just 10% less goods and services were imported out of consumer choice for Australian goods (which were at least 75% Australian value-added) then:. approximately 225,000 full time Australian jobs would have been created;. the 1995/6 Current Account deficit would have been $12.8 billion instead of $20.3 billion;. foreign debt would have been $7.6 billion less; and. the Federal and State Governments would have earned an extra $2 billion in income, payroll and other taxes. (ABS derived figures)The Australian Democrats do not support the "unfair, non-level playing field" trade in foodstuffs with overseas countries. However, we do acknowledge that it is occurring. We know that without adequate checks such as this responsible and fair legislation, it will increase rapidly over the next few years.All we want,all Australians want,is to ensure the labelling is truthful and fair.We just want to give Australians a fair go.The aim of the Private Senator's Bill which I am proposing is to make it quick and easy for consumers to identify the extent to which their buying decision benefits Australia. It proposes simple labelling to ensure truth in labelling by producers, processors, wholesalers and retailers.The Bill also makes compulsory a table of product contents, detailing each ingredient, its percentage by volume in the product and its country of origin, in letters at least 4 mm high (example below).Contents% by volume in foodCountry of originApricots70%AustraliaWater20%AustraliaSugar8%AustraliaFlavouring 769A1%USAStabilisers 29 and 331%NetherlandsThe Bill ensures food products will be identified as one of six different colour coded food categories: category A food is a food all of the steps in the production of which (including any packaging) are done in Australia by a business that is, or by 2 or more businesses each of which is, a wholly Australian business. (Coded using a Gold symbol, probably a map of Australia) category B food is a food all of the steps in the production of which (including any packaging) are done in Australia by a business that is, or by 2 or more businesses each of which is, a majority Australian business. (Coded using a Silver symbol) category C food is a food all of the steps in the production of which (except packaging) are done in Australia by a business that is, or by 2 or more businesses each of which is, a majority Australian business. (Coded using a Bronze symbol) category D food is a food all of the natural ingredients of which are grown in Australia by a business that is, or by 2 or more businesses each of which is, a majority Australian business (Coded using a Black and White symbol) category E food is a food where at least one of the steps in the production of which (including growing of ingredients and packaging) is done in Australia by a business that is, or by 2 or more businesses each of which is, a minority Australian business. (Coded using a Grey and White symbol) category F food means a food that has no Australian content or input. (Coded using a Black and White symbol with a red cross through it)Surveys show that where there is a choice and prices are similar, people will buy Australian. Eighty eight percent of respondents to a Morgan Gallup poll indicated they thought people should buy Australian when prices were similar to non-Australian products. The problem is in the provision of the information so informed choices can be made.Both Coles and Woolworths have implemented their own costly Australian product identification schemes. This clearly indicates the public demand for such information and the poor state of our labelling laws.This legislation gives consumers the opportunity to reward Australian businesses, to support the Australian economy, and even to "Buy Australian and buy Australians jobs".If the Liberal government says let the market decide, then let's let the consumer decide what it wants on the basis of truthful information. I believe "consumer driven" is a founding principle of market economists.There are a number of issues surrounding the dramatic increases in imported foods to Australia—tariff levels, dumping, foreign subsidies, and price competition. Genuine fair competition on price is rare. More usually it is based on exploitation of labour providers and the environment.The question we need to answer is how much of the increase in imports is because consumers are denied the right to know what they are buying and who benefits by their purchase.A study by the Printing and Allied Trades Employer's Federation of Australia suggests the Australian printing, packaging and labelling industry is losing some $50 million every year as a result of poor, misleading, or non-existent country of origin information. They consider the wider Australian economy is losing some $500 million from the problem, including 500 jobs in the printing, labelling and packaging industry.This Bill is not a protectionist device.Its an honesty device.The economic rationalists should love it because it helps fulfil one of the conditions of a perfectly functioning free market—perfect information.Debate (on motion by Senator Calvert) adjourned.Miscellaneous1167Motion (by Senator Lees)—as amended by leave—proposed:That the Senate—(a) notes that the removal of export controls on the coal industry was the first initiative in the Senate of the new Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Parer);(b) notes that this removal of Commonwealth controls: (i) significantly disadvantages the environment as it removed an important lever the Commonwealth had to order environmental assessments or conditions, and (ii) significantly advantages those with an interest in the coal industry; and(c) calls on the Government to reinstate the export controls on the coal industry. Question put.16:08:00The Senate divided. (The President—Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid)9Allison, L. Bartlett, A. J. J.Bourne, V. *Brown, B.Lees, M. H. Margetts, D.Murray, A. Stott Despoja, N.Woodley, J.49Bishop, M. Brownhill, D. G. C.Calvert, P. H. Campbell, I. G.Carr, K. Chapman, H. G. P.Collins, J. M. A. Colston, M. A.Conroy, S. Cook, P. F. S.Coonan, H. Crane, W.Crowley, R. A. Denman, K. J.Eggleston, A. Evans, C. V. *Faulkner, J. P. Ferguson, A. B.Ferris, J. Forshaw, M. G.Gibbs, B. Gibson, B. F.Harradine, B. Hogg, J.Kemp, R. Knowles, S. C.Lightfoot, P. R. Macdonald, S.Mackay, S. McGauran, J. J. J.McKiernan, J. P. Murphy, S. M.Neal, B. J. Newman, J. M.O'Brien, K. W. K. O'Chee, W. G.Parer, W. R. Patterson, K. C. L.Payne, M. A.Quirke, J. A.Ray, R. F. Reid, M. E.Reynolds, M. Sherry, N.Tambling, G. E. J. Tierney, J.Troeth, J. Watson, J. O. W.West, S. M.Question so resolved in the negative.Miscellaneous1167Motion (by Senator Woodley) not agreed to:That further consideration of the Native Title Amendment Bill 1997 [No. 2] be postponed till after the Government has complied with the order of the Senate of 11 March 1998 for the production of legal advice on how the bill satisfies the requirements of section 57 of the Constitution.Committees116811681168Motion (by Senator Patterson) agreed to:That the time for the presentation of the report of the Environment, Recreation, Communications and the Arts Legislation Committee on the examination of annual reports be extended to 26 March 1998.Miscellaneous11681168Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—I ask that general business notice of motion No. 1018 standing in my name for today relating to government amendments to the Native Title Act be taken as a formal motion.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Is there any objection to the motion being taken as formal?6H4HARRADINESenator Harradine—There is an objection to its being taken as formal. I think it should be deferred.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—The motion is not formal.Motion (by Senator Allison) agreed to:That general business notice of motion No. 1018 be postponed till the next day of sitting.Matters of Public Importance11681168UNKNOWNThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Chapman)The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Chapman)—The President has received a letter from Senator Faulkner proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion, namely:The irresponsibility of the Prime Minister in converting his `Guide on Key Elements of Ministerial Responsibility' into an object of public ridicule by failing to enforce it; by re-defining the concept of conflict of interest to exclude anything other than use of public office for direct personal gain; and now by re-defining the concept of family to accommodate Senator Parer's latest breach of the guidelines. I call upon those senators who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places—10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—I understand that informal arrangements have been made to allocate specific times to each of the speakers in today's debate. With the concurrence of the Senate, I shall ask the clerks to set the clock accordingly.16:15:001168Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—Let me commence debate on the issue before the Senate by actually taking a look at what the Prime Minister's own much vaunted, but now much discredited, code of ministerial conduct says. Of course this was a code that was launched with enormous fanfare back in April 1996. What does this actually say about conflict of interest? Section 5 of the code on ministerial conduct says:It is vital that ministers and parliamentary secretaries do not by their conduct undermine public confidence in them or the government.It says:Although their public lives encroach upon their private lives, it is important that ministers and parliamentary secretaries avoid giving any appearance of using public office for private purposes.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.It says:Ministers are required to resign directorships in public companies and may retain directorships in private companies only if . . . retention of the directorship is not likely to conflict with the minister's public duty . . .It 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.That is what the code says. What does John Howard say on the public record about conflict of interest and the need for his ministers to avoid conflict of interest? The Prime Minister gave a press conference on 16 October 1996 and canvassed this issue. He said:We don't want a situation where there is the appearance of the potential for unacceptable conflict of interest, we don't want that.He went on to say—and this was in relation to Senator Short:I think in the case of Senator Short there was a clear failure to properly read a very clear guideline. I don't think there's any argument that somebody who is the Assistant Treasurer should have disposed of shares in the ANZ Bank . . . I've had a lot of talks with a lot of my colleagues in recent days, and I have very forcibly reminded them of their obligations. I have had in the past few days the head of my department go through all of the declarations and he's tendered me some comments and some advice in relation to those. But the reality is that when somebody is appointed a Minister, that person carries with them a responsibility to get their affairs in order, and this idea that the Minister can sort of hide behind the fact that interests have been declared to the Prime Minister and then say, well, you know, it's no longer my responsibility . . . I mean, Ministers have great privileges in our system.That is what the Prime Minister himself said about conflict of interest.The generally understood definition of conflict of interest in public life is when there can be a perceived or actual personal gain from a person's public activity, where one's personal benefit coexists with one's public duty. Any minister, for that matter any public servant, has to ask themselves: could my personal interests influence my public decisions? They have to ask themselves: could something that I tick off or approve have the potential or be seen to have the potential to benefit me perhaps to the disadvantage of someone else? If the answer is yes, that person should either divest themselves of their interest or get another job. The problem here is that Senator Parer cannot discern where the boundary lies between private interests and public duties. For Liberal businessmen like Senator Parer, Mr Prosser, and Mr Moore, it is Mr Howard's ground rules, his now discredited code of ministerial conduct, that conflict with their interests.Mr Howard's definition of a conflict of interest now comes down to whether Senator Parer made a direct actual decision that advanced QCMM and the Jellinbah coalmine. That is what it comes down to now under Mr Howard's definition. According to Mr Howard's new definition, there is no conflict of interest, for example, in Senator Parer ticking off on $2,250,000 for the coal export facilitation program, advancing an industry in which the Parer family is a $2 million stakeholder. There is no conflict of interest under Mr Howard's new definition in his scrapping research funds for alternative energy sources. Those sorts of decisions now do not come within Mr Howard's new definition of conflict of interest. One of these decisions was money for jam. The other, we say, was the hobbling of a competitor because you are Old King Cole. That is what Senator Parer is—Old King Cole. He thinks it is a waste of time and money to be worrying about funds for alternative energy sources.Apparently, neither Mr Howard nor Senator Parer think that there is a conflict of interest in Senator Parer discussing with his joint venture partner, the Marubeni Corporation, the construction of coal coking furnaces. They use the product from Marubeni and Senator Parer's own coking coal mine. Apparently, Mr Howard and Senator Parer see no conflict of interest in Senator Parer discussing with his joint venture partner Nissho Iwai his keenness to see increased exports to Australia. This is something that the executives of Nissho Iwai would regard as an intersection of interests. They probably could not believe their luck when their own business partner fronted up to a meeting and declared himself as a business partner and, lo and behold, he was Australia's Minister for Resources and Energy.The only conflict of interest that they see is that the Prime Minister's code of conduct conflicts with Senator Parer's desire to camouflage a vast investment portfolio. Mr Howard sees no conflict of interest in giving Senator Parer the all clear, nor does his henchman, the guardian of ministerial probity and ministerial interests, Mr Max Moore Wilton, the Secretary to the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet.You cannot say that Senator Parer and his wife meet the usual definition that John Howard uses of mum and dad investors. Over the past few years they have had millions of dollars worth of shares in the mining industry. Mr Howard has also redefined the concept of family. As soon as you are not a little kid you are instantly some sort of distant relation and you can look after the portfolio investment that your parents have built up while mum and dad are temporarily inconvenienced. This is a very new concept. This is a generational Chinese wall that we have seen erected. Mr Howard's code states:The transfer of interests to a family member or to a nominee or trust is not an acceptable form of divestment.This means the transfer of interests to a spouse, a son, a daughter or Great Aunt Geraldine is entirely unacceptable. That is what the code says. There is no mention of any age limit here—none whatsoever. This is a new and ludicrous concept.As mentioned in question time today, the Prime Minister said on the Hinch program that such a practice is not on, but he has completely renovated his own code of conduct and he has done it to the detriment of the parliament and the interests of the people of this country. He has now devised his own loopholes. He has given the tick to family trusts, once removed as unacceptable investment engines, for his millionaire colleagues. He has redefined the family to exclude independent children. Try that redefinition in a court of law and see how you go with that.The government says that the Labor Party is muckraking. I have to say that the opposition is deadly serious about the issue of conflict of interest. In our view, it sits at the heart of decent, transparent public decision making by government. It underpins the system of cabinet decision making.Australian governments have, up until now, largely been able to avoid ministerial conflicts of interest with private business activities. In recent years other governments, such as the Japanese government and the unlamented conservative government in Britain, have allowed standards to slide and corruption to fester. A number of their ministers have been infected by crony capitalism, insider trading and other conflict of interest type issues. In recent years, we have seen the quality and reputation of the public policy process in those countries decline.John Howard's guidelines, as he has acknowledged for some time, are a consolidation of the principles and guidelines that have been in operation for many years. They closely reflect the guidance that is given to ministers in the cabinet handbook. We say that the Prime Minister's guidelines ought to be taken seriously. It is not a matter of muckraking. It is not matter of partisan politics.There are good reasons for the guidelines. There are very good reasons for guidelines on divestment. There is a clear reason for the transparent declaration of interests that everyone—except Senator Parer—in this chamber has to comply with. In ignoring the rule that ministers should divest any shares that may affect their judgment in their portfolio area or that give rise to perceptions of conflict of interest and in allowing ministers to divest their interests to close family members, we say the Prime Minister has presided over a very significant weakening of the standards that have applied to ministers in this country.We say that if millionaire businessmen want to make millions out of private shareholdings, that is fine. That is okay. But if they want to contribute to Australian public life as a government minister then they should sell their shares; they should divest themselves of their shares in the portfolio area that they are responsible for administering. They should not do both. John Howard once shared that view and it is the view, of course, that permeates the discredited code that the Prime Minister brought down when he rode into government on a white charger saying he would do something about ministerial and parliamentary standards; a view he espoused in his press conference of 16 October 1996. It is a view he has now discarded.I know Senator Alston will follow and say that we are muckraking. But one thing you do know, when Senator Alston gets into the debate it is time to warm up the engine in the old limo to Government House, because you are the last card in the pack, Senator Alston, if you are the best that the government can do to defend the indefensible. The truth of the matter is, there is no defence and Senator Parer should resign.16:31:001171Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, the Information Economy and the Arts10—There is a massive irony in this debate on the motion on political standards being led by someone who has had the sheer gracelessness to have refused to apologise for the inexcusable and indefensible slander on the Baillieu family. It is also quite ironic that Senator Ray should have been the one asking about DAS, when, of course, he was up to his eyeballs in ensuring that DAS entered into long-term leasing arrangements with the ALP in order to transfer very significant sums of money—millions of dollars—from the public purse to the ALP.We have seen this in spades over the years with the way in which the union movement has had moneys laundered through it so it can give it back to the ALP at election time. So it is not surprising that they do not have any compunction about forgetting their own history and wallowing in this sort of muck, as they have been doing for the last week or so.It is very important that we actually look at what is being said by Senator Faulkner at the outset. He said that ministers should not, by their conduct, undermine confidence in the administration of government, and I do not think anyone has demonstrated that Senator Parer has done that. He said that they should not use public office for private purposes. Again, I do not think there is any evidence that Senator Parer has done that. He said they may need to have regard to their family's interests. I cannot see anything controversial about that proposition. He said they should resign. I think he was talking about a divestment of private interests.What they fail to ever address is the distinction between simply selling shares in a publicly listed company and effectively unloading a holding which is non-transferable, in the normal course of the term, particularly in the case of the corporate structure with which Senator Parer is involved. Given that there are pre-emptive clause arrangements, quite clearly any new purchaser could be deprived of dividends, could therefore miss out completely and as a result the shares may well be worthless.But, of course, we do not hear any suggestion on their part about how else these shares might be divested, or what other arrangements might be entered into, because there aren't any other arrangements. What Senator Parer has done recently, out of an abundance of caution and to try to somehow turn off this tap of invective and vituperation, is to take the advice of expert lawyers and accountants and provide for another trust structure.What else, I ask, could he be expected to do? Give the shares away to the cleaners? Somehow ignore the fact that the beneficiaries of those shares have been members of his family to date? There is a significant difference between putting shares in the hands of dependent children over whom you effectively retain control, and putting them in the hands of adult children who are perfectly entitled to go their own ways. There is nothing to ensure that these children may feel in any way gratefully disposed towards the disposer of the interests. It comes back to the proposition that there is no other way of restructuring the affairs than has been undertaken by Senator Parer in recent days.Fundamentally, this is all about an alleged conflict of interest. Senator Faulkner seemed to think that a conflict of interest was actual or perceived personal gain. Again, I do not think anyone suggested that Senator Parer has received any actual or perceived personal gain. Virtually all of what has been said is that the coal industry might be a little better off. Any decision taken by a Treasurer which affects interest rates presumably helps his own mortgage, helps the mortgage of everyone else in politics, and indeed, the country. Does that mean he has a personal interest in it? Of course it does not. Does it mean that someone who is a lawyer cannot be the Attorney-General because somehow he might be seen to be taking actions which will benefit his own profession, or that a doctor cannot be the minister for health? Of course it does not.That is why there is a fundamental distinction between a generic benefit to an industry that might derive from a government decision and a personal benefit. Unfortunately, Senator Short's decision in relation to the ANZ affected a company in which he held shares—a very direct personal link. That is a very different situation to the one here. There was nothing deliberate on the part of Senator Short—nothing deliberate at all. Not only that, he effectively accepted that he should resign in the circumstances.