1998-03-253816SENATE121501998-03-25The PRESIDENT(Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid) took the chair at 9.30 a.m., and read prayers.Personal Explanations12151215MacGibbon, Sen DavidSenator MacGIBBONYH4QLDLP10—by leave—I wish to make a statement because of the continued circulation of a story, both in the parliament and in press circles, that I was the source that leaked the papers concerning Senator Parer's personal affairs to the Labor Party. That is absolutely untrue and without foundation. It is a blatant lie.The story was started by evil persons who set out to destroy me at a recent Senate preselection, and they succeeded in their task. I was aware of these stories prior to the preselection, but chose to ignore them. But, since the preselection, I find that 10 days later they are still circulating. These stories are absolutely without foundation. I never have had access to any papers relating to Senator Parer's affairs and had papers come into my possession I would have returned them immediately to Senator Parer.I did not release any papers, nor have I made any public comment on Senator Parer's affairs. Senator Parer has made it clear to me in private and in public statements on several occasions that he completely clears me of this charge, for which I am grateful. Those people persisting with this story are lying.Bills1215r4011215Debate resumed from 24 March, on motion by Senator Ian Campbell:That this bill be now read a second time.09:32:001215Hogg, Sen JohnSenator HOGG7L6QLDALP00—When I left off in my speech last night on the Workplace Relations Amendment Bill 1997, I was looking at that part of the second reading speech of the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business (Mr Reith) in the other place where he referred to employers being protected from frivolous and mali cious claims. My concern here primarily is that the issue is not about frivolous and malicious claims; it is about the rights of people to seek redress when they have been removed from their employment. It is terribly important that this idea that is being peddled in the minister's second reading speech is absolutely put to rest. The fact is that people are being denied a right of natural justice which this government is seeking to remove through this legislation.The last thing I wish to look at in the second reading speech of the minister in the other place is this. The minister said:It is an unavoidable fact that the defence of an unfair dismissal claim, however groundless, is especially burdensome for small businesses.This is a complete nonsense. The fact of life is that these people will be denied a fundamental basic right, a right to seek their job where they have been unfairly dismissed. In relation to the `however groundless', people invariably do not seek to redress their dismissal because it is groundless; it obviously has a substantial meaning to them and for them. The provision that the government is trying to bring in will do nothing other than to encourage employers to abuse the rights of their employees. Far from being groundless, there will be many grounds upon which employees should be able to claim reinstatement but will have it denied because the government seeks to have this legislation passed through this Senate.Employees with genuine claims, and there are employees with genuine claims, will be totally disadvantaged by this bill. The fact is—and this was brought out by previous speakers in this debate—that there are very few people who will be covered by the provisions of this bill anyway, because most of the people in small businesses, as has been stated earlier in this debate, are people who are covered by state awards. Very few people are going to be touched in effect by this legislation. Really, this legislation has no purpose other than to provide the government with the trigger for a double dissolution. The legislation should be rejected as it has no moral basis whatsoever. All it seeks to do is to deny people their basic rights.09:36:001216Collins, Sen JacintaSenator JACINTA COLLINSGB6VICALP00—I am pleased to be able to readdress the Workplace Relations Amendment Bill 1997 on the occasion of its second reading to make several further points following from the second reading speech of the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business (Mr Reith) in the other place. Before I go into the detail of the misrepresentations that have been presented there, I want to revisit the basic points of what this legislation is about. The most fundamental misrepresentation involved here is in relation to a fair go all round.Senators will recall that champion phrase used by the government in relation to its representation of battler workers, that it was about `a fair go all round'. But a fair go all round does not mean, ultimately, that one-third of all workers—if you follow the government's harmonisation agenda—lose their rights to fair and secure employment. That is the final point of this legislation. As Senator Hogg said, yes it is a political tool at this stage, which really does not affect that significant change at this point in time. But the final end point with harmonisation would mean that the one-third of workers who work for businesses with 15 or fewer employees would lose their rights in relation to unfair dismissal.There is no case for this legislation. We argued that point quite strongly on the last occasion and nothing has changed. The government's economic arguments regarding the need for these changes—to generate growth, to drive small business and to drive the economy—have no validity. They have as much validity as the suggestion that the solution to the South Korean economic crisis would be to change their legislation. It does not just exempt businesses with four or fewer employees; it exempts businesses with 15 or fewer employees. That is how much validity this argument has. It has no substance.The argument for these changes, ironically, has as much substance as the size of this actual bill. It is about using a political tool for a double dissolution; it is not about a fair go all round for Australian workers.The case for this legislation has not been improved in the interim