(Time expired)16:36:001172Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—When the Prime Minister's guidelines were introduced in 1996 they were greeted with acclaim. They seemed to be born out of good intentions, out of the experience of parliamentarians, and to meet a very much expressed public need. But there were deficiencies in the Prime Minister's guidelines, his code of conduct, then, for ministers and parliamentary secretaries. The virtues were that those guidelines were public and were transparent; but they were devised, administered, policed and informed by the Prime Minister, a man who, in the cabinet, is both boss and colleague and therefore is not sufficiently at arm's length from the matters at hand. There were no independent review procedures, no audit procedures, no management procedures, and consequently the Prime Minister was visited with the troubles of numerous ministers and parliamentary secretaries resigning.The code, the guidelines and their management were then tightened up. While internal review and audit was undoubtedly improved, it was still not independent and still not at arm's length. We still have a situation where the rules are now even less respected than ever before and are differently interpreted to the expectation of the public, the media and the non-government parties.It took Senator Minchin to sort out the travel entitlements mess inherited from his Labor and coalition predecessors. Someone like him or a parliamentary body needs to sort out the mess the Prime Minister has got himself into with his confusing and variable interpretation of his guidelines. These new standards so bravely introduced, so badly implemented, so badly audited, so badly managed and so badly applied have caused him to lose ministers and parliamentary secretaries. They have caused him to lose the nickname `Honest John'. They have made a credible promise of new standards seem untruthful and dishonest and they have further reinforced the very low opinion that so many politicians are held in.The Democrats believe it is in the interests of both houses and the cabinet to sort this out, to stop kicking each other to death and to search for a solution. The Australian Democrats wish to propose such a solution. Our solution is that the government recognise the mess they are in, recognise the problems that exist and recognise that the public are sick and tired of standards and rules that they cannot believe in and of politicians' standards and the manner in which they apply them.We ask that the government appoint a joint house committee with all parties represented to review cabinet and parliamentary guidelines and codes of conduct, and to make recommendations within the short term. Those recommendations should be introduced within the short term. We believe that this review should be required to consider the appointment of an independent commissioner for parliamentary ethics and standards.The very problem we experience is because the Prime Minister is too close to his cabinet and colleagues. Even when he acts in what he regards as the right way, he will still be regarded as somebody who is too close. You have to have an independent person to do this job. We suggest that the committee should examine the appointment of an independent commissioner for parliamentary ethics and standards. I am given to understand that such a person exists in Canada and possibly in other countries.We would ask that such a committee review schemes for the administration, management, review and enforcement of those standards. We would ask that such a committee examine the appointment of a standing joint house ethics committee which would have both parliamentary and non-parliamentary members and would be given some teeth by the parliament. A former Democrat senator—now known as the lady in red—in 1995 proposed a joint house ethics committee and a parliamentary commissioner for standards, so I am sure the ALP will now take up the long-promoted Democrat solution which they wrongly rejected in 1995.It is time we started talking about solutions and not about the problem that is before us. When all this head kicking is exhausted we do need some long-term solutions. For ethics to become embedded in politics we all have to become activists on parliamentary standards. Conflicts of interest, allegation and counter allegation, smear and counter smear, and untrue imputations on motives or character all come from the same unethical approach to political life. The institutions and bodies that we have to manage these affairs just are not doing their job.I think the Prime Minister is now in an impossible situation. Even if he continues to defend his ministers and his guidelines and regards them as acceptable, I am afraid the public perception is that they are somewhat tattered and shoddy. We really do need to turn things around and start to focus on more important issues whilst maintaining what the entire public demands—that is, a parliament where the ethics and the standards are those that we can be proud of and where the game is played to rules that we all understand and whose interpretation we can be sure of.Whilst I have the floor I do want to remark about some irony. The Labor Party have spent the last week and a half of parliamentary time trying to establish the conflict of interest case for Minister Parer—and we agree there is a conflict of interest case—but they today voted with the government on export controls. The Labor Party led the debate twice to disallow the regulation to abolish export controls on the mining industry. They said that the controls needed to be there and they fought against Minister Parer's move to get rid of them. The ALP were the ones to reveal that Senator Parer had coal interests and they have spent the last week and a half and the previous week of parliamentary time building up their case on the conflict of interest. Indeed, today in question time Senator Faulkner asked Senator Parer why he had not declared his conflict of interest on the two votes on the export controls regulation, which Labor had moved to disallow.One would think that Labor would have voted for our amendment to have the government re-examine those export controls specifically on the grounds of conflict of interest. Yet they did not. They sat with the government just as if the claims against Senator Parer had not occurred. This illustrates a problem. The perception is that this is a political activity; it is not really about a conflict of interest. When the conflict of interest is proven, then surely you should vote to show that.The minister had a conflict of interest, we think, over the decision on export controls. And all the talk from Labor on transparency, probity and above-board codes of conduct fall in a heap if they are afraid to take their view of a conflict of interest to reviewing decisions by the minister in a number of fundamental areas—and that includes the area of export controls.As you know, we are regarded in the community as a party that focuses on accountability. On this issue, our plea to the major parties is, `You know that accountability affects your reputation and affects our standing as a community of politicians in the community at large. We would urge you very strongly to take the negatives of what has been going on in this debate about Minister Parer and to transform them into positives which result in solutions which will prevent the sort of thing we have seen with ministers over the last two years happening again.16:46:001173Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSONLI4VICLP10—I found Senator Murray's contribution interesting, but it is very difficult to take him seriously. He can be as sanctimonious as he likes but, when his former leader sat in this chamber for, it would seem, two years knowing in her heart of hearts that she was going to leave their party and go to the Labor Party, it really makes it a bit of a joke that he can come in here and be so sanctimonious in saying that his party focuses on accountability.If the party on the other side ever gets back into government—and I hope they never will, or not for a very long time—Senator Murray's former leader, the lady in red, will join in leading the Australian public down the road to being in the red. And that colour that she will be wearing on the front of the Women's Weekly will be absolutely and totally appropriate for one of the leading lights in the Labor Party, because red is the colour that symbolises the way they left the budget—in the red. For Senator Murray to pontificate about what should be done, when he really needs to think about the leadership of his party over the previous two years and whether you can focus on accountability when you had a leader who was sitting there knowing that she was going to change sides, really is a bit much.I return to the issue at hand, which is the muckraking that has been going on in this chamber. It did not just start with Senator Parer.4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—It started with Senator Baume, years ago.LI4Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSON—Mr Acting Deputy President, we sat here in absolute silence while there were speakers on the other side. Now, Senator Schacht comes in and wants to interject. He will have a chance, I presume, later on. I do not know whether he is on the speaking list. I presume he is down. No, he is not; he did not even get himself on the speakers list. We sat in absolute silence, and I would suggest that he keeps his silence until I have finished my speech. If he wants to argue with Senator Cook and take his spot, that is fine. In the Natural Heritage Trust exercise we saw—4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—A rorted allocation of funds.LI4Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSON—We saw the Labor Party besmirching the name of a family in Melbourne. Two of those people have actually been dead—one of them for something like 30 years and one for 50 years—but they were accused of having some sort of financial gain. That is how little the Labor Party did their research. That is how inaccurate they were. They did not bother to apologise to that family.Then one of the people on our side happened to have a small portion of his property in the catchment area of a natural heritage fund grant. He was in the top part of the catchment area where he would get no benefit; in fact, he had spent his own money improving the land, which would improve the catchment area further on down the track. No, we besmirched him as well and we did not apologise. I notice he is sitting in the chamber. We besmirched him and his motives, and those of his family. But we never get up and apologise. We just besmirch him.They also besmirched Senator Panizza before he died. They never got the opportunity to say, `I am sorry'. I hope that one day somebody will apologise to his family. They never said `Sorry' to him. He was mortified and hurt by that, and nobody on the other side ever apologised.4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—What did Michael Baume do, Senator? He is a grub. In the Senate for 13 years, he was, and you made him Consul-General in New York.LI4Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSON—Then they came into the chamber the other day and claimed that Senator Parer, when he was in Japan, was advancing the interests of a coalmining company in which his family trust held shares—4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—What did Senator Baume do?10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Chapman)—Order, Senator Schacht.LI4Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSON—Senator Schacht has verbal diarrhoea. I wish he would go and have some treatment for it. Regarding the claim that Senator Parer was advancing his own interests in Japan, Mr Howard, in answering a question in the chamber on 23 March, said:The reality, as disclosed by the record of conversation taken by an officer of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade during that discussion, demonstrates no such thing.He said that Senator Parer had yesterday tabled `a minute from the relevant person from within Senator Parer's department attesting to the fact that at no stage was any decision taken by him that could represent a conflict of interest.' But no, they came in here and made some comment that when Senator Parer was in Japan he was advancing his own personal wealth, his own personal benefits. There is someone from the department saying that is not the case. Do we hear them come in here and apologise? No. Leave that out in the ether.It is another bit of muckraking, another perception that something has been done incorrectly, and they do not have the good grace to come in here to apologise. We have seen the Baillieus besmirched. We have seen Senator Crane besmirched. We have seen Senator Panizza besmirched before he died. And now we see the same thing happening with Senator Parer. They just have a tradition of this sort of hatred, of this sort of muckraking, of this sort of failing to get the facts right, and of never coming in and apologising when it has been shown that they are wrong.Senator Ray had the good grace to say on 11 March in this chamber:I would never think for a moment that Senator Parer would consciously and directly take a decision affecting the coal industry to directly benefit himself.And there has been not one skerrick of evidence to demonstrate that he had. Mr Acting Deputy President, if you were the minister for science and technology—4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—My God, heaven forbid!LI4Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSON—We will just pretend for a moment, Mr Acting Deputy President. If you were the minister, and if you were to give a grant to a research organisation for improving the quality of wheat and you happened to be a wheat farmer, do you think somebody could say that that was a conflict of interest? No. Senator Parer has said over and over again that decisions he has made have been generic decisions about the coal industry, not specific instances which would give him direct personal gain. Can the Treasurer not make a decision that would change interest rates? In fact, we have made such decisions, which has sent them down. Is he not to be Treasurer because he has a mortgage? Does he sell his house and rent a house? And then there will be some decision about renting.What we have is the Labor Party consistently besmirching people, including Senator Parer, to hide the fact that their situation is really one of sitting down, mixing up and baking a giant policy meringue—all sugar on the outside and no substance. Once you put a bit of heat on it, it disappears—no policy; actually, a policy wasteland. No; I should not mislead the Senate. We did have a policy about negative gearing announced last week.EU4O'CHEESenator O'Chee—How long did it last?LI4Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSON—Mr Gareth Evans came out with a skerrick of policy in the middle of all this besmirching. He said that they were going to abolish negative gearing. How long did that policy last? Like a meringue, it disappeared overnight. Twenty-four hours and it was gone—no policy.We heard Senator Kemp today indicate that the Labor Party has promised $6 billion in spending on health. With all due respect to Senator Kemp, he forgot to mention the money that the shadow minister for aged care is going to be spending, too. I suppose he will add that in another answer—add on to the $6 billion the money that is going to be dished out in aged care, because they are going to find the money from somewhere to patch up the $500 million that is needed to bring nursing homes up to the standard that they were told years ago ought to be done, and they neglected that advice; they would not bite the bullet.Week after week in this place this year we have seen this Labor Party going on about issues, trying to find a quarter of a catchment area—what was it?UW4CRANESenator Crane—One per cent.LI4Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSON—One per cent of the catchment area, right up at the top part of it, which was Senator Crane's, and they made it a whole issue that he had had some sort of gain out of it. Instead of focusing on the issues that really matter for Australians, such as health, jobs, foreign debt—and on all the other issues that they neglected for years—they have done nothing. When you look at their record and see what sorts of questions they have asked—and the reason they are doing this is that they have no policies, absolutely none—you see, as we saw in the paper just recently, that Senator Faulkner, who put forward this matter of public import ance, has asked three questions on unemployment in 86 sitting days. That is three questions in a year. The Financial Review on 9 March said that Mr Beazley had asked only one question this year on jobs.When it comes down to the really important issues facing Australians, where are the Labor Party to be seen? Nowhere. They do not ask questions on important issues. They have no policies. All they are prepared to do is run around digging up things they think are going to destroy a minister or bring somebody down, besmirching a person who has actually presided over growth in the resources industries, a minister who knows the portfolio back to front. They could not damage him by asking him questions because he knew too much. Whenever they ask him questions from the other side of the House, Senator Parer gets up and answers those questions; he knows his portfolio backwards. You cannot damage him that way, so what do you do? You attack him personally. That is the style of the Labor Party. Attack the person, not the issues. They have done it time and again. They have besmirched people and ruined their reputations with little or no evidence.16:56:001176O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—Of course, this is the government that came to office sprouting statements of how good it was going to be in terms of ministerial accountability. This is the government that produced the guidelines for the code of ministerial conduct. May I remind the government that it was Senator Hill who came into this chamber on 14 October 1996 and said:It is true that the guidelines set a very high standard and we do not apologise for that. We believe that the Australian people are entitled to that. The Prime Minister has said that ministers are expected to keep those guidelines. As a result of the breach that just occurred of those guidelines, even though there is no suggestion there was any intention of personal benefit that would flow from that breach, a minister has paid a very high price . . . Today we had a number of attempts to divert us from the real issue in this debate. One of them was Senator Alston's throwaway line about Senator Robert Ray, when he alleged that Senator Ray was, I think he used the term, `Up to his eyeballs in the DAS decision for long-term rent arrangements for Centenary House.' Of course, there was no basis at all for that allegation. If Senator Alston had it, we would have heard it in this chamber before. The fact is that at the time that Senator Robert Ray was the Minister for Defence, he had no involvement in the matter and, indeed, although he was involved in the administration of the ALP through the national executive, he deliberately excluded himself from any meetings which were discussing the administrative arrangements of the party relating to other relevant transactions that had any impact on the government, and the minutes would, indeed, show it.If Senator Alston had any basis for making that statement he would have produced it. But it was just a throwaway line, just a distraction. This government has a code of conduct which it has trumpeted around the place. That code 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.It goes on:The transfer of interests to a family member—It does not say child. It does not say mother, father or anyone else. It says, `A family member.'or to a nominee or trust is not an acceptable form of divestment.In this case, I have to think that my state colleague Senator Gibson must feel quite aggrieved, as would former Senator Short. Their real breaches of the guidelines were in the form of holding shares in the areas of their portfolio responsibilities. What they did in relation to that subsequently was irrelevant. The holding of the shares breached the guidelines. These were the guidelines that this government trumpeted as being important for cleaning up the area of ministerial answerability and keeping transparent the fact that this government was going to be clean and honest in its dealings with the public.I wanted to touch briefly, in the limited time I have today, on some material I obtained from the historic House Hansard. I want to quote a couple of passages, just to put this present debate in context. The first quote goes as follows:All the bobbing and weaving and squirming of the Prime Minister, his redefinition of rules that he laid down—in 1996—. . . his contradiction today of what he said yesterday, his colleague's contradiction yesterday of what he had said earlier in that same day, the fact that the Government has now adopted such an absurd position on this issue that it no longer has a tenable position on the disclosure of material interests—I am sorry, I misread that. I should have said `1983' not `1996', because, you see, I am quoting from a speech by a Mr Howard, the member for Bennelong, on 11 April 1986 when he was attacking Prime Minister Hawke over the fact that Mr Dawkins's mother held shares in BHP, and Mr Dawkins was the Minister for Trade. Mr Howard moved this censure motion:This House censures the Prime Minister for1. His weak and abject failure to dismiss the Minister for Trade;I might interpose there. It might just as well today say `the Minister for Resources and Energy'. It goes on:2. Condoning the failure of the Minister for Trade—same comment—to make full and frank disclosure of matters which may have given rise to a conflict of interest;3. Allowing the Minister for Trade to remain within the Ministry despite his proven record of poor judgment and a failure to understand the propriety demanded of a Minister;4. Breaking his promise that Ministers in his Government would disclose any matters which may involve a conflict of interest;5. His failure to maintain proper standards of ministerial conduct;6. His blatant double standards relating to ministerial propriety;7. His expedient and opportunistic interpretation of rules he himself has laid down for the conduct of Ministers—If you have a look at that and the situation today—what an expose of this Prime Minister! This Prime Minister, in 1986, was criticising the Labor government because Minister Dawkins then was in the circumstances where his mother had shares in BHP; and this was the motion that was being moved.He said in his speech a number of other things which I would like to quote. It is important that they be on the record, because it displays the hypocrisy of the current situation. This is another quote:I now go on to a comment by none other than the Prime Minister on 16 November 1977:If a man . . . shouts from the roof tops that those in high office should be subject to scrutiny he should have exactly those same standards applied to himself.He continued:How relevant are those words. How prophetic of the Prime Minister to say in 1977 that if a person shouts from the rooftops about propriety in high places he should watch out that those words do not come back to bite him.Well said, Mr Howard, in 1986. Look at what you are doing now, Mr Prime Minister, because they apply exactly to you. In 1986 he also said this:There is only one thing involved and that is whether or not, in the circumstances applying to the Minister for Trade,—I interpose there that we could equally say `the Minister for Resources and Energy'—there was a potential for a conflict of interest to arise.The Prime Minister cannot hide behind the narrow definition of the immediate family. He cannot hide behind that kind of legalistic approach.I have to say that this seems to be the basis for the ministerial code of conduct that the Prime Minister introduced in 1996. Later in the speech he said:Everybody knows that if a man who stands to gain as a beneficiary under an estate to the tune perhaps of a quarter of a million dollars goes out of this Parliament and tries to tell the average Australian that he may not have a conflict of interest in that kind of situation, there is not a man or woman who would believe him.Look at those comments again, Mr Prime Minister, because you are asking the average Australian to believe that, even though Senator Parer now stands to benefit from shares which are worth $2 million and which have returned over $800,000 in the last three years in dividends—and they are in the coal industry, the area of the minister's portfolio—there is no conflict of interest. You do not have a hope of convincing them of that, Mr Prime Minister. He also said, in 1986:The public, the electors of this country, are entitled to have confidence in the integrity of their elected representatives; to know that Ministers of the Government will perform their duties without fear or favour; to be reassured that a Minister's private interests, whatever they may be, do not conflict with his or her public duties in holding the high office of a Minister in the Federal Government.It seems that this Prime Minister has stepped right away from that statement—because that was the situation in the original Cabinet code of conduct, as adapted by this government in its guidelines of ministerial conduct—and now is saying that the tests of conflict of interest are much higher, that the bar is a lot higher, and so it is a lot easier to get under it.But I think the quote of quotes has got to be this. In 1986 the present Prime Minister said:The Prime Minister, by his actions and weakness, his inability to discipline and expel from the Ministry the Minister for Trade and by breaking a promise has further confirmed in the minds of the Australian public that, when it really comes to the crunch, when he really has a gut issue upon which to make a decision, when he has to choose between duty which might be lonely, hard, unpopular and give him a few sleepless nights but it is still the right thing to do, and cronyism, he will take the latter course. When one has to make that choice, but one has an alternative, and that is to smooth it all over, to pretend it has not happened, to stand by one's cronies, to serve the interests of factional survival, one can be absolutely certain that yours truly, the present Prime Minister, will always choose the latter course of action.(Time expired)17:06:001178Crane, Sen WinstonSenator CRANEUW4WALP10—I too rise to speak on this motion. There is one thing which Senator Murray said that I very much agree with. That is that one would have thought that, when we came back to this place two and a half sitting weeks ago, there would have been more important issues for the Labor Party to focus on than the slur program that they have set out on.It is now very clear, as Senator Patterson has said, from what occurred in the case of me and my family, then the Baillieu family and now this attack on Warwick Parer, that there was a deliberate decision made by those on the other side of the chamber to attack—to try and get away from the issues about which the Australian public are concerned. There are many of those and I wish to address them in my contribution.In doing that, I particularly want to deal with the motion before us and some of the words and points in it that I think need explaining here. Firstly, no other Prime Minister of this country has applied such strict guidelines for the operations of his ministers. A number of ministers and parliamentary secretaries have, as we know, fallen foul of these guidelines. We certainly cannot point to anything during the 13 years of the Labor government that remotely goes near the standards or the high bar that our present Prime Minister, the Hon. John Howard, has set.I particularly make reference, as did my colleague Senator O'Chee the other day, to a former Prime Minister, Mr Keating. I make particular reference to Mr Keating; Danpork; the then Minister for Primary Industry, Mr Crean; and the arrangement they tried to put in place to allow semen and genetic material into this country. The then Prime Minister tried, in effect, to get around the rules and put an industry at risk. When we compare the two situations, it can be seen that Mr Howard's performance in terms of responsibility and ministerial conduct is much higher than we have seen before.Secondly, it is a guide—I repeat, a guide—to ministerial conduct. The reason that we have this motion before us today is very simple: despite the three efforts that it has made, the Labor Party have failed to lay a blow on any of the particular subjects they have attacked. I refer particularly to Senator Parer. The opposition set out to demonstrate that Senator Parer was, to use the words that Senator Faulkner used, `using to your own advantage in terms of a conflict of interest'. They have not been able to lay one single glove on Senator Parer. They have tried to throw in coal export controls. They have tried to draw in what aptly has been described by the minister as `generic' decisions.We in this particular place all know that ministers right across the board in this government and in previous governments—Treasurers, when they deal with taxation, are a classic example—make decisions which relate to generic matters which go across the board. Of course they, as do Australian citizens, benefit from those particular decisions if there is, for example, a reduction in tax. I think it is very dangerous for the opposition to run this particular line that, because a person makes a generic decision, they may have had or have had some involvement in a particular thing which is a conflict of interest.RF4COOKSenator Cook—None of us had investments in companies that benefited from this decision. That is the point.UW4Crane, Sen WinstonSenator CRANE—You have not proved it. You have not laid one glove on Senator Parer. The opposition have not laid one glove on Senator Parer to demonstrate that he had a conflict of interest or that he or his family personally gained from any of the decisions he has had to make as a minister of the Crown—a very good, successful minister, I might add. These are some of the issues that we need to deal with.Thirdly, the opposition have tried to liken this situation to the situation in relation to Senator Short. Like Senator Parer, former Senator Short was, I believe, one of the gentlemen of this place. He was also a very honest man. In his particular case, Senator Short, for whatever reason—it is in the Hansard record—did not declare some shares. He then came into this chamber and announced that he was getting rid of those shares. It was around 10 October, I think. Some days after that, he discovered that he had in fact made a decision where there was very clearly a conflict of interest. Senator Short then resigned from that particular position; he declared that there was a conflict of interest and he resigned.In this particular case, the Labor Party have done everything in their power to discredit the Hon. Warwick Parer, and they have not been able to lay a glove on him. Therefore, they changed their attack. They are now attacking the ministerial guidelines. They will try a different way of going around it just to keep this rolling, because they do not want to deal with the issues before us. What about the Wik legislation and the importance of that? What about tax reform and the importance of that? If ever we have seen a policy free zone in a parliament it is right over there on the other side of the chamber.RF4COOKSenator Cook—What is your tax policy? Tell us. You have a GST, that is all.UW4Crane, Sen WinstonSenator CRANE—Madam Acting Deputy President, could you please ask that rabbit on the other side of the chamber to have some manners—to abide by the standing orders? He consistently interjects when he comes into this place. He seldom says anything of benefit to this place. I have not heard one word out of him about policy. All we have is this carp, carp, carp, yap, yap, yap that is consistently delivered here all the time.Let us deal with a few of the things that Senator Parer has done. We have seen some real industry reform; industry reform that has been very beneficial to both my state and Senator Cook's state, because we both happen to come from the same state. Madam Acting Deputy President, there have also been benefits to your state of Queensland. You come from Queensland, as does Senator Parer. These decisions have benefited the mining industry right across the board. They are decisions that should have been taken 10 years ago.LI4PATTERSONSenator Patterson—There is nothing new about it, though.UW4Crane, Sen WinstonSenator CRANE—No, nothing new at all, as Senator Patterson says. I want to quote a few of these things, and to explain why the opposition wants to get people's eyes off the ball. It is because Senator Parer is so successful. Why are the opposition now taking their eyes off Senator Parer and attacking the Prime Minister? Because they have not been able to lay a glove on Senator Parer. They have not been able to demonstrate any conflict of interest. This is a deliberate tactic to pull down the real benefits that are progressing through our government to the community.Let us look at this for a moment: 40 new projects have been commissioned in the past 12 months, $7 billion worth of investment; and 120 resource and energy projects are currently either under construction or been committed to, $20 billion which will create 7,000 direct and 20,000 indirect permanent jobs. God only knows this country needs permanent jobs, and yet we have this diversion that has been delivered in this place over the last few sitting weeks. The opposition have hardly bothered to raise a particular issue of concern to the Australian public.The feedback that I am getting from the Australian public—and I am sure other senators are getting similar feedback—is that they happen to like successful people in parliament and think it is a good thing that we have a few people on this side of the chamber who are actually successful and have been able to prove themselves out in the hard world of the nitty-gritty.LI4PATTERSONSenator Patterson—Who have taken risks.UW4Crane, Sen WinstonSenator CRANE—Absolutely, they have taken risks, as has been said before. The broad population approve of that. They want it to happen and it just makes one wonder why the people on the other side want to attack people who are not only successful in their private life but successful as ministers.A couple of months ago I was with Senator Parer in Kalgoorlie, which is, I would say, the heart of the mining industry in this country, if there is such a thing. We met with prospectors. We met with exporters. We met with miners. We met with construction people and what have you. All they could say to us was, `We want to get on with the job. We want to increase the wealth of this country. We want to give young people opportunities. We want to give the Aboriginal communities opportunities. We will take them on board and train them.' That was the message that we were being given.I just have to say that this attack on our colleague Senator Parer is designed purely and simply to get people's eye off the ball in terms of what is important as far as the Australian community is concerned. I have to say—coming back to what Senator Murray said—that there are far more important issues that the community wants to see us debating, dealing with and getting on with, such as some of things I have mentioned whether they be in the rural sector, health, aged care or a whole range of things. They want to hear us debating social and economic issues. They want to hear how the people on the other side of the chamber are going to deal with these issues. They want them to present themselves as an alternative government. They know, as we know, that sometime in the next 12 months there will be another election. We have a situation where they have nothing. (Time expired)Committees1180118011801180Gibson, Sen BrianSenator GIBSONBX5TASLP10—On behalf of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, I present report No. 357 entitled Jindalee Operational Radar Network and seek leave to move a motion in relation to the report.Leave granted.BX5Gibson, Sen BrianSenator GIBSON—I move:That the Senate take note of the report.I seek leave to incorporate my tabling statement in Hansard and to continue my remarks later.Leave granted.The statement read as follows—Madam President, in June 1991 Defence entered into a contract with Telstra—or Telecom as it then was—to acquire a wide-area surveillance capability based on an over-the-horizon radar technology which had been developed in Australia.From the beginning, Madam President, the JORN Project has been bedevilled with technical and management problems which have so far resulted in an increase in the contracted price of over $600 million and a four year delay in the schedule. On current estimates, Australia will not have a fully operational over-the-horizon radar network—which is a crucial element of our surveillance system—until the year 2002.The Committee's inquiry revealed deficiencies in almost every aspect of the JORN Project: in the process of selecting the prime contractor; in the supervision of the prime contractor (Telstra) by Defence; in the management of the project by Telstra; and in the performance of a key sub-contractor, GEC-Marconi.In selecting the prime contractor Defence ignored the report of an internal review team which con cluded, early in the process, that the best approach would be to select a contractor experienced in over-the-horizon radar technologies and with a proven track record in managing major defence projects. The review team had favoured a US-based prime contractor with an Australian company in partnership. The Committee is critical of Defence's actions in establishing a review team for the particular purpose of making recommendations on acquiring an over-the-horizon radar network, only to ignore the fundamental assumptions on which its recommendations were based. It is ironic that the company now responsible for completing the JORN Project is an American company—Lockheed Martin—with an Australian company in partnership.The Committee found that Defence exhibited weaknesses in its supervision of the prime contractor. For example, Madam President, Defence did not intervene early enough or with sufficient rigour to put in place formalised and systematic risk assessment procedures (as required by the contract). Nor did Defence insist on greater Telstra consultation with DSTO—world renowned experts in the field of over-the-horizon radar. Defence's unwillingness to give progressive approval to Telstra's system designs, while understandable given the terms of the contract, contributed to Telstra's difficulties in finalising and progressing a design capable of meeting JORN's very demanding performance specifications.Telstra's lack of experience in Defence contracting and its unfamiliarity with contracts written in terms of required functions and performance became evident in the early stages and were to have damaging consequences for the project. The Committee also found lack of commitment by senior Telstra management to the JORN Project. Telstra failed to access relevant expertise in Defence project management or systems engineering, failed to develop an effective relationship with DSTO and encountered significant difficulties in its management of a major sub-contractor, GEC-Marconi.The original sub-contract between Telstra and GEC-Marconi set out a cumbersome division of responsibilities which contributed to a breakdown in the commercial relationship between Telstra and GEC-Marconi. Remaining unresolved for over three years, the problem of poorly specified interfaces, and the lack of a coherent plan to manage and control hardware and software interface configurations, significantly influenced Telstra's management of the sub-contract and impeded progress on the project.The Committee is critical that GEC-Marconi, given its experience elsewhere, did not anticipate the difficulties that were inherent in the original sub-contract with Telstra. Moreover, the Committee was told in the course of the inquiry that GEC-Marconi's inability to deliver transmitters and receivers and associated drivers to quality, performance and time requirements had an adverse impact on the project's cost and schedule.As you are aware, Madam President, Telstra has relinquished its management role to a Lockheed Martin/Transfield joint venture company. The future of the JORN Project is, however, far from clear. Although Defence asserts that the radar network's performance requirements are technically achievable and the partners in the joint venture company have expressed confidence that the radar network can and will be completed, the Committee believes that there are good reasons for a more cautious assessment to be made.Although much has been done to mitigate the technical risks that are still to be confronted, the fact remains that it is in the last years of the project that the high-cost, high-risk systems integration phase will take place. As Defence's New Submarine Project has shown, systems integration and testing can be particularly troublesome and time-consuming.Madam President, since 1983 the Joint Committee of Public Accounts has examined a number of Defence projects and programs which have revealed Defence's consistent inability to gain value for money. It is essential that Defence addresses project management shortcomings and establishes sound procedures which will ensure that high cost projects are completed within allocated budgets and time-frames.The Committee believes that it is critical that Defence obtain the best project managers, if necessary from overseas, for major acquisition projects. The problems encountered in the JORN Project demonstrate conclusively that Defence should choose appropriately experienced consortiums or companies to acquire its major defence capabilities—with a particular focus on choosing the best project managers.Madam President, a broader issue to emerge during this inquiry was the extent of the Commonwealth's liability for cost overruns incurred by the JORN Project. In 1991 Defence had negotiated a ceiling price in its contract with Telstra. However, given Telstra's status as a Commonwealth business entity, any additional costs incurred by Telstra over and above the ceiling price to be paid by Defence are costs to the Commonwealth in terms of reduced dividend payments to the Government and its shareholders. This is a matter of immense concern to the Committee.In conclusion, the Committee expresses its appreciation to those people who contributed to the review by preparing submissions and giving evidence at both public and in camera hearings. The Commit tee also thanks John Alcock from the Department of Defence and Ray McNally from the Australian National Audit Office for their assistance.Madam President, I commend the Report to the SenateDebate adjourned.118211821182Heffernan, Sen BillSenator HEFFERNANC16NSWLP10—On behalf of the respective committee chairs, I present reports on the following legislation committees on annual reports: Economics; Employment, Education and Training; Finance and Public Administration; Legal and Constitutional; and Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport.Ordered that the reports be printed.118210000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Reynolds)—The President has received a letter from the Australian Democrats seeking variations to the membership of committees.Motion (by Senator Troeth)—by leave—agreed to: That senators be appointed to committees as follows:Community Affairs References Committee— Substitute member: Senator Woodley to replace Senator Bartlett for the committee's inquiry into the impact of government child care funding cutsLegal and Constitutional Legislation Committee— Substitute member: Senator Bartlett to replace Senator Stott Despoja for the committee's inquiry into the operation of the special benefit provisions relating to the newly arrived resident's waiting period. Bills1182r389Billsr386Billsr4131182Bills received from the House of Representatives.1182Troeth, Sen JudithSenator TROETHGX5VICLP10—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.118217:20:001182Troeth, Sen JudithSenator TROETHGX5VICLP10—I table a revised explanatory memorandum relating to the Gas Pipelines Access (Commonwealth) 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—CHEMICAL WEAPONS (PROHIBITION) AMENDMENT BILL 1997This bill amends the Chemical Weapons (Prohibition) Act 1994 in order to implement refinements to the administration of that act to rectify certain problems identified during its initial implementation.The Chemical Weapons (Prohibition) Act gives effect to Australia's obligations as a party to the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on their Destruction, usually referred to as the Chemical Weapons Convention. The Convention bans the development, production, acquisition, stockpiling, retention, transfer and use of chemical weapons and provides for the destruction of all existing stocks of chemical weapons.Australia has long supported the Chemical Weapons Convention as a key international instrument in the fight against the spread of weapons of mass destruction, and was the sixth country to ratify it on 6 May 1994, following the passage of the Chemical Weapons (Prohibition) Act three months earlier. Three years later, on 29 April of this year, the Convention entered into force, and less than 27 days later Australia's initial declarations were submitted to the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons.The Chemical Weapons Convention requires Australia to make regular declarations concerning activities with chemicals listed in its Schedules, and activities producing discrete organic chemicals. The Chemical Weapons (Prohibition) Act allows the Chemical Weapons Convention Office in the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade to collect from chemical facility operators the information required to compile these declarations, through a system of permits and notifications. National inspectors appointed under the Chemical Weapons (Prohibition) Act have the power to inspect chemical facilities to ensure compliance with obligations imposed by the act. Certain facilities are also subject to inspection by the Technical Secretariat of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons.The task of preparing Australia's initial declarations has highlighted some aspects of the Chemical Weapons (Prohibition) Act which need to be refined, to simplify its overall administration, to promote compliance with it, and to ensure more effective fulfilment of Australia's commitments under the Chemical Weapons Convention.A key element of this amending bill is the provision it makes to automate the annual permit renewal process in the Chemical Weapons (Prohibition) Act. This will simplify the compliance obligations for each company or organisation requiring a permit, but maintain the annual reporting cycle that is needed to fulfil our Convention obligations. Simplification of compliance obligations should reduce the possibility of inadvertent breach of the act. It will also provide for continuity in the relationship of each permit holder with the Chemical Weapons Convention Office.This bill also provides for clarifications of some outstanding technical issues to be implemented through regulations under the Chemical Weapons (Prohibition) Act. The Chemical Weapons Convention is a complex instrument, and a number of technical issues related to its implementation remain unresolved internationally. Some of these issues bear directly on which industrial facilities should be subject to declaration and inspection requirements. Understandings clarifying these issues are expected to be reached by the organs of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons.The bill also includes amendments which refine its secrecy provisions, streamline certain administrative procedures, and provide for applications, notices or reports to be made by way of electronic lodgment.To reinforce the effectiveness of Australia's compliance with the Chemical Weapons Convention, this bill also includes amendments dealing with minor drafting errors identified in the Chemical Weapons (Prohibition) Act 1994.Before concluding, I wish to thank all those from Australia's chemicals industry for their input with respect to this amending bill. In particular, I acknowledge the very important and useful contribution made by the Plastics and Chemicals Industries Association.Australia has been at the forefront of efforts promoting the effective implementation of the Chemical Weapons Convention, and the refinements to national implementing arrangements in this bill demonstrate an ongoing commitment by the Howard Government to that goal.GAS PIPELINES ACCESS (COMMONWEALTH) BILL 1998This bill represents a key component in the delivery of increased competition in the natural gas sector; competition which will provide significant benefits to all Australians in the form of lower prices and increased economic activity.The bill fulfils the Commonwealth's obligations in respect of the Natural Gas Pipelines Access signed by the Prime Minister and all other Heads of Government at the CoAG meeting of 7 November 1997.The agreement by all governments to the natural gas industry reform package is a significant achievement in competition reform. The agreed arrangements will enhance competition in the natural gas sector, and establish the basis for the best possible use of Australia's gas resources and the lowest possible prices for all gas consumers.The economic benefits from increased competition in the gas sector are considerable: competition will increase efficiency in production, haulage and delivery, leading to lower energy costs for industry and other users, with consequential increased economic activity.There are also substantial greenhouse benefits from the increased use of natural gas over other fossil fuels for electricity generation and energy.In the new competitive gas market, gas consumers will be able to contract directly with a gas supplier of their choice for the supply of gas, and contract separately with the pipeline owner for the transportation of the gas. This will encourage `gas on gas' competition between producers within a basin and between basins for the supply of gas to consumers, as well as increasing competition between gas and other fuels.In the downstream sector of the gas market, where competition is constrained by natural monopolies, the reforms, of which this bill is a part, have been designed to replicate the outcomes of a competitive market. It seeks to do this by providing a transparent, industry specific, third party access framework.Clearly, third party access arrangements are only one part of the process of implementing "free and fair trade in natural gas", albeit a major part.Further reform will be necessary to establish competition at all levels in the gas chain, as well as across the energy market. The Minerals and Petroleum Resources Policy Statement I announced on 2 February 1998 sets out the Government's vision and strategic framework for sustainable development of the resource industries to enhance their international competitiveness and contribute to rising national prosperity, increasing employment opportunities and regional development.The statement identifies further policy initiatives which the Commonwealth Government will implement on energy market reform. Specifically, the Government will build on reforms in the gas and electricity industry and work to facilitate the development of a national energy market. The Government will maintain, and where possible accelerate the momentum for ongoing competition reform, and review the operation of the evolving markets with the States and industry to identify and remove any