between now and its last presentation. When it was first presented, the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry was the only business organisation advocating support, but it was on the ludicrous case that addressed the legacy of the old legislation. Their only argument was that a legacy existed in terms of the attitudes of small business employers with respect to the old legislation, not the government's new legislation that the government went to the last election with.Even if you take an extension of that argument, if the argument is that there is a legacy of the old legislation, surely the answer is an education campaign. We should re-educate these small business employers so that they understand the current act, not amend it further on some myth.Small business organisations were, at that time, more concerned about the fair trading issues, which, ironically, are due in the Senate later this week.Small trading was their concern at that stage. In the meantime, the government has probably belted a few of these organisations across the ears and they have come forward to say what Minister Reith wants them to say. Maybe there was something involved with the fair trading legislation which was finally brought on. Mr Reith cited a couple of the examples that he was able to bring forward in support of this legislation. Let me take one step back. In his second reading speech, Mr Reith said:Senators who spoke against this bill said that there was insufficient evidence of the need of the bill, and its benefits.He then cited several of the surveys that were addressed in the committee hearings, which were misrepresented by the government, discredited in our hearings and also discredited through the estimates process. They all related to the old legislation, not to the current act.We go on to the claims now coming forward from small business who, strangely enough, apart from the ACCI, were not around to present any case during the committee hearings. Mr Rob Bastian, representing the Council of Small Business Organisations of Australia, said that small businesses would create 50,000 jobs if this bill got through the Senate. Well, Minister Reith, that is a very nice statement, but where is the substance? Where is the support for that statement? Where is the proof? This is what we have asked time and time again right through this process: where is the proof?We then go to Ms Katie Lahey's statement where she drew attention to the New South Wales chamber's own survey conducted jointly with the St George bank. Again, there is no detail of the basis of this survey. Every time we have asked for detail of the basis of any survey, ultimately it ends up being discredited. We move on to the main statement made by Mr Reith in his second reading speech that:To make it all completely clear for the Labor Party and the Democrats in the Senate, the Commonwealth government has commissioned . . . a Yellow Pages Small Business Index survey—to ask several questions. In this speech, the minister cited a couple of the outcomes of that survey and said:In this survey, 79 per cent of proprietors thought small businesses would be better off if they were exempted from unfair dismissal laws.That is almost a bit like asking the question: have you stopped beating your wife? I am sure, if we asked small business whether they thought they would be better off if they could pay under-award wages, they would be pretty happy too.8O6O'BRIENSenator O'Brien—Or no tax.GB6Collins, Sen JacintaSenator JACINTA COLLINS—Or no tax—that is a very good point—no payroll tax. They would like that situation. The only problem we have with this survey—and it is a pretty fundamental one—is that we have asked the government, through the estimates process: if his survey is good, then please, can we have a look at the questions that were asked? During the estimates process, questions were put on notice asking precisely those questions. Even though the deadline for questions on notice is past, we still have not seen those answers. So the minister is relying upon this survey. And I cannot say I am surprised, given past experience, that he will not fess up to the basis of that survey be cause, as soon as he does, it will be completely discredited.So here we are in the Senate dealing with this legislation, and the questions we have asked in estimates pertaining to issues very relevant—in fact, referred to in the minister's second reading speech—are not coming forward to the Senate. I hope, when we finally get those questions, we will not be in the situation where we can say, `We think we have been misled in this process because that information has been withheld.' I hope we do not get to that point, but the basics of the situation are this. The minister has referred to this survey in his second reading speech claiming that it should help deal with our concerns and, when we ask basic questions, such as, `What were the questions asked in that survey,' that information has not been brought forward. Why is that?I could be quite cynical and give another example of why that might be the case. In the estimates process, another question was asked—and we did not need to put this one on notice, fortunately. The question was in relation to a press statement made by Minister Reith which said that information that had been brought forward from the Industrial Registrar was good news in relation to the government's intentions with this legislation. It helped to demonstrate its case on the number of small businesses that were affected by unfair dismissal claims.When we went back to the basis of that survey and asked precisely what question was asked, we found that the question had been asked in such a way as to be self-selecting. It was self-selecting in the sense that the headline of the question was businesses with 15 or fewer employees. Half of the businesses confronted with that question would have said, `That doesn't apply to me. I won't bother answering it.' This is the quality of the research done when Minister Reith wants to sustain the case for his political tool.On our side, we are still waiting for questions to be answered in relation to the Yellow Pages survey. I do not think anybody in this place would be surprised that we are not convinced about what Minister Reith has said in his second reading speech on further evidence supporting his case because it simply is not there—the evidence does not exist.The other concern we have with this legislation is the arbitrary nature of only exempting small businesses with 15 or fewer employees. In his second reading speech, Minister Reith said that this size of small businesses was chosen because of the precedent provided by the Employment Protection Act 1982 in New South Wales, which was introduced by the Wran government and followed by the then Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission in the 1984 termination, change and redundancy test case.This was addressed by the committee. It was addressed last time we debated this legislation. We drew on the international comparisons—and I think Sri Lanka was the only country anywhere near this sort of benchmark. In fact, as I said earlier, South Korea looks extremely generous in comparison. I would like to refer back to a point made in the Labor members' report on the committee hearings on that issue. We commented on the examples used for this benchmark of 15 or fewer employees. With respect to the examples used, we said:The Wran Labor government's employment protection act and the commission's decision on the right to redundancy pay can be clearly distinguished from the present case. In both those instances, new employment rights were being introduced for the first time. The decision was made not to extend them at that time to employees of small businesses (as it has transpired on most occasions, the commission has revisited the redundancy decision. On an industry basis, it has removed the arbitrary exclusion). In contrast, the present case involves an attempt to remove existing rights by reference to an arbitrary measure.This legislation is about a mean attempt to remove the existing rights of employees working in small businesses. The week before last, the standing that the Australian government currently has internationally in relation to the Workplace Relations Act was highlighted. Add this one as well and you make us look like an absolute international basket case.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—Did you say a banana republic?GB6Collins, Sen JacintaSenator JACINTA COLLINS—No, I said a basket case. Obviously, senators on the other side are very sensitive to that suggestion—and they should be. Anybody who has any understanding of the nature of exemptions and the application of international law knows that exemptions are things that you are meant to move away from over time, not reintroduce. We have no history of introducing exemptions of this nature—none at all. But again, that characterises the current government and its approach to a fair go all round. I do not remember a rider on the promise of a fair go all round that said `except if you happen to work for a business which has 15 or fewer employees'. I do not remember the Prime Minister making that point.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—It was Neville Wran, not the Prime Minister.GB6Collins, Sen JacintaSenator JACINTA COLLINS—I was talking about the misrepresentations in Minister Reith's second reading speech. Members of the government have continued the misrepresentation of what is really involved here.Senator Ian Campbell interjecting—GB6Collins, Sen JacintaSenator JACINTA COLLINS—The misrepresentation has been that it is fine to introduce this exemption because other rights exist—people have access to other mechanisms.Senator Ian Campbell interjecting—10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Ferguson)—Order! Senator Campbell, Senator Collins has the call. You will cease interjecting.GB6Collins, Sen JacintaSenator JACINTA COLLINS—I am hoping that Senator Campbell will make a contribution in this debate. I was quite pleased when I saw on the speakers list that Senator Alston is actually going to make a contribution. I dearly hope that that will be the case, as my recollection is that on the last occasion he avoided doing so. Given that this piece of legislation has such significance to the government and its political agenda, I invite Senator Campbell to speak to the legislation when it is his turn—and, in fact, I look forward to it.Moving back to the point about the misrepresentations that have been made, particularly in the debate in the other place, those misrepresentations were that it is okay to remove employees' rights in relation to unfair dismissal because they still have access to rights in relation to unlawful termination. Unfortunately, that supposed protection is a myth. It is a myth because of the sorts of examples that Mr McMullan raised in his speech in the other place. Let me give one example of that in this place. I liked this example most particularly.The example was: if you are a pregnant woman and you work for a business with 15 or fewer employees, you are fine because, if you were terminated, that would be discrimination and you would have access to unlawful termination. However, if you were the boss of that pregnant woman and you refused to sack her, you have no protection if you were sacked and that was unfair or unreasonable behaviour because you are the sucker who works for a business with 15 or fewer employees. That example is just absolutely ludicrous, but true and real. Senator Campbell's boss has no idea of the number of those sorts of cases that really do occur.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—Those 50,000 people would like jobs except for you people.GB6Collins, Sen JacintaSenator JACINTA COLLINS—Senator Campbell interjects that, if we can sack people under those circumstances, we can create 50,000 jobs. So it is okay to introduce injustice because it is going to create 50,000 jobs that the government cannot even demonstrate will be created.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—You kept unemployment at the highest levels in Australia's postwar history.GB6Collins, Sen JacintaSenator JACINTA COLLINS—There is no demonstration, apart from the bold claim by Mr Bastian—H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—World record unemployment your party. Highest levels of unemployment in history for over 13 years.GB6Collins, Sen JacintaSenator JACINTA COLLINS—There is no demonstration that more jobs will be created. Absolutely no demonstration.