emerging impediments to efficient market operation.Natural gas is already a major energy source in Australia providing an economic and environmentally efficient fuel source for industry, electricity generation, transport, commerce, and households. For the sector to continue to grow at the forecast 3% per annum in order to provide 28% of Australia's primary energy demand by 2030, it is recognised that competition reforms in the gas sector need to be delivered.Heads of Government have indicated their continued commitment to the national competition reform process, and specifically to the implementation of the proposed regulatory framework for the gas sector.The national third party gas pipeline access regulatory scheme was developed through a process which included the Commonwealth, States and Territories and gas industry members: gas producers, pipeliners, and major users, represented by their associations. The agreed reform arrangements reflect a sound and balanced outcome, acceptable to all nine jurisdictions and the four peak industry associations.The national gas pipeline access scheme will provide a legally enforceable right for third parties, such as suppliers, retailers and users, to negotiate access to pipelines for haulage services on terms and conditions which are fair and reasonable to both access seekers and pipeline owners. At the same time the access regime provides incentives for pipeline owners to grow the market and provide innovative and competitive pipeline haulage services, with the discretion for pipeline-specific circumstances to be taken into account.Access to markets through pipeline networks will provide incentives for petroleum exploration and development, and for pipeline infrastructure construction and interconnections between markets. This will further enhance competitive outcomes through intra- and inter- gas basin competition, which will provide lower energy costs to industry, commercial and domestic users.The outcomes of third party access are expected to be the development of an integrated national gas market and an interconnected pipeline grid, which will allow gas to be freely traded across jurisdictions and a national market.There are two components of the reform arrangements to be noted.One is the national element. The other is the regulatory approach adopted by the scheme.National ConsistencyNational coverage and consistency in regulatory approaches and outcomes is very important to achieving the benefits from competition reform.Inconsistencies in regulatory arrangements between the States or between ownership of pipelines within an integrated network could frustrate and constrain the opportunity for trades across the grid, by raising the regulatory transaction costs of industry and causing delays and uncertainty.Establishing and maintaining a consistent and uniform national regulatory framework is central to delivering the reform benefits to gas users and to the economy. This uniformity has been established in a number of ways. Firstly, a common third party access Code is to be adopted by all jurisdictions. Secondly, to ensure consistency, an "application of laws" approach to give legislative effect to the national gas pipeline access law and the code has been chosen. This will best maintain the uniformity and integrity of the regulatory arrangements across all jurisdictions, and eliminate the danger of variations over time as a result of uncoordinated changes being made to jurisdiction-based legislation. South Australia is the `lead' legislature, and has enacted a bill with the Gas Pipelines Access Law and the Gas Pipeline Access Code as schedules. Each jurisdiction will enact legislation to apply the South Australian law, other than Western Australia which will enact legislation to apply the gas pipeline access law and code directly, with essentially identical effect.The Commonwealth legislation will complete the national coverage of the scheme. A seamless, consistent approach will be further enhanced by using national competition bodies to undertake key roles in the scheme.Approach in Access RegimeThe code details matters which need to be included by the pipeline owner in an Access Arrangement and specifies the pricing principles for determining the tariff for specific haulage services. The Access Arrangement for a pipeline, to be approved by the regulator, subsequently governs third party access terms and conditions to that facility for a specified period. The monopoly component of a pipeline business is to be separated from related but contestable components of the business (for example, the transportation of gas will be separated from retailing of the gas commodity) to reduce the likelihood that related businesses will receive preferential treatment.The arrangements provide a balance between the right of parties to procedural fairness through an appeals process, and the timeliness of regulatory outcomes. In this regard, there is provision for judicial review of decisions, and administrative appeals for certain decisions of the regulator.The scheme also contains arrangements for resolving disputes between access seekers and the pipeline owner over the terms and conditions of access.I now turn to examine the main provisions of the bill.Commonwealth RoleThe Commonwealth legislation is critical to establishing the national character of the access scheme.The bill extends the scheme to areas where legislation of the States and Territories could not operate without Commonwealth assistance. In this respect, the scheme will be applied to offshore waters, relevant external territories, and to the Moomba-Sydney pipeline system.To establish a regulatory and legal environment conducive to producing nationally consistent economic outcomes, Commonwealth competition policy institutions will have key roles in the scheme as regulatory, appeal and enforcement bodies. The States and Territories will also apply Commonwealth legislation governing judicial review.Specific amendments are to be introduced by the Commonwealth bill to give effect to the national scheme.Trade Practices Act 1974The bill includes amendments to the Trade Practices Act 1974 to enable Commonwealth bodies to perform regulatory functions under the national access arrangements. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission will be the regulator for all transmission pipelines (other than in Western Australia), and for distribution pipelines if a jurisdiction so chooses. The National Competition Council will advise on whether a pipeline meets the criteria for coverage. The Australian Competition Tribunal will hear administrative appeals on specified matters.Amendments to the Trade Practices Act will remove any uncertainty surrounding the application of the Competition Principles principles. The changes are to make it plain that there is flexibility in the application of the Competition Principles principles in determining whether a State or Territory access regime is effective.In addition, the bill will extend the application of Part_IIIA of the Trade Practices Act 1974 to Commonwealth waters, and apply certain sections of Part_IIIA to services to be provided by infrastructure facilities to be built in the future. The bill will also provide the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission with greater flexibility to authorise conduct which might otherwise constitute anti-competitive behaviour. The later amendments are particularly relevant to network industries, where industry codes are in effect, such as electricity, or being introduced.Courts and Legal InterpretationThe uniformity in the rights of parties created by the adoption of a national scheme of access to pipelines must flow through to greater predictability in interpretation and, when appropriate to the case, to decisions.Accordingly, it has been agreed that the Commonwealth's Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 will apply to decisions taken under the Code and the national access Law and for concurrent jurisdiction to be conferred on the Federal Court and a Supreme Court. The latter also entails an amendment to the Australian Capital Territory (Self-Government) Act 1988 to allow the Australian Capital Territory to confer concurrent jurisdiction on the Federal Court.Extending the Operation of the SchemeThe Moomba-Sydney pipeline is a major gas pipeline system, and will be integral to the development of an integrated eastern State pipeline net work. The bill will repeal the Commonwealth's specific access legislation contained in Part 6 of the Moomba-Sydney Pipeline System Sale Act 1994 to enable the national scheme to apply to this pipeline when it is enacted by New South Wales and South Australia.The Commonwealth bill provides for the application of the national scheme to Commonwealth waters and to certain external territories. When the scheme is applied by the States or Northern Territory, the State or Territory legislation will be applied by the Commonwealth's legislation to pipelines in their offshore waters and in any relevant external territories. If a State or Northern Territory does not apply the scheme, the scheme is called-up directly by the Commonwealth legislation and applied in that jurisdiction's offshore waters and any relevant external territory.The common carriage provisions in the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act will be displaced for gas transmission pipelines covered by the scheme.The gas pipeline access scheme is to apply to gas transmission and distribution pipelines in Australian territory, but it is not intended that the scheme apply to that part of a pipeline which is located in another country, even if the pipeline is partly in Australian territory.ConclusionThis bill ushers in a new phase of development in the domestic natural gas industry. This scheme is to be implemented by all jurisdictions, and is the culmination of extensive development and discussion with the gas industry and users.I commend the bill to the honourable senators.PRIMARY INDUSTRIES AND ENERGY LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL (No. 3) 1997There are a number of statutory marketing authorities, research and development corporations and other authorities within the primary industries and energy portfolio. This bill will amend relevant acts to remove the legislative requirement for the portfolio Minister to approve the terms and conditions of employment, including remuneration, of the principal employee, placing the responsibility for this process entirely with the individual organisations.Amendments to the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals (Administration) Act 1992 will provide a wider scope from which applicants with experience in occupational health and safety can be considered for appointment as a Director of the National Registration Authority for Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals (NRA). It is also proposed to add an additional Director of the NRA with experi ence in the development or administration of Commonwealth Government policy.The Australian Horticultural Corporation Act 1987 specifies that the Australian Horticultural Corporation Selection Committee consists of a Chairperson and seven other members. The proposed amendments will reduce the number of "other members" on the corporation from seven to three, four or five. The number of members required for a quorum will be reduced from five to a majority of the member of the Selection Committee.Other amendments to the Australian Horticultural Corporation Act 1987 will repeal the Corporation's export trading powers.The amendments to the Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation Act 1980 will correct a drafting error, by inserting regulation-making powers into the sections detailing the meaning of false or misleading description and presentation of wine. Currently, the regulations refer to an inappropriate section of the act and could be subject to challenge. The amendments will permit the regulations to be soundly based in the act, after which the regulations will be amended to refer to the correct head of power.The bill will repeal clauses in the Dairy Produce Act 1986 which exclude people aged sixty five and over from holding membership on the board of the Australian Dairy Corporation.As a part of the Agriculture—Advancing Australia package the Government announced that it would not seek repayment of loans incurred under the Farm Household Support (FHS) scheme.The decision to terminate the FHS scheme was announced in the 1996-97 Budget. The FHS scheme provided income support to farmers to meet day-to-day living expenses who were unable to borrow commercial finance.It was paid as a loan that could be converted to a grant under certain circumstances specified in the FHS Act. Over the life of the FHS scheme (which commenced in March 1993), there were approximately 700 FHS recipients. Of these, approximately 115 recipients had all their FHS payments converted to a grant as a result of meeting the legislative requirements.Approximately 5 million dollars in FHS debt is owed to the Commonwealth. Two former FHS recipients have repaid their FHS loans and these people will be reimbursed.The annulment of FHS debts is by legislative amendment, rather than by write-off or waiver, to ensure this change applies in all cases without exception. Because FHS was initially paid as a loan, it was not considered to be income for taxation purposes. When other income support payments are made, for instance the Drought Relief Payment, the Australian Taxation Office applies a rebate so there is zero income tax payable on their income support.Consequential amendments to the Income Tax Assessment Acts 1936 and 1997 will ensure that FHS payments, whenever converted to grants, will not be considered as taxable income, and the beneficiary rebate will be applied to the small numbers of people continuing on FHS payments (no longer as loans) consistent with the treatment of other income support payments.The bill will amend the descriptions of the Adjacent Areas defined in the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act 1967 in respect of Western Australia and the Territory of Ashmore and Cartier Islands respectively to make the northern boundaries consistent with the seabed boundaries agreed in the Treaty Between the Government of Australia and the Government of the Republic of Indonesia Establishing an Exclusive Economic Zone Boundary and Certain Seabed Boundaries which was signed on 14 March 1997. The amendments are necessary to enable ratification of the Treaty.With regard to the amendments to the Primary Industries and Energy Research and Development Act 1989, the Government proposes to reduce Commonwealth funding to the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation in the 1997-98 financial year by $3.612 million. Of the money saved, $1.5 million is to go to the adjustment program for the South East Fishery and the balance towards helping to pull back the Budget deficit.The purpose of the amendment under the Primary Industry Councils Act 1991 is to formally abolish the Australian Pig Industry Council.I commend the bill to honourable senators and present the explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Senator Conroy) adjourned.Ordered that these bills be listed on the Notice Paper as separate orders of the day.Bills1187r4011187Debate resumed from 23 March, on motion by Senator Ian Campbell:That this bill be now read a second time. 17:21:001187Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY9L6TASALP00—Yesterday, I was in the process of detailing to the Senate a number of case studies where people who had been unfairly dismissed had availed themselves of the current appeal provisions and had been reinstated. I just want to state for the record some of those cases and point out some of the people who, under the government's proposal, will no longer be able to avail themselves of the appeal mechanisms.Case one involved a worker who was dismissed because she would not enter into an arrangement which constituted a breach or rip-off of the tax system. She was dismissed. Case two saw a worker dismissed because he would not sack a subordinate because she was pregnant. He was dismissed. Case three saw another worker dismissed because he refused to certify that an unroadworthy vehicle was in fact roadworthy. He was dismissed. They appealed, and all of these workers were reinstated because they had been unfairly dismissed.This proposal is saying to these workers, `Under our legislation, you would not even get a guernsey in terms of appealing. Not only would you not be reinstated, you would have nowhere to go to put your case.' As these cases highlight, not only will employees be worse off but also the public will clearly be at the mercy of the small proportion of business people who are unscrupulous in relation to wilful, malicious, capricious, unfair dismissals.The Labor Party will not be a party to this unwarranted and needless attack on workers. It is most important to note, as I said before, that these cases are confined, they are small in number. But, to those unscrupulous employers whom I outlined previously, this legislation essentially gives them a legislative imprimatur to hire and fire at will. This legislation is saying to employers, `You have the government's blessing to hire and fire your employees at will—on a whim, in fact.'Since the defeat of the last attempt to push this unwanted measure on Australians, Minister Reith has been very busy impressing on the Australian community why we need this exemption. He has continually chosen to ignore all the evidence put before him. Instead, when he realised he had no empirical data upon which to predicate the need for this legislation, he paid for his own survey. He commissioned a survey through the Yellow Pages, paid $5,000 out of taxpayers' money—thank you very much—and released his own what I regard as fairly contorted results of the survey. But we never got the questions—and, of course, everybody would be aware that, in terms of any kind of survey, the questions are critical, not simply the answers.The minister chooses to ignore the fact that unfair dismissal applications under this government's legislation have almost halved in the last year. The minister chooses to ignore the fact that only 154 claims were determined by arbitration. The minister chooses to ignore the fact that most unfair dismissal applications are not against small business employers. I would like to pay tribute to Senator Murray in this regard, given he got several brickbats from us yesterday, for being quite assiduous in urging Minister Reith to provide him with empirical data and also in terms of making out the case that this is in fact politically driven legislation.According to the February 1998 Yellow Pages survey, small business approval in federal government policies per se still remains negative. The survey clearly showed that work and sales remain the major concern for small business. What a surprise! What is the major concern for business? Demand, not whether they can sack their workers at will. It is demand. They want sales. They want some genuine economic activity.That brings me to the Bell report, which was into the needs of small business. Did the Bell report recommend a change to the government's newly adopted unfair dismissal laws? No, it did not. It did say there ought to be a review, perhaps after 12 months. So the government report into small business failed to recommend the exemption, but the minister, without any supporting evidence, decided to push ahead with an exemption anyway, ignoring his clear statement and that of the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) to Australian workers that there would be no exemptions. All the empirical evidence as to why this legislation is not necessary has been stated and is clearly documented in the Labor minority report—and I urge those senators who are interested to read it. I am sure the government does not want to hear this evidence because it is inconsistent with the propaganda that the government is perpetuating. This government has consistently shown that, when it states that the workplace relations system provides a fair go all round, it really means that only some workers are entitled to a fair go, and this fair go only applies to workers when it suits the government's needs.With this legislation, the government is actively attempting to discriminate against one-third of the Australian work force. One-third of the Australian work force is going to be affected by this decision, not in substantial numbers, I would suggest—2.8 million workers. There is no justification at all for this legislation. It is a con. It is an excuse for the government to get a double dissolution trigger. It is something the government said it would not do not only just before the election but also after the election and after its own industrial relations legislation was implemented. So it is a pure political stunt. The government is playing with the needs, aspirations and fears of average workers with regard to job insecurity for its own political end. This discrimination will leave these employees with no right of appeal and no protection from harsh, unjust and unreasonable dismissal. We of course, will continue to oppose it.In conclusion, we say this to the government: this is the line in the sand for the Labor Party. We say, `Enough is enough.' If this government wants an election based on the protection of the jobs of three million Australians, we say, `Bring it on.' If this government wants an election based on whether it is acceptable for average Australians to be sacked on a whim without recourse to appeal, we say, `Bring it on.' If this government wants an election based on what is right, fair and just for all Australians, we say, `Bring it on.' We will have an election on this. Some 2.8 million Australians need to be protected from this measure and from what is a direct con with regard to the Australian people and a blatant and transparent attempt to ensure that the government has yet another double dissolution trigger. We maintain our stringent opposition to this, and we call upon all senators to do the same.17:29:001189Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—The Australian Democrats, as is well known, will reject the Workplace Relations Amendment Bill 1997 [No. 2] outright. In doing so, I want to put the case for that. During the 1996 election, the coalition promised to replace Labor's unfair dismissal laws with what they described as `a fair go all round' for employers and employees. Little detail was provided at that time because it was the coalition's practice to run a policy free zone until the last five weeks of the election. But it was clear that all workers would have access to the regime, and that the test for unfair dismissal would be closer to the pre-1993 rules when Labor's laws were changed.The Democrats, prior to the election in 1996 and since, supported the coalition's policy direction on unfair dismissals. During the election campaign, the Council of Small Business Organisations of Australia, known as COSBOA, asked the coalition, the Democrats and Labor to support an exemption for small business from the unfair dismissal laws. It is important to note that all three parties refused on the basis that it would breach the `a fair go all round' approach. So, going into the election, all three parties refused to do what the government is now putting before us.The 1996 Workplace Relations Act passed through the Senate with the Democrats' support, implementing the `fair go all round' approach and implementing the unfair dismissal regime. The unfair dismissal regime now relies mostly on the corporations power rather than the external affairs power allowing the act to avoid the procedural difficulties which it had before. It is a much simplified act with regard to unfair dismissals. In our view, the current laws are pro-business and pro-employment—to such an extent that it is Labor's view, as I understand it, that they go too far.There were 10 key changes by the coalition with our support to Labor's laws on unfair dismissals. They were: a change in the onus of proof—instead of an employer having to prove they had a valid reason for the dismissal, the employee now needs to prove the dismissal was unfair, harsh or unjust. Hearings are now held in the commission instead of proceedings being in the Federal Court. Costs may be awarded against employees if an employee proceeds with a frivolous or vexatious claim. An application fee of $50 applies and acts as a disincentive to speculative applications. The fee is waived only if the employee is in financial difficulty. The viability of an employer is taken into account in damages. The commissioner is required, among other things, to take into account the viability of the employer in deciding whether to award damages for termination in lieu of reinstatement. Procedural fairness is no longer a mandatory requirement—a fair dismissal cannot become unfair because of a technicality, as could happen before. Probationary employees are excluded—the new act extends the eligibility period for probationary employees to three months, so for three months they can be dismissed without regard to the unfair dismissal laws. Casual employees cannot apply for unfair dismissal until they have been employed for more than 12 months. For employees on specified term contracts, the exemption is excluded, so those employees are not covered by the unfair dismissal laws. Lastly, state systems are reinforced.All those changes have resulted in a reduction of federal unfair dismissal claims by 49 per cent. In our view, the act is now working and working well and only genuine cases are being heard. The percentage comes to 0.7 per cent of all employers. About half of those might be expected to have to agree to a settlement. I suggest that it would be defying the bounds of commonsense or reason to imagine that there are no rogue employers at all in small business, and that none of this 0.7 per cent are likely to abuse their power or their rights in this regard.We believe strongly that it is a vital function of our society to protect the human rights of Australians. We think that the federal unfair dismissals law is part of that human rights situation. That is why for us this is a matter of principle. We think it is unacceptable that up to 2.9 million Australian employees could lose the right to challenge an employer who has sacked them harshly, unjustly or unfairly, which is the test in the act.As the parliament and much of the country know, the Workplace Relations Act was passed as the result of an agreement between the Democrats and the coalition. Within that agreement, we came to the view with government that no further major change would occur to the act until the next election, in which case every party was entitled to put forward whatever policies they wished. In our view, this proposition put forward by the government is specifically a breach of that agreement. This is not a technical amendment; it is a breach of the principles which the government, the Democrats and Labor agreed in 1996 should apply; and those which the government and the Democrats agreed after the election on the format, as with the new bill. We are deeply disturbed by any government that would be willing to break an agreement in this manner.The next area I wish to deal with is the area of facts and statistics. I mentioned earlier that federal unfair dismissal applications have fallen by 49 per cent. I have spent more than a year vigorously pushing the government to provide the statistics, which they were unwilling to do, and which I now put before you. Firstly, the federal unfair dismissal applications have fallen from 14,533 to 7,463 under federal law. It was always my belief that many of the unfair dismissal applications involved big business and not small business. Finally I was able to push that point through, because I was able to get the information out of government.We have discovered that 65 per cent of federal unfair dismissal applications are from big business and only 35 per cent are from small business. We are now down to 2,580 federal unfair dismissal applications. Of those 2,580, based on percentage figures supplied to me by the minister, in certain states such as Tasmania and Western Australia that translates to as few as 16 federal unfair dismissal applications. Listeners might well say, `What is all the fuss about?' The fact is that the majority—60 per cent—of all unfair dismissal applications in this country are under state laws, not federal laws.If the government has a problem at all, it is with the lack of harmonisation and consistency in the laws of this country which lead to great confusion. That confusion is exhibited in every letter I get from small business organisations. I do not blame them. You cannot expect people standing behind a till, working a lathe or working at a computer to know whether they fall under state or federal laws. Neither can you expect them to understand or to know what the laws are.I still get people writing to me complaining about Labor's laws who do not realise that they fall under the state law not the federal law. We have a situation in which the largest number of unfair dismissal applications falls under state laws not Commonwealth laws. The largest number relates to big business not small business, and the number of federal unfair dismissal applications is relatively minute.The government has made the claim—and it was repeated in the second reading speech to this bill—that the exemption from unfair dismissal for small businesses with 15 employees or less would create jobs. The government repeats COSBOA's estimate of 50,000 jobs. I have made it my business to inquire where that number of 50,000 jobs comes from. It turns out that it is a guess. There was no survey, no empirical study, no evidence, no research—it is a guess.I think it is the guess of the chief executive of that organisation, whom I have been told said, `Oh well, there are a certain number of small businesses out there. Let's assume that a certain percentage of them would employ one person extra.' It is extremely difficult to accept the proposition that a guess at job employment of that kind should generate a bill which would destroy the rights of those who now put their case for unfair dismissal and who are mostly genuine cases.This bill gives a small minority of employers, of which even fewer would be rogue employers, the right to sack workers unfairly. The government says that this will only apply to new employees of small business. What is the turnover rate of staff in small business companies? I have not been provided with that figure, but anecdotal evidence tells me that it can reach up to 60 per cent. Within a couple of years you have a turnover in many small businesses which would result in many people who presently fall outside the scope of this act falling within it.We think this is a stalking-horse for big business anyway, because all businesses—and we understand that—and particularly small businesses want as little regulation and law controlling them as possible. One chair of a small business committee said to me, `Look, if I want to employ or fire somebody because they have got blue eyes and fair hair, I should be allowed to do that.' That is how they think. I understand that but, as a legislator, I am certainly not going to agree with it.Right from the beginning we have thought that this bill is predicated on the need for the government to have a trigger for a double dissolution. We think there is no other reason. The government has had a great deal of difficulty in arriving at bills to provide it with a double dissolution trigger. According to what I have seen statistically, this Senate is the most cooperative in seven years. As at December 1997 from the election in 1996, this Senate has passed 317 bills. The number of bills carried forward from 1997 to 1998 is the lowest that I have seen for seven years. No bills are being held up apart from the five that we know about.Let us go through those five bills. The first is the Workplace Relations Amendment Bill 1997 [No. 2] —the unfair dismissal exemption bill for federal small business, not state small business—which is before us. Indisputedly, if that bill is rejected by the Senate it will form a double dissolution trigger. The next one which would have formed a double dissolution trigger was the Charter of Budget Honesty Bill 1996 [No. 2] —otherwise known as the optional honesty bill—but Labor has advised us that it has agreed to let that through, so that cannot form a trigger.Then there are three sets of bills—the Public Service bills, the legislative instruments bill, and the native title bill—which were laid aside in the lower house. The advice that the Senate has had from the clerk is that that makes them constitutionally suspect. The government says that it has contrary advice, and well it might, but we all know that we have been pushing it hard to provide that advice. My assumption is that if the government cannot front up, it must have a shaky case, so this is the only bill on which it can really deliver a double dissolution trigger. I think that is what it has been about all along.Minister Peter Reith is a very intelligent, experienced politician. If anyone out there honestly thinks he believes this exemption for federal small businesses below 15 employees, a law which only affects 2,580 small businesses, is going to deliver 50,000 jobs, they underestimate his intelligence. No, this is just straightforwardly a cynical political device which, unfortunately, is supported by small business organisations who, I think, should know better.The protection of rights is the responsibility of every section of the community. It is no good small business screaming, and quite rightly screaming, about standover tactics from landlords on tenants or from franchisors on franchisees or any other kind of supplier of heavy-handedness and say, `It is okay. We can go and give our employees a whack.' Everyone's rights are the responsibility of everyone else. I think it is most unfortunate that the workers of Australia, the working battlers of Australia, are subjected to this kind of discrimination between one class of workers and others.The case of the government is that the public good of generating jobs justifies the private harm done to this minority of employees. But if you cannot prove your case, if you have no empirical basis, no logical rational basis for saying that 50,000 employees will be created by taking away the rights of 2,580 Australians, then the entire credibility of your case, the entire moral justification for it, falls away. The Australian Democrats believe that this bill should be rejected on the grounds of human rights, on the grounds of economics and on the grounds of plain commonsense. Why do we say economics? Because the statistics we have from the ABS show that from November 1996 to August 1997, which are the latest figures I have, small business employment rose anyway by four per cent whilst large business employment fell by 1½ per cent. During the time of Labor's laws alone, job growth in small business under those laws, which were regarded both by us and the coalition as going too far, was still double that of large business. The problem for small business, as exhibited in the recent yellow pages Index of Small Business Attitudes, is economic conditions and finance conditions. They are still paying about the highest real interest rates in the OECD. So on economic grounds this does not match up.We do not think Mr Reith can guarantee that all 890,000 small business employers in Australia will treat their workers fairly and justly if we allow him to remove the minimum protection they enjoy. He has not offered any additional funding for management training. He has not proposed to make it easier for small business to expand in other ways. Whilst he has addressed some of his responsibilities about the concerns of small business, those he has not attended to. In summary, we say the federal laws work, that they deal only with genuine cases, and that it is a minority of small businesses affected. (Time expired)17:49:001192Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—The government is obviously working on the theory that third time is lucky in relation to the changes before us today. The Workplace Relations Amendment Bill 1997 [No. 2] is in fact the third attempt by this government to impose its fundamentalist and discriminatory proposal to exempt businesses employing no more than 15 workers from the unfair dismissal provisions of the Workplace Relations Act 1996. In late June 1997 the Senate voted to disallow regulations under the act which would have had the same intent as this bill. The bill was rejected in the Senate on 21 October 1997 and now we have the bill before us today. On both previous occasions I voted for the disallowance and I see no reason to change my position.There are some very fundamental issues that are being missed by the government. One would have to suggest that they are being deliberately missed. One is that they forget that low wages—and they are pushing very hard for reducing wages and conditions to be `internationally competitive'—equals lack of spending power equals reduced market for small businesses' goods and services. The largest part of the market for small businesses is in fact the local economy. Added to that we have another simple equation: job insecurity equals lack of consumer confidence. What does that mean to small businesses' goods and services? Are you likely to spend on goods and services if you are unsure of whether you will continue to have a job tomorrow, the next day or the next week? Those things are fairly basic.We currently have a government the Prime Minister of which talks about a nation relaxed and comfortable, a nation of shareholders. What I can say to that is: get real. We have in fact a nation of growing working poor, a nation of people who no way in a million years would be able to purchase Telstra shares, who no way in a million years would be able to be involved in the speculative international economy. There are a few players in Australia involved in that. We know that it is a very big part of the banks' agenda in Australia, but we know it does not represent the average Australian.What does it really mean if, for instance, 35 per cent of the unfair dismissal claims in the courts are associated with small business? What it means is that small business in fact is underrepresented in relation to unfair dismissal claims. It means that less employees of small business are currently going to that court. It means that we should look at the outcome for those types of people who are involved in those kinds of court cases.The 1996-97 annual report of the Industrial Relations Court of Australia highlighted that 58 per cent of contested unfair dismissal cases were decided in favour of the employee. Instead of the government saying, as it always seems to, `Oh, gosh, this is a cost for the employer,' I would say, `My goodness, this means that the court has found that 58 per cent of those people were found to have been unfairly dismissed.' It is dreadful to suggest that this kind of behaviour will be rewarded by the government—it will make it easier to treat those people unfairly. The median amount of compensation was around $6,000. We know the government has restricted the ceiling on payments that can be made to those people claiming unfair dismissal.We have to decide what we do for those vulnerable people in our society who may face the fear of not having protection against being treated unfairly. That is what the court is required to decide. We are in a nation of the growing working poor. We are in a nation where the Prime Minister thinks that the nation can afford to buy Telstra shares. But we are in fact in a nation where the government believes the primary goal of government is to push for wages and conditions to be reduced so that we can be competitive in the international free market.I would say that there is something missing from that argument. What is missing are the people who will be affected—that is, people who are working, people who are unemployed because they have been shed in the push for international competitiveness and downsizing and those people who are going to treated unfairly in this system. All the small businesses that are actually going down the tubes because of the concentration on corporate systems and international free markets will also be affected.It seems to me that the government has lost the plot. It has left the community out of the equation. This is just another example. It is getting people through the door that is the main concern of the majority of small businesses in Australia. If they have not got people with the money and inclination to buy their goods and services they can sack people to their hearts content and things will not get better for them in the medium or long run. That is what this government has failed to address. The Greens will not be supporting this bill. (Quorum formed)17:58:001193Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEYSF4VICALP00—The second reading speech on the Workplace Relations Amendment Bill 1997 [No. 2] states:The bill is intended to ensure that small businesses are exempted from the federal unfair dismissal provisions, in respect of new employees. This exemption is necessary and appropriate, given the special features of small business—and it is necessary, to ensure continuing growth and employment in small businessThat is not quite correct. If you look at the bill you find that it states:Insert:(5A) An application under subsection (1)—that is the wrongful dismissal provision in the Workplace Relations Act—may not be made on the grounds referred to in paragraph (1)(a), or on grounds that include that ground, by an employee (other than an apprentice) whose employment has been terminated by the employer . . .The only impact the amendment would have on the act is to remove those grounds set out in (1)(a) which entitle an employer to terminate the employment of an employee. Those grounds are that the termination was harsh, unjust or unreasonable. So that if the employer terminates a worker and that termination was harsh, unjust or unreasonable, then the worker cannot take any action against his employer. But he or she can, if the grounds are those set out in 170CB. If the termination of the worker is on the grounds set out in sections 170CK, 170CL, 170CM or 170CN, then the employee can take action.It is a most peculiar situation where you have an act—if this is passed—which allows an employee to take action if he or she is dismissed on the grounds of race, colour, sex, sexual preference, age, physical or mental disability, marital status, family responsibilities, pregnancy, religion, political opinion, national extraction or social origin. If an employer who employs 15 or less people sacks his employee on those grounds, then that employee can take action; or if the employee is sacked because he or she was temporarily absent from work because of illness or injury, within the meaning of the regulations; or if he or she had a trade union membership or participated in trade union activities outside working hours or, with the employer's consent, during working hours; or if he or she is sacked because they are not a member of a trade union, the person can take action under subdivision B.The interesting thing is why. I have read this already, but if you look at what is said in the second reading speech, you will see that this is to help small business by taking away the ability of the employees of small business to sue when they are wrongfully dismissed. If that is going to encourage the growth of employment in small business, why does the government go halfway and halfway only?It just seems absurd that you would have an act that allows a small employer to dismiss his, her or its employees on certain grounds and those certain grounds would not entitle the person to sue for wrongful dismissal, but allows that person to sue for wrongful dismissal if it is on other grounds. So an employer can be as harsh, unjust or as unreasonable as he, she or it wants and the employee cannot sue. But if the dismissal is in any way connected with race, colour, sexual preference—and that would include I suppose, transsexual people—age, physical or mental disability, marital status, then the employee can take proceedings.The philosophy behind this act must mean that the government does consider that there are many grounds—and they are set out in the act—in respect of which it is fair and reasonable that the worker can take action if the employer has sacked him or her on that basis. But—and I keep repeating this because it is such an amazing matter—although the philosophy behind the government is to allow any employee to take such action on those other grounds that I have mentioned, it does not allow an employee to take action if the termination was harsh, unjust or unreasonable.It just seems a patent nonsense that legislation could be brought into the chamber which allows that situation to exist. In other words, the government's legislation is saying, `Oh yes, we do think there are grounds upon which it would be wrong for a small employer to sack his, her or its employee, but there are other grounds where we don't.' That approach would be consistent with the propo sition that this is really populist legislation; that the government, in bringing forward this legislation, thinks that the small business people will be attracted to voting for the government because it changes the wrongful dismissal legislation. At the same time, the government realises the reaction against doing that might be too great if it went too far, so it cuts back the grounds upon which dismissal can take place without there being a right to go to the commission.We heard speakers before—Senator Mackay, for example—talking about people who did suffer a great injustice in the way they were dismissed from their employment. Listening to what Senator Mackay had to say, it seems a dreadful business that this legislation should be allowed to go on in this way.A lot of the problems raised by the government are problems of process. They said it is going to cost small business a lot to take proceedings and it is awkward to go to court. But it seems quite a ridiculous situation to say, `Because our legal system has flaws in it, people are going to have their rights taken away.' I can understand an argument that says the legal system leaves a lot to be desired; therefore we will try to fix up the legal system—`The system before the Industrial Relations Commission is such that they have to improve it.' But we should not allow the defects in the system to resonate through the community in terms of people being deprived of rights that they should have as workers. The second reading speech states:The exemption is from the federal unfair dismissal provisions, only. Employees will still be protected by the Workplace Relations Act. Section 170CK protects employees against dismissal because of any discriminatory reason. Sections 170MU and 170WE prohibit dismissal of an employee because the employee engages in protected industrial action, seeking a certified agreement or in AWA industrial action.It is not as if the government does not know the inconsistencies in this legislation. It is not as if the government does not know that it is picking and choosing as to on what grounds employees might be able to take action. It cannot plead that it does not know what its legislation means about small business be cause that is set out in the second reading speech.It just seems a most peculiar approach to a fundamental right that people should be able to have some protection. It is said that the employer would be put at risk if it had to go to litigation, but of course so would the employee. There is a balance between the two. It seems that, if there is an unfairness, if there is a hardness and if there is an injustice, then it is proper that the umpire, the person we always refer to in these situations, should have a say about what should be the result of an action.True enough, a small business might be concerned about putting people on if they cannot dismiss them, but that would be the same sort of argument that a big employer could use. So it seems a little pointless to say, `Because people will not be taken on if we do not take away the wrongful dismissal law, we ought to abolish it in respect of small business.' We ought to be saying the same for big business, but we do not. So the whole argument that is put forward by the government in this instance is well beyond understanding, seems to be contradictory and seems not to be the sort of legislation that a responsible Senate would put through. The least we could ask is that there be some consistency. It is clear that the community not only in the employment field but generally is feeling great insecurity. There are lots of laws passed that take away those sorts of rights that we have as citizens—rights of privacy, rights to have a telephone conversation that is not tapped and rights of migrants to have their cases properly heard. This is yet another right that hits at the very heart of the community. It hits at the working community of Australia. Most growth in employment is going to occur, it is always said, in small business.People should not have a regime thrust upon them where they have no security. They would have no security if the employer could just sack them willy-nilly—do it harshly, do it unjustly and do it unreasonably. The employee would have no come back. It is a situation which you could not in justice ask the workers of Australia to tolerate. We cannot in justice allow this legislation to go through. If it is the occasion of a double dissolution, then it would be interesting to hear what the people who are looking for security and have not had it under this government will say about the one entitlement they have to feel some security in their employment—that is, to take the employer to court and for the umpire to decide the issue. I hope this legislation is defeated, as it should be, a second time.18:14:001195Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—May I congratulate my colleague Senator Cooney on an excellent contribution. I would like to pick up on the points that he was making at the conclusion of his speech. This is unjust legislation. This is legislation which clearly discriminates against a vulnerable—some might say the most vulnerable—section of the work force in this country. This is legislation