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Ferguson)—Order! Senator Campbell, you will cease interjecting please.GB6Collins, Sen JacintaSenator JACINTA COLLINS—Absolutely no demonstration and absolutely no evidence. I wonder why Senator Campbell is so sensitive on this issue. Has he had a bad morning this morning? What is the reason for his ridiculous behaviour?H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—I would like to see unemployment reduced in Australia. You want to keep unemployment higher.GB6Collins, Sen JacintaSenator JACINTA COLLINS—Senator Campbell, I look forward to you making a contribution in this debate and actually demonstrating it.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Collins, address your remarks through the chair please.GB6Collins, Sen JacintaSenator JACINTA COLLINS—I apologise for that, Mr Acting Deputy President. Through you I say I look forward to the government actually demonstrating that case. As you are aware, we have been pursuing for, good heavens, it must be around 18 months now the case that Senator Campbell sits there and claims exists, but the government has not been able to demonstrate it. The case is not demonstrated in Mr Reith's second reading speech. It is a just a bold claim represented by Mr Rob Bastian. That is the case. That is the extent of the case. There is no case. This legislation represents a mean and politically cynical double dissolution trigger. That is what it is about.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—Stick up for your union mates!GB6Collins, Sen JacintaSenator JACINTA COLLINS—Senator Campbell interjects that I should stick up for my union mates. The point I will make in conclusion on this debate is, yes, that is exactly what I am doing.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—Declare your interest.GB6Collins, Sen JacintaSenator JACINTA COLLINS—I am doing it because, yes, I do have an interest. I have an interest in representing more than 200,000 retail employees. Most of them work for small businesses and most of them rely desperately on their rights to secure employment. Ironically, these unions actually represent a vast number of non-union members in their entitlements in relation to unfair dismiss al. In fact, they probably represent more non-union members than union members. We are concerned about those rights being removed as well, Senator Campbell.09:56:001220Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRYZW4TASALP00—When the Howard Liberal-National party government was elected in March of 1996 it declared in respect of federal termination laws that it intended to ensure the provision of a fair go all around. In my contribution to this debate on the Workplace Relations Amendment Bill 1997 [No. 2] I intend to deal with the issue of whether the legislation we have before us presents a fair go all around for every Australian worker. Before I do that there are two other issues I want to raise in the context of this legislation.The legislation provides that a small business employer who employs fewer than 15 employees as defined in the bill will be exempt from the unfair dismissal laws. In fact, it represents an attempt to exclude employees who are unfairly dismissed from an employer who employs more than 15 employees because, when you include casual employees in the definition of 15 employees in the act, you exclude casuals who have been regularly employed for fewer than 12 months.There are many employers in this country with a substantial proportion of their work force who are casual employees who have worked for fewer than 12 months. Certainly in the hospitality industry, which I have some working knowledge of, there would be many employers employing 20, 30 or 40 employees who, because of the definition of `a casual' within this bill, would be excluded for the purposes of unfair dismissal.A second very important practical issue that I want to raise is in respect of employers who are covered by federal awards and are also covered by state awards. Of course, the legislation that we have before us will apply in respect of federal legislation; it will not apply in respect of state legislation. There are many workplaces in that situation. We will have an absurd position where some employees in a small business are covered by a federal award cannot seek redress in the event of an unfair dismissal and some employees at the same business covered by a state award can seek redress in the event of an unfair dismissal. That would be an absolute absurdity. I submit to the Senate that that will be a relatively frequent occurrence.This bill will establish two sets of employees in this country. If you work for an employer who employs more than 15 employees, as defined, you have a basic set of rights. If you believe that your termination was harsh, unfair or unjust, you have the ability to lay your case before an independent tribunal to determine whether in fact you have been harshly, unfairly or unjustly dealt with. But it will create a second class of employees. Those who work for small businesses, as defined, will have no fundamental right, no matter how harshly they have been dealt with by an employer, to have the facts of their case examined by a tribunal to determine whether they have been harshly, or unfairly or unjustly dealt with.This creates two sets of principles in law. It protects employees, or gives them the capacity to be protected, if they work for an employer who employs more than 15 employees, but it removes any effective protection if you are dismissed from the services of an employer who is a small business employer. You have no right in law to have your case considered at all. This is quite an extraordinary approach to human rights as we know them in Australia. I submit that it does not fit the government's definition—certainly not Mr Howard's or Mr Reith's definition—of a fair go all round.It is not as though the matter of unfair dismissals has not been considered by the Senate before. In May 1996, the then minister Mr Reith put before the parliament a new set of industrial relations legislation. That was ultimately passed and enacted into law on 31 December 1996. There was major debate in the Senate chamber about that legislation. Significant changes were made with respect to unfair dismissals at that time. Without going into all the details of the significant changes, the definition of fairness was changed. Before awarding a remedy, if any, to an employee, account had to be taken of the ongoing interests of all the parties. There was a rebalancing of the statutory test to ensure that procedural fairness is only one factor when determining whether a dismissal is unfair.Secondly, there were separate streams for handling unfair and unlawful dismissals. The power of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission to award costs against employees was dramatically increased and was coupled with a compulsory conciliation stage. A $50 filing fee was introduced. The new act, while retaining the expression `harsh, unjust or unreasonable' in relation to unfair dismissals, went on to confine the operation of federal statute to a narrower field.When this act was passed at the end of 1996, Mr Reith was triumphant about the changes that were to apply with respect to unfair dismissal. He said at that time that this was a magnificent example. I am not quoting him, but he was triumphant in hallooing the great negotiating skills and the great processes he had gone through to reform Australia's industrial relations laws. I suspect that it also had something to do with the fact that he wants to be a future Prime Minister—we hope, Leader of the Opposition—of this country that he engaged in such dramatic grandstanding at the time. But here we are, a year on, re-examining the very laws that Mr Reith was so triumphant about just over one year ago.During this debate, at various times not only Mr Reith but also Senator Alston—who is handling this matter in the Senate—accused Labor senators of having a vested interest because a number of us happen to have been former union officials before we entered politics.EU4O'CHEESenator O'Chee—Very touchy, aren't you?ZW4Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRY—I am not touchy about it. In fact, I am proud of it Senator O'Chee. I am proud of the occupation I had before I entered this parliament. Labor does not make a habit of belittling the former occupations of members of the parliament. Frankly, I think it is largely irrelevant. I do not choose to draw to the attention of this chamber that there are many members of the Liberal-National Party who are farmers and belittle them because they were farmers and belittle their contribution on primary industry, for example. I think that they bring a level of expertise and knowledge that is worth while having in the contribution to debates in this chamber. So I do not belittle the former occupations of senators in this chamber.I say again for the record that I am proud to have been a trade union official. Many of my colleagues in this place are former trade union officials—for example, Senator Collins, Senator Conroy and Senator Cook. We are proud of our background and the contribution that we have made with respect to representing workers in this country in our former occupations. It is in this context that I will read to the Senate a list of wrongful dismissal cases that I handled when I was a former trade union official. It is only a summary of a small number of cases that I handled over a number of years which involved wrongful dismissal.The cases included: the dismissal of an employee for eating a sweet from a burst packet of sweets—it was spillage, and she was dismissed for theft; the termination of the employment of an employee of long standing because the employer wanted to employ a family friend; the dismissal of an employee whilst on sick leave for quite a serious illness that had been certified by a doctor; the dismissal of a number of regular, longstanding casual employees working as room attendants, some for eight or nine years, with no reason given; the dismissal of a bottle shop attendant, with no reason given—in fact, what was incredible about this case is that the bottle shop attendant read about his termination in the newspaper when he saw his position advertised in the jobs vacant section before he was dismissed; the termination of an employee because she would not have sex with the manager; the dismissal of a club bar steward because a new committee of management was elected and the new president did not like the bar steward so he decided to sack him; the dismissal of a green keeper because he was too old at 58, despite the fact that there were never any complaints made about his work and he was never counselled, guided or warned.What do these eight or nine cases that I have personally been involved in have in common? They were all cases that involved a small employer where there were less than 15 employees as defined by this bill. I do not think there would be a senator in this place, including in the government, who would believe that the circumstances of the terminations in the cases I have just referred to were reasonable. Certainly, I do not think there would be a senator who would argue that, given the circumstances of these cases, these employees should have been prevented from having the facts of their case determined by an independent tribunal. In the cases that I have outlined briefly to the Senate, all of these employees were re-employed, because it was found that their termination was harsh, unjust and unreasonable. The fact is that these types of cases could not be considered by a tribunal if the bill that we are considering is passed into law.As I said earlier, I speak with great pride about my background and about my involvement in defending workers who by any judgment have been treated harshly, unfairly and unjustly. For the vast majority of workers in this country it is very important that there are some fundamental protections in law in regard to their employment, their wages and conditions, and the way they are dealt with at the workplace. It is important, because that is all they