that is also completely unnecessary. It is legislation that is founded upon rhetoric, upon scaremongering, upon an ideological obsession.Since this government came to office, the solid commitments made by John Howard, then Leader of the Opposition and now Prime Minister, and Mr Reith, now minister for industrial relations, have been thrown out the window. What were those commitments? There was the all-embracing commitment of the Prime Minister that he wanted an Australia where people felt relaxed and comfortable. Clearly, this legislation does not make employees of small business relaxed and comfortable. The one protection they have against unfair dismissal is being removed.The other commitment with respect to industrial relations was that no Australian worker would be worse off under this government's proposed industrial relations changes. The document Better pay for better work released in February 1996 clearly stated:The coalition believes that employees should have access to a fair and simple process of appeal against dismissal—based on the principle of a `fair go all round.'There is no fair go all round in this legislation. Rather, this legislation discriminates against a particular section of the work force by removing their right, a right that should not be fettered before the law.Furthermore, in late February, Mr Reith, the then spokesperson for the opposition, said:Our position is very clear. If you've been unfairly dealt with at work, then you should have a right to appeal.But now once again we have legislation before this parliament which seeks to remove that right. It seeks to remove the right of individual employees. We know that this government does not like trade unions. We hear that constantly every day from senators on the other side. They actually think that trade unions are some sort of pariah in society. I do not want to deal with that issue today, but it is clear that their whole modus operandi in terms of industrial relations is about breaking down representation and/or rights of workers.Firstly, they attack trade unions, the concept of collective representation. Then, when dealing with a particular section of the work force that very often is not unionised—where there may very often be, say, only one employee in a small business—their approach is to destroy the rights of that individual. I can remember a former senator in this place, now a minister in the other place, Mrs Bishop, lecturing us ad nauseam about the benefits of individualism over collectivism. Yet when it comes to a pretty fundamental right for an individual worker—as I said, very often in a small business there might be only one or two workers, maybe not in a union—what is this government's approach? It is to remove their rights to take action against unfair dismissal. So much for the commitment to liberalism or liberal principles from this coalition.I want to return to some comments I made in November 1996 when the first workplace relations legislation went through this parliament. At that time I referred to an editorial in the Sydney Morning Herald of February 1996 entitled `Fair and unfair dismissals'. I commented at the time that this was an important editorial because it actually spelled out the lie in the campaign being run by employers and by the then opposition about how unfair dismissal legislation was the root of all evil and the cause of unemployment. The Sydney Morning Herald has never been noted for being a pro-Labor or pro trade union news paper. Later in my speech I want to refer to some more recent comments in terms of assessing this issue, but the editorial at the time stated:Statistics released by the Industrial Relations Court in December—that is, December 1995—suggest that the operation of the law has not been as onerous as commonly implied. In 1994-95, 87 per cent of the 7,749 unfair dismissal claims lodged that financial year were either settled or discontinued before determination by the court and another 4 per cent were settled or discontinued before the determination process had started. Of those determined by the court, 56 per cent were decided in the employee's favour and 44 per cent in favour of the employer. And in the 219 cases where compensation was awarded, 74 per cent involved amounts less than $10,000, about 22 per cent involved amounts between $10,000 and $20,000, and less than 4 per cent involved amounts of $20,000 or more.This suggests that much of the criticism of the law has stemmed from perceptions of its operation rather than its practice.It will be recalled that that editorial and that commentary were in regard to the legislation that existed under the previous Labor government, legislation that this government had so stridently attacked, suggesting that it was causing employers, particularly in small business, not to employ people.There was a massive campaign—we all remember it—to run the line in the public arena that small business would not employ people because it was too hard to sack them. That has always been the atttitude of this government. It is more concerned about ensuring that employers have rights to sack people than it is about getting employers to employ people—how to increase employment in this country.During the period that the Labor government's unfair dismissal law was in operation—and, I might say, that was the amended unfair dismissal law which had given further concessions to employers—what did the employment figures show? The fascinating feature was that during the period between March 1994 and March 1995 employment in small business in this country grew. In one calendar year it grew by 176,000 employees. Small business in this country grew. In fact, it was the only section in terms of the employment profile where there was significant growth. In the manufacturing and large business sector employment remained fairly constant. In the public sector there was a decline in the level of employment.The figures tell the opposite story to what has been the rhetoric of this government—certainly when it was in opposition and now in government. Looking at a longer period—over the last 10 years or so since 1985—one finds that in this country small business has grown by 1.1 million employees. Since 1985 employment in the larger business sector has grown by approximately 410,000 whilst, in the public sector, employment has declined—and we all know that—because of cutbacks in the level of public service employment. The Sydney Morning Herald had it right when it said there was never a problem, and there is still no problem, with respect to the propensity for small business to employ people in this country vis-a-vis unfair dismissal laws. In all of the years during which the Labor government's legislation was in place, which the Liberal/National parties said was a restraint upon small business employing people, employment in small business actually rose. That in itself demonstrates that this legislation is totally unnecessary. This is a straw man argument. The government is saying that there is a problem, that employers will not employ people in small businesses, and then it says that we have to fix the problem by getting rid of unfair dismissal laws. It is an absolute furphy.The second point I wish to make is that this legislation will have very little impact upon small business in any event because the bulk of small business employees in this country are not employed under federal awards. Generally, they are employed under state awards—state common rule awards—which have general application across the industry. In New South Wales, for instance, shop assistants and employees in the retail sector, the clerical sector and a whole range of other areas are employed under common rule state awards, particularly in small business. They are not generally employed under federal awards. The legislation is clearly nothing more than window dressing to create an impression in the community that the government is doing something about improving employment in small business. It is not. I quote from an article which appeared in the Australian Financial Review on 4 November last year:Unfair dismissal laws have been damned as the obstacle to job creation, and held to blame if small business does not employ new staff.While governments and industry groups exchange volleys on the issue, does small business really care?Most small businesses—86 per cent—fall under State, not federal, law. So it is of scant interest to them that the Federal Government failed in the Senate to push through provisions that exempt businesses with fewer than 15 employees from unfair dismissal provisions.Few small businesses, except in Victoria and the Territories, will have access to those federal laws.The article goes on to say:In a recent survey of 300 small businesses, which asked about impediments to job creation, unfair dismissal laws were rated last. Only 7.1 per cent of the businesses—80 per cent of which employ fewer than 20 people—saw unfair dismissal legislation as a bar to job creation.Further on in the article it states:The federal president of the Australian Small Business Association, said unfair dismissal legislation was not regarded as a major issue by its members."When small businesses rate the issues which affect them (eg unfair trading, taxation) in order of importance, unfair dismissal is always around the bottom of the list. While there is a perception that unfair dismissal law is a threat, there will be small businesses which will avoid employing people."As the article demonstrates, this issue does not rate when it comes to the problems faced by small business in this country. I can give specific examples of the concerns in the area in which I live, as I am sure other members of the Senate and the parliament can. For example, what are the shopkeepers in my area concerned about? They are concerned that Woolworths has built a huge shopping mall and may drive a number of small businesses out of business. This includes the butcher, the greengrocer and possibly the person who operates the local petrol station because now the major supermarket chains are into petrol retailing. In fact, there is virtually no product that you cannot buy in a supermarket.I am not here to argue the case, as it were, on those issues but to point out that that is what small business is concerned about—the ever-increasing squeeze placed upon them by the big retailers who can clearly undercut them on price because of economies of scale. They are concerned about the amount of regulation and paperwork and they are concerned about unfair trading. They are not concerned about unfair dismissal laws. It is a hollow and false argument—indeed, I would suggest it is completely hypocritical—for this government to say that all we have to do to increase employment in the small business sector by, say, 50,000 employees is to get rid of the unfair dismissal laws. That is an absolute and total untruth.In conclusion, I point to the hypocrisy of this government in that, whilst it waxes lyrical and is intent upon bringing this legislation forward into this chamber again—as Senator Mackay has said, to provide it with another trigger for a double dissolution—and whilst it talks about unfair dismissal laws, what is it doing about the workers at Grafton meatworks, or at Cobar mines, or at Woodlawn mines?EU4O'CHEESenator O'Chee—Quite a lot, actually.656Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW—You are not actually doing anything, Bill. I know you have had a few chats with a few people but this government has done nothing on that issue—not one thing. That is a pressing issue. The real issue the government should be concentrating on is the situation facing workers who have lost up to $20 million in entitlements because of the actions of their employers. The government should have introduced legislation into this parliament to deal with that. That is the real issue about employment. It is about protecting the jobs of the workers and the livelihoods of those workers and their families. But, no, there has been no move whatsoever. I have not heard one speech from a government member in either house on the situation at the three locations I have just mentioned.There has been no indication that any legislation will be forthcoming from the government to fix the problem of unfair dismissal or unfair determination of those employees. It is the Labor Party that has taken the action through a private member's bill in the other place to try to address the issue. Those are the unfair dismissals that the government should really be focusing on, and not trying to create a phoney war about unfair dismissal laws and their impact upon small business.I can assure Senator O'Chee and other government members that this con trick will not work. Small business does not believe the government. Small business is deserting the government every day because it has not delivered on any of the major issues that small business is concerned about. This sort of trick will not change the position and the attitude of small business to this government. Small business is finished with this government, just as we will finish off this legislation.18:34:001198Hogg, Sen JohnSenator HOGG7L6QLDALP00—I oppose the Workplace Relations Amendment Bill 1997 [No. 2]. It is interesting to note that, for something that potentially will act as a trigger for a double dissolution and therefore has great importance, one would expect, for the government, the speakers list on this bill is limited to one government speaker—and that is Senator Alston. Obviously it does not play an important role for the government but, nonetheless, it provides a political tool by which the government can achieve a double dissolution, as speakers before me have said, including Senator Murray from the Australian Democrats.This piece of legislation is back here for the second time and is quite reprehensible because the legislation itself seeks to discriminate against a specific group of workers. Senator Cooney and Senator Forshaw have clearly outlined how a select group of people who have no other sin—if we can term it that—other than to work for a small business, are going to be discriminated against in this nation. And that really is quite a tragedy because here we are singling out a group of people and telling them that their rights are going to be denied to them because their employer employs a specific number of employees.The Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business (Mr Reith) in his second reading speech quoted Mr Bastian from the Council of Small Business Organisations of Australia as saying that 50,000 jobs would be created if this bill went through the Senate. Senator Murray has already picked up on the fact that this is a gross exaggeration and that there is no proof. Obviously what COSBOA was doing was handing out some sort of carrot to the government, some inducement, to get it to pass this legislation so that, as a result of passing the legislation—6H4HARRADINESenator Harradine—He's right; 50 per cent get the sack and 50 per cent are employed.7L6Hogg, Sen JohnSenator HOGG—That is right, Senator Harradine. What we are seeing here is an inducement to the government to somehow get around the problem that it has yet to tackle—the massive problem it said it would tackle but has not done so—and that is the problem of unemployment, particularly long-term unemployment, in this nation. We had a debate in this chamber only last Thursday on the problems that the long-term unemployed in this nation are suffering as a result of this government—not as a result of any previous government, but as a result of this government. It can clearly be seen that the long-term unemployed are increasing in the categories 52 weeks to 104 weeks unemployed and over 104 weeks. So this offer by COSBOA in no way addresses the employment issue. Obviously it has been hung out as some sort of inducement for the government and, of course, the government is now trying to use this flimsy excuse—and that is all one could say it would be—as a reason for presenting this bill in the chamber again.But if one looks at the words `50,000 jobs', it does not even say whether those jobs are full-time jobs, part-time jobs or casual jobs. If this government were sincere in trying to do something to offer people security in employment, they would be dropping this bill rather than putting it forward. This bill will not provide people with security and will encourage employers to sack those people in full-time jobs who are able to sustain them selves, who are able to eke out a reasonable living on some occasions.The job argument is not a valid argument at all. It is my experience that, in the past, major newspapers have announced: `1,000 jobs here, 1,500 jobs there, 2,000 jobs there', particularly with the opening of major shopping centres. Yet, when one looks into the figures, one finds that a substantial number of these jobs are casual jobs—casual jobs of from five to 10 hours work per week. If the government were to pass this legislation, the offer by COSBOA rings hollow indeed. One would not expect that one would see massive numbers of full-time jobs which would have a meaningful impact on the long-term unemployed. What we have here is sheer gamesmanship on the part of COSBOA to try to dupe this government into passing legislation that, at the end of the day, will do nothing other than deny a select group of people their rights. So, on that basis alone, the legislation that is presented here again stands totally condemned.There is no guarantee in the minister's second reading speech that COSBOA are offering any ironclad guarantee that jobs will materialise as a result of this legislation. It is a throwaway line—and a cheap throwaway line at that. If we look further at the minister's second reading speech, we get into the funny parts of the speech: not funny in the sense that they are laughable, but funny in the sense that they can reasonably be ridiculed. When this legislation was defeated previously, the government apparently called upon Yellow Pages to do a survey, which was conducted between 30 October 1997 and 12 November 1997. The minister actually included the results of that survey in his second reading speech. The results are laughable, because again they offer no guarantee of employment.Let us look at the results of that survey. The survey said that 33 per cent of small businesses reported that they would have been more likely to have recruited new employees if they had been exempted from unfair dismissal laws in 1996 and 1997. That is a load of rubbish—that is the only way it can be described. There is no promise of jobs there. The words were most specific, `would have been more likely to'. There was no undertaking whatsoever; it was purely, `We might do it if we feel like it.'The survey went on to say that 38 per cent of small businesses reported that they would be more likely to recruit new employees if they were exempted from the current unfair dismissal laws. Again, there is no promise there whatsoever. It is purely a spurious claim because it appealed to the employer. The survey asked, `Would you create more jobs if we were able to exempt you from the unfair dismissal laws?' What would you expect from the employers? The natural reaction, `Sure, you exempt us; we would employ more people.'That is as banal a survey as trying to prove that the population in Brisbane are Christians by standing outside St John's Anglican Cathedral on a Sunday as people come out of the service asking them if they are Christians and then saying, `I've done a survey that shows that 99 per cent of people in Brisbane are Christians.' That would have exactly the same credibility as this survey—none whatsoever—and yet this government is resting on this as a potential trigger for a double dissolution. As one of my colleagues said earlier, it is very hypocritical. I find that what the government are doing has no sincerity about it whatsoever.Further in his second reading speech, the minister talks about helping small business to `grow, employ, export and invest in Australia's future'. I am all for helping small business grow, employ, export and invest in Australia's future, but this government have done nothing to assist small business whatsoever. They were the first to embrace small business, yet they are the first to do nothing positive for small business. This step does nothing to help small business grow, employ and export because, if one looks at the legislation, one finds that there is a ceiling there—a ceiling of 15. What does a small business do when it wants to employ the sixteenth person? There is no incentive for small business to grow beyond 15 employees.What the government did is they linked this tenuously into the termination, change and redundancy provisions. There is no sensible relationship between the termination, change and redundancy provisions—as came out of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission—and what is being proposed in this bill. They are like chalk and cheese. The termination, change and redundancy provisions were designed to protect the rights of workers, and the exemption for small businesses with 15 or fewer staff was because many of those small businesses were not making major changes brought about by technological advancement—major plant refits and so on. So it is a very poor but tenuous link that the government have tried to use in linking this to the issue of termination, change and redundancy.Of course, there is absolutely no reason whatsoever why the magic number of 15 should then be used as justification for excluding a class of employees from their fundamental basic human rights—none whatsoever. This provision, if it were to get through, would act as a disincentive to employment in the longer term. If the government were serious about helping businesses to grow, helping businesses to employ and helping businesses to export, then they would drop this legislation rather than cynically use it as a means of achieving a double dissolution.So why 15? Why not 12? Why not 10? Why not five? There is no rhyme, no reason, no justification, other than that tenuous link put up by the minister, which completely destroys itself. What we are seeing with this piece of legislation is a piece of legislation designed to destroy the fundamental rights of people in the work force.The government are saying, `This really doesn't have any effect on existing employees.' But as Senator Murray pointed out, and rightly so, many of these small businesses have a very high turnover of staff, so what we will see in a very short space of time is this legislation taking effect a lot quicker than even the government would be prepared to admit. We would have people exposed a lot earlier than even the government would be prepared to concede.What we see in the legislation is fundamentally a denial of justice to a certain class of employees. It certainly could not be described as being fair to the employees who work for small businesses wherein there are 15 or fewer employed. The employees are not protected from the harsh and oppressive employers—and there are harsh and oppressive employers out there in the real world. They cannot all be painted as being Latter-day Saints. Certainly, many of them are quite disgusting in the way they treat their employees.If one looks further at the second reading speech, one would see again the cynicism that exists in the government's approach. The minister said:The new system is more balanced and fair to both employers and employees. It is less legalistic and costly, with an emphasis on conciliation. Employers are protected from frivolous and malicious claims—This is just a load of nonsense. What we are talking about here are the fundamental basic rights of these people. The minister said in his second reading speech that, if this legislation is passed, the employers will be protected from frivolous and malicious claims and will thereby, in some way, benefit. What we are going to see is the denial of people's rights, and people in this nation have got to make up their minds what comes first—people's rights or employers being protected from frivolous and malicious claims.Debate interrupted.Documents120110000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Chapman)—Order! It being 6.50 p.m., we move to the consideration of government documents.120118:50:001201Macdonald, Sen SandySenator SANDY MACDONALDCX5NSWNP10—I move:That the Senate take note of the document.I wish to take note of this report because it is an encouraging report for several reasons. It describes in detail the excellent year the organisation has had. It provides evidence of how good marketing and clever export strategies can significantly boost the fortunes of the rural sector, and it represents the fulfil ment of another election commitment—that is, the complete restructure of the Wheat Board.This government has been and is committed to the reform of all key rural industries. It is committed to extracting government from activities that industries can and should do for themselves, and it is committed to putting the people with the most practical knowledge and experience back in charge of their own industries.Under the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, John Anderson, we have overhauled the sugar industry, the marketing of red meat and the marketing of wool, and now the government