have. They are totally dependent as employees on their employment.It seems to me that if we are to uphold the dignity of labour in this country all employees are entitled to a fair go all round. If they believe they have been harshly, unfairly and unjustly dealt with, they do have a fundamental human right to be heard in front of a tribunal and for that tribunal to determine whether, given the facts of the case, they should be reinstated, or perhaps some compensation paid.What type of society is it that Australia is evolving into if we endorse the principle that a person, because they work for a small business, can be sacked, dismissed, with no reason given? If they can be dismissed because the employer wants to employ someone else—a friend or relative—if they can be dismissed because they refuse to have sex with the employer, if they can be dismissed because they are too old, if they can be dismissed because they eat a sweet on the job and that is allegedly theft, what type of society is it that will say that those former employees have no fundamental right to put their case before a tribunal?I sympathise with the circumstances of small business. There is certainly no-one in the Labor Party who does not sympathise with the difficulties that small business faces. Many small businesses are struggling. It is argued that small business is struggling and the assertion is—and it is an assertion; it is not provable—that in order to encourage employment small businesses should be exempt from the unfair dismissal laws. But this is just an excuse for the failure of this Liberal-National Party government to address many of the fundamental problems that small business faces. Fundamentally, small business is struggling in many sectors not because of the unfair dismissal laws but because they lack consumer demand, they lack customers coming through their shop or buying their goods and services.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—The best retail sales figures in a decade.ZW4Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRY—Well, come to Tasmania, Senator Campbell. The reason employers employ people in their business is that they have demand for their goods and services.Ultimately, if this law is passed at a federal level and it flows into the state jurisdictions—which, I am sure, this government will be anxious to pursue—we will have 2.8 million workers who will have no right at all, no matter how unfair and unjust their dismissal is, to put the facts of the case before an independent tribunal. I submit that this approach is not in the interests of small business.I know that the vast majority of small businesses are responsible employers. They do the right thing. They treat their employees fairly and reasonably. But, regrettably, there is a very small number of businesses that do not treat their employees fairly when it comes to termination of employment. Is it reasonable to say to the vast majority of small businesses who do treat their employees fairly and reasonably when it comes to termination that the small minority of small businesses who do not behave responsibly should be excluded from the adjudication of a tribunal which should determine whether or not the employees have been treated unfairly or not?As I said earlier, I am proud of having been a trade union official and I am proud of some of the cases that I have defended and the results I achieved. I am proud of the Australian Labor Party for taking a position in opposition to this legislation. It seems to me that this law will strip 2.8 million workers of a fundamental human right, that is, to be allowed to appeal if they believe they have been harshly dealt with and to be allowed to lay the facts of that appeal before an independent tribunal to determine whether they should be reinstated or whether some compensation should be paid. That is a fundamental right of labour in this country and it should not be taken away. It is about time this government, the Liberal-National Party government, stopped using this sort of issue as an excuse for its failure to assist small business in this country. (Time expired)10:16:001223Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—I have not heard anything since the defeat of this legislation in the Senate on the last occasion to convince me to in any way change the vote that I cast on that occasion. I have listened carefully to what has been said this morning by Senator Hogg, Senator Collins and Senator Sherry and to the speeches yesterday. Having listened to all those speeches, one must, if one is reasonable, say not only that nothing in those speeches would convince one to change one's vote the other way but also that it confirms one's decision to vote against this legislation.The legislation is simply unfair, unreasonable and unjust. I am quite conscious of the ramifications of the Senate voting this down for the second time after the constitutional period has elapsed, nevertheless, I do not believe that the Senate should vote for a measure which can justifiably be described as unfair, unjust and unreasonable, so I will be voting against the legislation.10:18:001223Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—Senator Harradine has just described this bill as unfair, unreasonable and unjust, and he is correct. I start my contribution to the debate on the Workplace Relations Amendment Bill 1997 [No. 2] by quoting a significant figure in Australian politics. This person, in a speech to the South Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry on 25 October 1995, said:I'm not going to leave employees exposed to unfair dismissal by capricious employers.The same figure, in a speech to a community breakfast in Perth on 11 July 1995, said:We're not going to replace (Labor's unfair dismissal laws) with a law that gives ruthless employers carte blanche.In a speech on 18 July 1995, the same figure said:Let me make a hard and fast commitment that when we win government we will ensure that Australia has a balanced unfair dismissal provision which is fair to both employers and employees. We won't tolerate unreasonable dismissals.Who is this figure? This figure is the Prime Minister. Why is this bill before us, given those commitments on the public record by the leader of the government? Because the Prime Minister is weak and the Prime Minister is lacking in leadership and authority.This bill is a stunt. The Prime Minister is allowing a stunt to override commitments he made to the electorate before the election and commitments he made after he became Prime Minister. Why do we have that? It was not a core promise. We remember that, whenever the Prime Minister is in trouble, he defines his way out of trouble. He defines whether it was a non-core promise or a core promise. He did not tell the electors before the election that there are such things as core and non-core. But, since the election, to suit his own needs, he has defined things as core and non-core. The poor fool voters did not recognise that, when he made those commitments that he is now expected to honour, they were not core promises and he never intended to do so. This is not only gutless, this is not only a lack of moral authority; this is, of course, dishonest.I want to go to the three major reasons this bill is before us. At one level, it is proposed that it will make it easier to sack people and that, because it does, it will therefore somehow improve employment. If it is easier to sack people, apparently more jobs can be created. The government are campaigning around Australia saying, `Look how many jobs we've created.' If they make it easier to sack people and then rotate the unemployed through those jobs, they do not create an extra number of new jobs. They report the number of new starts that were achieved in the economy and say, `Look how many new jobs we've created,' as if they have done something to improve unemployment. Have they? Of course they have not. They have just revolved the unemployed through some jobs, taking advantage of being able to peremptorily dismiss people without them having a reasonable recourse to appeal and a reasonable recourse to their circumstances being fairly reviewed.What else has the government done? Very importantly, they have changed the bargaining relationship between a worker and an employer. Remember that Mr Howard, before the last election, also promised that there would be no reduction in working standards. He made a solemn promise on that.By enacting this legislation, the government makes it impossible for a person in a small business negotiating a wage with their employer in a one-on-one situation to win because, if that employer does not like the claim, he can dismiss the individual and there is no effective recourse to an independent appeal. Is that fair bargaining?How does a junior worker get on in those circumstances? What about a migrant woman? What about an ordinary Australian male? How do they get on in those circumstances when they are asked to choose between accepting the offer that they have to take or losing their job, and they have a family to support? How do they get on in those circumstances? Is this what we now call job creation? Is this what we now call dealing with unemployment?The first proposition that this will make it easier to sack people and, therefore, will improve employment is a false proposition and an arid claim. Indeed, my colleagues who have spoken in this debate who have pointed to the government argument that there will be 50,000 new jobs created because of this provision have demonstrated amply that there is no basis in statistics, there is no basis in objective collection of facts, to justify that. The 50,000 new jobs that will allegedly be created is an assertion. It is not underpinned by any statistical work whatsoever. It is a claim, yet it is bandied around as a fact when, in fact, there is no support for it at all. So let us just deal with that first proposition.The second false claim here is that it will help small business. The government must have a very low opinion of many employers in small business. I happen to know a lot of small business people who are proud to be good employers. I do not make the automatic assumption that everyone in business wants to exploit their employees. We do not hear about the examples of good employers; we hear about the examples of bad ones. But there are many people in Australia—and I want to go to this in some detail in a moment—who are proud to have good employees, impose trust in them, make sure they are properly trained, encourage observance of occupational health and safety standards and pay them a decent wage and are repaid by loyalty, productivity and the growth of their own enterprises. They know that the best asset their company has is the people who work for it.If you downgrade and humiliate those people, you will get a downgraded, low outcome result. The bottom line is your profit will fall. If you encourage, train, protect the health and safety and pay a decent wage, you will get committed employees, proud of their work, satisfied in their job, who contribute to the growth of that company. There are many employers in this nation who know that and do not want this legislation where the lowest common denominator prevails. They know that, if this is carried, they are in the hands of the narrow-minded, exploitative employers.For example, you have a good employer on the block and a bad employer on the block competing with each other. One wants to pay decent wages, respect their workers and encourage higher productivity and one wants to exploit them. If this law comes into being, the second employer wins. Because, therefore, wages fall and the cost of his goods fall, the first employer has to follow suit and reduce his work force as well. You have a race to the bottom.Is that the country we want for Australia? Is that what a modern society is about? Are they the high living standards that we always talk about, that we aim to achieve—that is, where fear and exploitation rule the workplace, not a fair go, not decency, not an aspiration for higher skills, better quality output and a committed work force? I do not hold the view that the government holds that exploitation should rule. I hold the view that many employers hold that we should have a committed work force. This legislation does not do that.The third thing about this legislation which has