has substantially met the expectations of the industry by restructuring the Australian Wheat Board, which is the country's major national and international grain marketing organisation. The reforms are certainly starting to bear results.The board is Australia's fifth largest exporter, selling and marketing grain on behalf of Australia's 40,000 wheat growers. It is now in the process of moving from a statutory authority to a grower owned and controlled organisation and, in partnership with the growers, the government has assisted this change. Full privatisation is scheduled for 1 July 1999 and some of the preparation for this is described in this 1996-97 report.On 1 July 1999, the Australian Wheat Board will become a stand-alone corporation—Australian owned and operated under the Australian Corporations Law and run by its own elected board with a capital base of around $550 million. The only real area of government involvement is the board's current work—that is, the provision of underwriting on the borrowings of wheat growers to fund advance payments to growers, which will cease in 1999, and the single desk export powers on wheat, which will remain.In 1999-2000, the Australian government will review this single desk structure as part of its national competition policy. In connection with the finalisation of the package for the conversion of the AWB to a grower owned company from July 1999, I personally am very pleased that the Grains Council has unanimously endorsed the dual class share grower company to replace the AWB after that time. I am convinced that this is the best means to meet with the government's and industry's objectives for a self-reliant, fully commercialised marketing structure under grower ownership and control.The government will now consider the post-1999 package and legislation, and will take account of the matters put forward by the Grains Council for inclusion in the memorandum and articles of association of the new company to strengthen pooling arrangements and grower control. I am aware and note that the Australian Stock Exchange has confirmed that the grower control arrangements for the company could be retained if the company were listed, so long as the company is primarily involved in grain trading, and growers would have the controlling say in whether or not the company does continue as a grain trader.Some of the board's key achievements during 1996-97 form part of the report's introduction. They include a range of successes—namely, the increase in sales revenue of seven per cent to an all-time high of $4.7 billion; the increase in export sales volumes by over 40 per cent to 19 million tonnes, the highest level ever achieved; and an enormous increase in export sales, which were achieved to Iran, Pakistan, Egypt, Iraq, Turkey, Indonesia and Yemen. This is a fine organisation. It is doing the right thing by its growers and by the Australian government. In the interest of all Australians, it should be congratulated on the work that it has carried out over the last 12 months.18:55:001202O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—I note in the annual report that, in the financial year ended June 1997, the sales revenue of the Australian Wheat Board was $4.682 billion. Importantly, the holdings of the wheat industry fund at the end of that year were $444 million, which involved $70 million in levies on the wheat industry. Of course, we have heard about the restructuring of the wheat industry from Senator Sandy Macdonald, which was one of the key items on Mr Anderson's agenda back when he was appointed Minister for Primary Industries and Energy in March 1996.This process was actually kicked off by the former government, but he was charged with the responsibility of carrying the reform through. However, I have to say that, under Mr Anderson's management, the process of reform has been an extremely tortuous one. The reason is simple—that is, a lack of leadership on his part. I hasten to add that the Australian Wheat Board reform is not the only area in the primary industry portfolio that has suffered from this problem. The reform of the meat industry, the reform of the export meat inspection service and the development of an effective management plan to deal with Ovine Johnes disease have also suffered badly from a lack of direction from the minister.The debate within the industry over the future of the Australian Wheat Board has been a difficult one, and that is understandable. The industry is dealing with its future and is quite rightly concerned that the structure which is finally agreed to ensures that the future is sustainable. The biggest problem has not been the process of debate within the industry; it has been the fact that no-one really knows the detail of what the government will finally propose to parliament.The legislative framework to implement this process was split into two bills. This parliament was asked to vote on, and the industry was asked to endorse, a privatised Australian Wheat Board with only half of the information on the table. But, despite the failing of the minister in the process, we are now at a point where the industry broadly supports a model which is acceptable to the government. There are still some concerns in Western Australia, as I understand it. The Labor Party will certainly look to the view of the industry when determining its position on the second tranche of legislation when that finally appears. I assume that industry support is subject to the detail contained in this second piece of legislation.The industry support, however, is also subject to four key conditions. They are: that the articles of the Australian Wheat Board post-1999 contain a limit on the capital of the trading subsidiary of $100 million; that the articles of the Australian Wheat Board post- 1999 include three external directors elected by A-class shareholders to the board of the pool company subsidiary; that the taxation expectations of the Grains Council of Australia are granted in full by the government—and that has been a fundamental issue to the industry all the way along; and, that the preservation of cooperation principles in the pooling company are maintained.I understand the Grains Council has advised the minister that support for the model as is currently presented will be withdrawn by all states if any of the above conditions are not met by the government. This is a matter now well and truly back on Mr Anderson's ministerial desk. It is his responsibility to address the above conditions required by the industry, and it is a matter for him to ensure that the second bill accurately reflects what the Australian industry rightly expects.As with a number of other key policy areas, the minister has attempted to take a back seat on this important reform. He has argued that rural industries must determine their own destinies and, therefore, he should not involve himself. There is a big difference between interfering and leading. This minister, as well as a number of other ministers in this government, has a key role to play in the development of key rural industries such as wheat. It is about time he started exercising his responsibility.Question resolved in the affirmative.120319:00:001203Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—I move:That the Senate take note of the document.I would like to take note of this report regarding the Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs and the report that has been submitted by the Higher Education Council of the National Board of Employment, Education and Training. At the outset, let me say that it is nice to see some reports coming from NBEET—a fine body, but one that has effectively been disbanded under the coalition government.I wonder what is in fact happening with the legislation that seeks to disband the work of NBEET. I know that we have never dealt with it in this place, although their funding has been more or less decimated. I think it will be a great shame when we see the abolition of a body that provides essential cross-sectoral advice to the government and other bodies on such important education, employment and training matters.This particular report is in relation to quality implementation and reporting structures and, essentially, deals with the qualitative monitoring of the Australian tertiary sector, an issue on which, of course, the Australian Democrats have long been vocal. I note that this report makes a number of recommendations, including that there should be three-yearly reviews of institutional quality and that they take the form of desk audits of material provided by institutions for the profiles discussion and additional material that is required.This is, I think, an important and good recommendation that the Democrats would be pleased to support. But, again, we throw open the question to the government as to whether or not it has had feedback recently on this year's and last year's profiles process from tertiary institutions around the country. From my own discussions with some administrators and vice-chancellors, there have been some concerns in the process of obtaining profiles information over the last year.The second recommendation—that the council, during this year, continue to liaise with the Australian Vice-Chancellors Committee as well as the department in relation to sector-wide performance indicators—is one that I think we would support also. There is, however, an addition or recommendation that I would make on behalf of my party and that is that student and academic unions are involved in this process of consultation. There is little point in trying to shore up quality in the sector unless all those perspectives are represented and reflected.I note also that this report looks into the quality of the higher education sector in Australia, as well as the health of the sector. In an attempt to gauge the health of the sector and the appropriate reporting devices, it looks into a recent history of the quality of the sector. I have to say that the recent history of higher education in this country has been marked by rapid change, massive upheaval and, of course, incredible funding cuts, the nature of which I do not think has been seen in this country before in relation to higher education specifically.We have seen an increase in fees and charges and the introduction of a three-tier HECS system. We have seen a reduction of the threshold at which graduates begin to repay their HECS debts. We have seen a failure by government to actually meet the need for increased wages for the academics and general staff among university institutions. We have seen, effectively, a $1.7 billion cut to operating grants which, I have no doubt, has affected the performance of institutions. Of course it has also affected the quality of education provided by those institutions, not, I might add, through any fault of their own, but just through the sheer difficulty, almost impossibility, of providing many services in departments and on campuses, especially those regional campuses, when you are starved for funds.We have seen in recent history a deregulation of both the postgraduate and the undergraduate sector, and I would like to put on record that, according to recent DEETYA figures, out of the 1,300 full fee places, only 794 have been taken up. That represents 61 per cent, significantly less than expected. Again, that has not only been an economic disaster for institutions but it has also had, I believe, adverse impacts on the access and equity of our higher education institutions.I note that these issues are topical. On 1 April the National Tertiary Education Union and the National Union of Students will be hosting another national day of action, certainly in the lead-up to a federal election, to send a message to this government that you just cannot keep cutting funds for education. You cannot treat education as a cost as opposed to an investment and expect that the institutions will provide the quality that is expected through reports such as this, let alone an enlightened, skilled and democratic society.Question resolved in the affirmative.Adjournment120410000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Jacinta Collins)— Consideration of government documents having concluded, I propose the question:That the Senate do now adjourn.120419:06:001204Ferris, Sen JeannieSenator FERRIS5L6SALP10—I know it is months until we have Australia's greatest horse race, the Melbourne Cup. But there is another political race well under way, and the winner's prize is going to be equally glittering. Those taking part in the race are the aging thoroughbreds of the Australian Labor Party, and they are running in the Hypocrites Cup. These old stallions, the old bush brumbies, and a couple of fillies on the track as well, are lining up for the Telstra prize to be awarded to the most effective hypocrite on the field. They are still bunched up; they are each looking for a winning opening, but their collective equine mantra remains the same: privatisation is good when you are in government but bad when you are in opposition.The stakes in this particular steeplechase are prized and the rewards for the first past the post are highly sought after. We are offering the prize—the opportunity to share in the ownership of our number one company Telstra. We want to give hundreds of Australian men and women a chance at that prize—to invest in our nation and to profit from that investment. Our plan has another benefit for all Australians. It is an historic opportunity to reduce government debt; to use the dollars from the sale to repay the massive debts left by one of the noisiest stallions on the field—the one from the West who has been spelling for a little too long in the front paddock.The first partial sale of Telstra was so popular that even a couple of runners bought in—an Irish brumby and one of the more mature fillies, I am told. In fact, more than 14 per cent of Australian adults made a direct investment in the first sale of Telstra shares. Many more invested indirectly through superannuation funds, trusts and managed investments. In November 1997, Telstra shares cost Australians $1.95 and they are now worth $3.94. That represents a 94 per cent profit—not a bad return in less than 12 months.At least 90 per cent of the people who bought into Telstra still own those shares. In fact, 92 per cent of Telstra employees seized the opportunity last year to buy shares in their own company. Without doubt, many of them were members of the trade union that covers the communications industry. What a wise decision those people made.The coalition is helping to create a nation of shareholders. We now live in a country where share ownership has soared to a record 40 per cent. More than 5½ million adult Australians now have a direct stake in the domestic share market. What an achievement. Unlike Labor, we are not selling off the farm overseas; we are selling it back to Australian companies, Australian families and Australian investment funds.The initial one-third sale of Telstra was not only good for Australian shareholders, but the sale also financed the magnificent $1 billion Natural Heritage Trust fund—the largest environmental rescue package in Australia's history—and the $250 million regional telecommunications infrastructure fund to help regional Australia. Australia now has an increasingly competitive telecommunications industry, with better service and lower prices. People with families living in states distant from their homes can now make phone calls at greatly reduced prices. I was delighted that on St Patrick's Day Telstra was able to offer special rates to people to phone their families overseas. That was a very wise investment.The Prime Minister has made it very clear that not only will the privatisation of the remainder of Telstra help people who choose to buy into it, but it will also yield a social bonus, the details of which are yet to be announced.Despite the success of the initial float, those running in the Hypocrites Cup cannot tell us why they oppose the further sale of Telstra. One of the fillies was heard to say—but, importantly, it was said before this race got under way and before she was stabled with the other runners—that it is pretty hard for them to sound credible on Telstra and difficult for them to carve out a positive reason for people to vote for them. She said that when she was in a smaller stable, before she joined the bunch which is on the field now.I am not much of a punter myself but my money for the winner of the Hypocrites Cup is on the bulky stallion from the West, who was heard to say—again before the race even started—that he would cancel the whole darned thing and take the Telstra Prize back from the entire Australian community—he's got some chance of doing that! We know that the real winner in the Telstra race is the Australian community—the thousands of men and women who will again invest in our number one company and justifiably reap the rewards due to them from that decision.120519:11:001205West, Sen SueSenator WEST1X4NSWALP00—I am glad that the previous speaker wanted to talk about the Telstra Prize and things going to regional Australia, because it is quite apparent that this government does not give a toss. Some senior ministers in this government do not give a toss. I have before me a newsletter from the Hon. John Fahey, Minister for Finance and Administration. The newsletter is headed `Airport News for Macarthur from your local Federal Member John Fahey MP March 98'. Mr Fahey wants to talk about the airport. That is fine, as Macarthur is an electorate on which the airport may have some impact.I remind people that this man was the former Premier of New South Wales so, hopefully, when he is talking about these things he is conscious of what impact what he is suggesting will have on rural New South Wales. In the third paragraph on the first page of the newsletter he says:Before the election, I promised that no decision would be made about Sydney's second airport before a full EIS had been undertaken.I think that is a wise decision, but he says `I promised'—was he the person who promised? This would certainly give a pretty clear indication of how much power this gentleman has, and it is obviously quite significant. On page 2 of this four-page newsletter he talks about the different options. He says:I would need to be satisfied that for Option A to proceed as an overflow airport for Kingsford Smith Airport—the existing airport at Bankstown could not instead perform a similar function.The alarm bells start to ring! What does this really mean? What is the potential impact of this upon rural Australia? On page 3 he comments:In particular, I want know more about the `do nothing option' at Kingsford Smith Airport . . . This is beginning to sound a little bit concerning for rural people. I might add that Macarthur is semi-rural in its geographical location, but it does not have any airports. Mr Fahey really lets the cat out of the bag on page 4. The heading says, `Does Sydney need a second airport?' The newsletter continues:Is Sydney Airport being used as efficiently as possible?Government is constantly told that Sydney Airport will reach saturation point by the year 2006 and a second airport must be operational to meet travellers' demands.According to figures I have seen, the fastest growing type of aircraft movement at Sydney Airport is for small aircraft on regional flights not the larger domestic or international jets.That is all very fun and games if you want to play with statistics, which this gentleman has done. He then has a table setting out year, international flights, domestic flights, regional flights, non-scheduled flights and total. In 1990-91, international flights in and out of KSA were 32,000, which was 17 per cent of movements. Domestic movements were 85,000, which was 44 per cent of movements. Regional movements were 49,000, which was 25 per cent of movements. Non-scheduled movements were 26,500, which was 14 per cent of movements. That gave a total of 192,500 movements.In 1996-97, international flights were 43,000 movements, which was 16 per cent of movements. He is going to tell us that there has been a reduction in the number of movements percentage wise. There certainly has not been a reduction in the number of movements per se. It has gone up by 11,000. Domestic movements increased to 108,000, which was 40 per cent of the flight movements. Regional movements, yes, increased to 94,000, which was 35 per cent. Non-scheduled movements decreased to 24,600, which was nine per cent. That gave a total of 269,600 movements. The minister says:Of about 270,000 aircraft movements at Sydney Airport in 1996/97, 44% were regional and non-scheduled flights, such as, small planes from other places in NSW, charter flights, private planes, military and training flights, etc.If regional and other smaller flights such as these can be diverted to another airport, perhaps Bankstown, it may be that a second airport is not required for decades to come—it's a possibility that would require detailed investigation.This is from a man who was a former Premier of New South Wales, the state affected. He is right to note the increase in regional movements, because that indicates very clearly that the regional people of New South Wales want to get access to KSA. They want to get access to Sydney. It is important to them for a number of reasons. But this man, who is one of the most senior members of the current government in the cabinet, is saying that people in rural New South Wales ought to be put somewhere else.If you read the speeches that I have made previously when debating the increase in airport charges, landing charges and movement charges, at Kingsford Smith airport and put them together with this, it becomes a very ominous situation. This is a government that could not give a toss about rural New South Wales. The Senate has exposed this, and is enabling people to have a say by conducting a Senate inquiry into the charging of fees.The minister for finance must be very senior and very powerful because the trials and tribulations, and any problems that might have existed when we were in government, or any things that might have been done not quite in the way the government of today thinks they should have been done, have been heaped upon the head of the Kim Beazley who was then the Minister for Finance. So we know very clearly from the government's attitude to former ministers for finance that they are very senior and very powerful. What does this tell us? What message does this send to regional and rural New South Wales? It sends the message: I don't care; I couldn't give a toss.I notice that two of the three government senators in the chamber at present are from New South Wales and one is from a regional area. I hope he very severely takes the Minister for Finance and Administration aside and informs him of the needs of rural and regional New South Wales. It is the most populous state in the country. It has got significant industries outside of the metropolitan area.What does this government, obviously through its senior minister, plan to do? This press release is the first indication of what they are planning to do. It is a follow-on from them allowing, or not stopping, the FAC to up the landing charges and fees at Kingsford Smith airport. This is another turn in the ratchet to tighten the thumbscrews, to get regional and rural commuters out of Kingsford Smith airport, and I ask you: to where? I do not know to where. They are obviously talking about Bankstown. Isn't it amazing that Bankstown is not anywhere near a Liberal held seat, so the people of Blaxland will have to suffer this fate of additional aircraft movements, and much larger aircraft will be forced in and out of Bankstown than is actually able to go there now.This is a government that obviously does not care. People from the bush do not want to be landed an hour or two away from the centre of the city. Their business is in the centre of the city or with other domestic flights connecting elsewhere. I could not believe this press release when I saw it. It is vitally important that the people of rural and regional New South Wales know that this senior minister, the Minister for Finance and Administration, a cabinet minister, is saying that this is what he thinks should be happening.We know from the government's previous utterances that finance ministers are very powerful. If they are going to tell me that Mr Fahey is not powerful, then they have to retract all the things they have said about the Leader of the Opposition. They cannot have it both ways. They cannot walk both sides of the street at the one time. If they do, they will get run over by the bus that will come up the middle, and the bus will be the people of rural and regional New South Wales as they suddenly discover that they are going to have their access to Sydney Kingsford Smith airport and other trade and transport routes blocked and stopped.I think it is high time this government actually admitted what they are planning to do and gave some guarantees to the people of rural and regional New South Wales as to how they are going to protect their access to Sydney and their access and ability to utilise commuter and regional aircraft.120719:22:001207Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—I rise to speak tonight on an important matter, and that is the situation faced by Australia's Vietnam veterans and their families. Senators would no doubt be aware of recent media reports of the Vietnam veterans health study which highlighted yet again the extremely poor health not only of our Vietnam veterans but also of their families. It is bad enough that study after study has been called into the health of veterans. Clearly, not enough has been done to address these problems. The situation must be acted upon now if continuing high death rates and levels of ill health are to be addressed amongst Vietnam veterans and their children.These people are not just statistics. There were some fairly daunting and overwhelming statistics included in the media reports in relation to this study. It is important to remember that they are not just statistics but real men and women and their families. The recent media coverage highlighted some families, particularly those involving birth defects in children of Vietnam veterans. One of the other things that came out of the study was the high rate of suicide not just amongst veterans but also amongst their children. It means that not just one generation of Australians is paying the price for fighting this unfortunate war in someone else's country but two. If we do not act now that tragedy will continue to spread further into the future.As the world recently held its breath at the prospect of biological warfare rising up in the Middle East, the fact is that over two decades ago some of our fittest, brightest young Australians were sent to fight in a war which featured widespread use of chemicals, the effects of which were clearly not understood at the time but have clearly shown their effects ever since. This latest report backs up what most people have known to be correct for many years.I refer to a speech made by one of my Queensland predecessors former Senator Michael Macklin in August 1981. He stated:I appeal to the Minister and to the Government to . . . wait no longer to assist those veterans; to accept now that we have sufficient evidence that they are being affected by the things that occurred in Vietnam.These calls have not just been made by the Democrats but by many people in the broader veterans community and health and welfare groups for many years. Whilst government has acted to some extent over time—I am not wishing to imply that nothing at all has been done—it is clear that not enough has been done and the problems and situations faced by Vietnam veterans and their families are not addressed seriously enough. The delays and inadequacy of action have done nothing but compound the anger and suffering of veterans and exacerbated the problems they and their children suffer.I think it is important to put on the record the comments on the latest report by Mr Tim McCombe, the President of the Vietnam Veterans Federation of Australia. He stated:This is no surprise to us. We have been warning governments and an unsympathetic Department of Veterans' Affairs about this for years. The findings are even worse when you consider that those sent to Vietnam were very carefully selected for physical and mental health. So high were the standards that half of all those called up for national service were rejected on medical or psychological grounds.It is not average members of the community who are now suffering these problems but amongst the fittest and healthiest of the Australian community at that time that are suffering health problems that are vastly out of proportion to those suffered by the wider Australian community. Surely there is no-one now who persists in arguing against the effect of agent orange and other chemicals on Vietnam veterans during that war or the complex and major psychological problems that have beset veterans not only in Australia but also in other countries which engaged in that conflict.In responding to the leaks of the latest health study, the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Mr Scott, is reported as saying, `If the results are confirmed the government will consider whether additional measures are required.' I would suggest that if these results are confirmed—and, as I have said already, it does not seem that there is terribly much doubt about the general extent of them—then the minister does not need to do much more considering before acting on this problem. The Democrats believe that the time for another round of reconfirmation, re-studying and re-examination of the problems has well and truly passed. It is time for the minister and the government to act.These latest findings are tragic for several reasons, not least because more could have been and should have been done to offset the problems experienced by Vietnam veterans, their children and their families over many years. I wonder what else has to be confirmed. The study tells us that children of veterans have spina bifida and other birth defects at levels up to 10 times that of the rest of the community as well as much higher than average suicide rates. The study found that for veterans the rate of breast cancer is up to 10 times above the average, colon cancer is three times higher, leukaemia is three times higher and other cancers such as prostrate and neck cancer are up to three times higher and depressive orders are from 20 to 200 per cent higher.Surely this is enough to act on. Maybe re-examining the situation might get some slight variations in some of those figures but surely no-one can deny that they are well above the average for the Australian community and they are problems that must be addressed now. The results of this study may have major implications for veterans seeking legal recourse for the damage done to them and their families.Some Australians might be surprised at just how bad the situation is, but it is difficult to believe the reported comments from officials of the Department of Veterans' Affairs who say that they are shocked at the findings. Maybe the extent of some of these specific conditions were a bit of a surprise in specific circumstances but surely the overall incidence of these various conditions could not have been a surprise to anybody, let alone people in the department who have surely been following the situation of Vietnam veterans for many years. I again quote Mr McCombe where he stated:The veteran community for good reason lacks confidence and trust in the Department of Veterans' Affairs. The Department has over the years proved devious and unsympathetic. It has certainly not delivered the generosity of care and compensation promised so often to veterans by government.This is not a new message. I draw the attention of senators to a report of the Senate Standing Committee on Science and the Environment in 1982 that looked into pesticides and the health of Australian Vietnam veterans. Among many other things, it detailed widespread allegations of Vietnam veterans complaining about the treatment they got from the Department of Veterans' Affairs.I am not wanting to sheet home all the blame to the department or its workers. I recognise that they have a difficult job and are dealing with difficult situations. Clearly, however, a big problem still exists. It is obvious that not enough has been done to address the concerns and the feelings of the Vietnam veterans community.I also point to another speech by former Democrat Senator Macklin in 1985 where he highlighted some years later, ongoing problems and concerns amongst veterans about the type of treatment they received from the department and the adequacy and accuracy of the information they had received. That is an ongoing problem judging by a recent report of the Ombudsman in terms of the accuracy of phone advice provided by many departments, not just Veterans' Affairs. Again, it points to the need for more action in this regard.Surely the department has seen enough now to know that more action needs to be taken. It has seen the other findings, read all the other studies from both here and overseas, is aware of the widespread anecdotal evidence of the effects on individual veterans and their families across the community. Again, these stories and these messages go back at least two decades. To have that sort of message trying to go out for that length of time, and to still feel that they are not being heard, it is no wonder that the Vietnam veterans community cries out with such frustration.The Democrats urge the minister to act now to review immediately the level and standards of health care being provided to veterans and their children. We urge the government to meet with Vietnam veterans, perhaps try and listen a little bit harder, and meet with their supporters and health workers as soon as possible to discuss the best way of addressing this urgent and terrible situation, and not to stint on any extra money that is needed to address the suffering of veterans and their families. I concur with the views, once again, of Mr McCombe, when he said, `We can only hope that the department and the government respond to this situation with some sympathy and some honesty.'120919:31:001209Synon, Sen KarenSenator SYNONFQ6VICLP10—Friday, 13 March saw the start of the sixth Melbourne Food and Wine Festival, the premier food and wine event in Australia. With over 35 major events running from 13 March to 5 April, the festival is a fantastic showcase of the best of Victoria's culture and cuisine. But then Melbourne is, of course, the city of major events. Last year alone, major events contributed $650 million to the Victorian economy, and the tourism industry as a whole was worth $9.4 billion.Recently Melbourne has hosted the Australian Formula One Grand Prix, the Australian Masters at Huntingdale and the Australian Tennis Open. The arts are also well represented in Melbourne's calendar of events: the Melbourne Fashion Show, the Melbourne International Comedy Festival and the internationally acclaimed Melbourne Festival in October-November.Melbourne really is the city of events and the Melbourne Food and Wine Festival is a marvellous example of why. Over three-quarters of a million people were exposed to the festival last year and the attendance grows annually, which is a tribute to the organisers and their innovation in regard to the range of activities available. In celebrating great food, world class Victorian wines, Melbourne's extensive range of restaurants and friendly people, the Melbourne Food and Wine Festival draws a large contingent of international and domestic visitors to Melbourne, reflecting the festival's international reputation. Eight hundred of the world's leading chefs gathered for the World Association of Cooks' Societies 28th World Congress from 15 to 19 March, while Master Class 1998 draws international authorities to compare knowledge and expertise across a wide range of fields.Melbourne is the obvious place to host a festival celebrating food and wine. In its CBD alone there are over 300 restaurants representing 150 different ethnic cuisines, while the Yellow Pages listings of restaurants take up over 30 pages. There are 284 wineries in Victoria, more than in any other state, and most participate in the festival. Over 35,000 people in Victoria work in cafes or restaurants and a further 24,000 are employed in pubs and bars. So Melbourne really is the home to the ever increasing cafe and restaurant culture of Australian life, reflecting the dynamic multicultural nature of its people.But Melbourne is the dynamic heart of a dynamic state, a fact reflected in the Victorian Employers Chamber of Commerce and Industry annual report on the states. The report shows Victoria's ranking moving from second place and knocking off—and rightly so—New South Wales from that position. In 1993, when VECCI started its annual report, Victoria was the worst performing state across a broad range of economic and financial indicators—hardly surprising considering the disastrous Cain-Kirner Labor governments the state had just endured. But, in the 1996-97 financial year, increasing retail sales and repayment of state debt pushed Victoria to second position amongst the states. Victoria was the only state to increase retail sales during the year and had the second lowest inflation rate in the country.Furthermore, Victoria's economy now supports a higher proportion of small business owners than any other state. In Victoria, firms employing one to four people comprise 63.8 per cent of all enterprises. In addition, a further 28.7 per cent of enterprises employ between five and 19 people. These vital small businesses form 93.5 per cent of Victorian companies. Victoria also has the highest average profit per firm in Australia of $236,000. Our firms boast the highest average industry gross product per firm also.Victoria's productivity performance was stronger than any state other than Western Australia and Victorian businesses now account for 21.7 per cent of national exports. Furthermore, the VECCI report considered that the Kennett government's policies had `secured the long-term viability of the Victorian economy' and noted that employment in Victoria had grown. Indeed it has! Just recently we heard that unemployment in Victoria had fallen to a record low in February of eight per cent, the lowest since December 1990, instead of the 12 and 13 per cent unemployment that Victoria suffered under the previous Labor government. The employment level falling to eight per cent is something that Victorians can be rightly proud of.The vibrancy of Victoria's economic news is indicative of the feeling in my home state, and especially the city of Melbourne. Compared to 1990 and 1991 when, as a direct result of the recession we had to have and the financial irresponsibility of the then Labor Victorian and federal governments, there was a general feeling of depression in Victoria. Today, Melbourne pulsates with optimism and action and, as a result, Melbourne is becoming ever more attractive to visitors from overseas and interstate, and the increasing number of Victorians who prefer to holiday in their home state.In the year ending March 1997, the Bureau of Tourism Research shows that more than 960,000 international visitors came to Melbourne, an increase of six per cent on the previous year. In 1997, 2.8 million interstate trips were made to Victoria—adding over $1.7 billion to the state's economy. The number of Victorians directly employed in the tourism sector has nearly doubled in four years to 8.2 per cent of the state's work force.People visit Melbourne to do things: to attend festivals and to experience the arts, a new show or a sporting event. In fact, more than two million people attended either a meeting, convention or exhibition in Victoria last year, contributing $194 million to Victoria's economy. With a wonderful event like the Melbourne Food and Wine Festival—an event which showcases Melbourne's and Victoria's world-class produce, magnificent local wines and the excellence of the quality of life in Victoria—it is hardly surprising that so much international and national attention will be focused on Melbourne from 13 March to 5 April. I extend my best wishes to the organisers, the participants and the visitors for what is already proving to be a marvellous 1998 Melbourne Food and Wine Festival.121119:39:001211Coonan, Sen HelenSenator COONAN2M6NSWLP10—The Australian waterfront has long been the source of many stories about low hours, high pay, pilfering and general rorting of the system. We have heard of people signing on for work and then going home only to be paid for full shifts at huge hourly rates that make a mockery of wage restraint. But the report in Saturday's Daily Telegraph headed `Strip show shifts cargo' is nothing short of life imitating art. It revealed that a team of night shift waterfront workers in Western Australia achieved world's best practice container rates of about 30 an hour on one day about two months ago. The reason for this sudden uplift in productivity was that there was a strip show on at the local pub that some of the workers wanted to attend.I think it underscores the fact that the performance on our waterfront is, to put it bluntly, abysmal. Australia has one of the worst performance records in the world and this shocking record is costing the country dearly. A survey by the New South Wales Chamber of Commerce shows that Australian business is losing $1 billion a year because of the standard of our waterfront performance. One billion dollars a year is a lot of money.9X5ELLISONSenator Ellison—Amazing; huge.2M6Coonan, Sen HelenSenator COONAN—It is not hard to see why, Senator Ellison, when you consider that Sydney's container terminals have managed to reach a crane rate of about 18 containers an hour for the first time ever. The New South Wales Labor government has whipped its mates in the stevedoring industry over the head with a feather over this performance. It entered into a secret agreement with the Maritime Union of Australia to minimise strikes. But such is the contempt this union has even for its Labor mates in New South Wales that this protocol has already been breached. It has left more than 4,000 containers stranded, a number of which are filled with flour which is aid for Syria and other countries in the Middle East. In this dispute the crane rate has dropped to 10 an hour.The situation in Sydney is that the wharfies are thumbing their noses even at their mates—as I say, Premier Bob Carr. They are demanding a guaranteed minimum, not average, wage of $75,000 per annum. They also want a base weekly wage of $712 for the calculation of superannuation entitlements. I ask rhetorically: just whom do these people think they are?Mind you, Sydney is not the worst Australian port. Brisbane has yet to get to 18 containers an hour. Port Adelaide boasts the best performance in Australia with a paltry 21 containers an hour. It is a sad reflection of the level of our productivity when a level of 21 containers an hour is regarded as being something to be proud of. Just across the Tasman we have a rate of 25 containers an hour, while Thailand has 29 an hour and the Philippines has 30 an hour.The wharfies are quite adamant that there is no productivity problem on this country's waterfront. They say you cannot compare Australia's performance with that of other countries because overseas ports overstate their performance. When you have this sort of attitude it is not hard to see why attempts by this government to speak reasonably with the wharfies have been unsuccessful.The argument goes on to be contradicted. Wharfies have claimed that, if there is any problem with productivity, it is because the equipment is old. So on the one hand they are saying there is no problem and on the other hand they are saying there might be a problem. Their argument for the `might be' scenario does not really stack up as most of the equipment is new and state of the art.Then there have been attempts to set a benchmark with the unions. The union will allow a benchmark only with an Australian port because, as you will remember from my earlier comments, those overseas ports actually overstate their productivity, according to the unions. So we cannot have any uncomfortable comparisons, can we?So Australia is actually left with poor service and a service that is certainly not cheap. Container handling charges are a major contributor to our high waterfront charges, much greater than for any port in New Zealand or in Asia, and they are getting more expensive. Earlier this month charges for containers bound for Europe rose because of stevedoring costs. The new charges will add about $1 million to the cost of exports.The shocking performance in container terminals is jeopardising this country's wellbeing, particularly as containerised cargo represents 60 per cent of the value of our imports and 30 per cent of the value of our exports. The unions who are the root cause of this problem are being paid a king's ransom.Let us make no mistake about how well-off these wharfies are. These are not your average Australians battling to make a living. They are not your average Australians who agree to wage restraint in the interests of other workers. No, they are nothing less than bludgers who will go to astonishing lengths to exploit the system. And it is costing average Australians dearly. The costs they impose on the waterfront, of course, have to be passed on to the community.The rorts are blatant. Take the wharfies with Patrick stevedoring in Newcastle. At present, they are working two days in five but are being paid for three days on which they do not turn up. If someone actually volunteers to come to work, he has to be paid time and a half. There are many practices that I would like to go into but I will not have time.The New Zealand experience is very similar to that of Australia. In New Zealand waterfront reform was brought about when a port was closed for 34 days. When it was reopened the closed shop was actually broken. In Australia the farmers have replaced the loggers in New Zealand who actually opened up the waterfront. This government has done much to implement trade practices reforms that have strengthened and enhanced competition.19:46:001212Senate adjourned at 7.46 p.m.Documents12121212The following government documents were tabled:Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission Act—Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission—Report—Review of the operation of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission Act 1989, February 1998.Christmas Island Act—Casino Control Ordinance—Casino Surveillance Authority and Casino Controller—Reports for 1996-97.Commonwealth Government of Australia—Consolidated financial statements for the year ended 30 June 1997.Employment, Education and Training Act—National Board of Employment, Education and Training—Higher Education Council—Report—Quality implementation and reporting in Australian higher education 1997, January 1998.Public Service Act—Department of Industry, Science and Tourism—Report for 1996-97—Corrigenda.Wheat Marketing Act—Australian Wheat Board—Report for 1 October 1996 to 30 September 1997.1212The following documents were tabled by the Clerk:Australian Communications Authority Act— Radiocommunications (Charges) Determination No. 1 of 1997 (Amendment No. 1 of 1998). Telecommunications (Charges) Determination No. 1 of 1998.Social Security Act—Parenting Payment Rate Calculator—Higher Amount Determination 1998. Telecommunications Act— Telecommunications Labelling (Customer Equipment and Customer Cabling) Notice No. 2 of 1997. Telecommunications Numbering Plan 1997. Telecommunications (Service Provider—Identity Checks for Pre-paid Carriage Services) Determination 1997.1213The following documents were tabled pursuant to the order of the Senate of 30 May 1996:Indexed lists of departmental and agency files for the period 1 July to 31 December 1997—Affirmative Action Agency.Attorney General's portfolio— Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Attorney General's Department. Australian Bureau of Criminal Intelligence—Nil return. Australian Federal Police. Australian Government Solicitor. Australian Institute of Criminology and Criminal Research Council. Australian Institute of Police Management—Nil return. Australian Law Reform Commission. Australian Security Intelligence Organization. Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions. Commonwealth Office of Parliamentary Counsel. Family Court of Australia. Federal Court of Australia: Principal Registry. High Court of Australia. Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. National Crime Authority. National Native Title Tribunal. National Police Research Unit. Office of Film and Literature Classification.Australian Industrial Registry: Principal Registry.Australian Trade Commission— Austrade Overseas Region— Americas Regional Office. Europe Regional Office. Middle East, Indian Ocean Regional Office. North East Asia Regional Office. South East Asia Regional Office. Australian Operations— International Trade Exhibition, ACT. Legal and Risk Management, Canberra. Major Opportunities Group: Sports Section, Canberra. Regional Trade Commissioner, ACT & Southern NSW. Corporate and Government Management: Executive General Manager. Corporate and Government: Government and Policy Section.Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal.Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth AffairsDepartment of Primary Industries and Energy.Department of the Environment— Antarctic Division. Australian & World Heritage Group. Biodiversity Group. Bureau of Meteorology. Canberra Central Office. Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. Supervising Scientist Group.Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet.Department of Workplace Relations and Small Business.Finance and Administration portfolio— Australian Electoral Commission. Commonwealth Grants Commission. ComSuper—Nil return. Department of Administrative Services. Department of Finance. Letter from Branch Manager (Julia Burns), Support Service Branch, Department of Finance and Administration.National Occupational Health and Safety Commission.Office of the Employment Advocate and the Australian Industrial Relations Commission—Nil returns.Primary Industries and Energy portfolio agencies.Public Service and Merit Protection CommissionRemuneration Tribunal.Veterans' Affairs portfolio.Worksafe Australia.