been said by all of my colleagues in this debate, and rightly, is that this is an outrageous political stunt. It is an outrageous political stunt because this is an attempt to procure a double dissolution, or, as I heard a breathless journalist say the other day, a double disillusion. One could be disillusioned by this government, but they are after a double dissolution.So they put an outrageous piece of legislation to the Senate knowing that Senator Harradine, who holds one of the key votes in this chamber—a balance of power vote—is committed to not supporting it. They want his vote on Wik. They know that he cannot in all conscience, in coming to terms with what he understands as decency in the workplace, vote for this. They know he describes it, as he did a minute ago, as unfair, unreasonable and unjust. They know that. So they confront the Senate in order to artificially contrive a constitutional trigger so they can have an early election.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—A race election.RF4Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOK—And a race election, as Senator Faulkner points out, quite rightly. So this is a stunt. This is a contrivance. This is a manipulation of the democratic process in order to achieve that.I want to say a few words on behalf of the good employers in Australia on what they aspire to, together with the good workers of this nation, and what they want to see. What does small business really want? Small business really wants as its first priority a stronger economy with stronger growth rates. If the economy is strong and growing, unemployment is falling, there are more wage earners than there are unemployed. People have the purchasing power to buy the goods and services produced by small business. There is greater opportunity with growth. That is what they want to see.What is the performance of this government? The national accounts for the March quarter came out just three weeks ago. The markets were anticipating a growth rate for the Australian economy of four per cent for the year or four plus. Many of them looked on the bright side and thought it should be four plus. I punted in the privacy of my own office that it would be around four per cent.What did the national accounts show? They showed that the growth rate for the year was 3.6 per cent. They surprised the markets. The exchange rate fell on those figures and the stock exchange went down on those figures because they expected something higher. In other words, this government not only underperformed in terms of growth in the economy on its own estimates, but it surprised the market with how poorly it did as well. The true picture is an economy which came out of a recession—it was not a technical recession, but a low growth period imposed by cuts by the government in the 1996-97 budget which reduced domestic demand—and grew and people thought, `Here is the stronger recovery.' Now that it has wilted, now that it has died in the traces, what we are seeing is much lower growth, and the impact of the Asian currency meltdown has not yet hit the Australian economy either.Today we have reports that the Australian economy's growth will be cut by one per cent because of the low demand in Asia for our goods and services. If that is one per cent off the 3.6 per cent, we will have a 2.6 per cent growth rate in the Australian economy. If that is what they are talking about, it will mean higher unemployment, a contracting demand, bankruptcies for small business and many more people out of work. Small business wants a growth economy. They do not want to see that economic performance.What else does small business want? I will tell you one of the things they do not want. They do not want a GST. Small business does not want to have to be turned into a tax collector for this government. Small business does not want to have to levy a 15 per cent—or whatever the figure is—goods and services tax on every transaction they make.The Australian economy, if you look at it, is about a 73 per cent service economy. About 78 per cent of the Australian work force are employed in the services sector. There is no tax on services, so what the government are going to do is introduce a 15 per cent tax on services. That is not there now and they say that, by making it easier to sack people in small business, somehow we will get employment growth.What about a 15 per cent tax on goods and services? That will take money out of the pockets of small businesses. That will be an increase in taxes. They do not want it, but the government are going to introduce it and they have announced confidently that this is so-called tax reform. Well, I urge the government to go back to their dictionaries and look at the meaning of `reform'. `Reform' means positive change. A 15 per cent goods and services tax or a goods and services tax at whatever level is not positive change; it is regressive.What else do small business want? They want protection from harsh and unconscionable conduct. They want to make sure that the big end of town cannot manipulate the contracts with the small and more vulnerable businesses to diminish their rights and exploit them. That is what they want. Has this government introduced legislation to meet that need? No, it has not. Will it? It says it will, but does it go far enough? No, it does not either. The greatest growth area for litigation in Australia at the moment is that litigation that goes on between franchisors and franchisees. Most of the franchisees are small businesses. It is a classic case. Someone holds the central franchise and asks people to bid for it. They strike terms in a contract, then the franchisee can go out and trade under that franchise name. The fastest growth area in the Australian economy, particularly for small business, is from the blossoming of franchisees everywhere. People owe their future to the company store but they find that, whenever there is trouble, under the terms of their contracts, often that trouble is exacted on to them at the bottom of the pile—not on head office, but on the franchisees. That results in litigation, and it is the fastest growing area of commercial court work in Australia and it is growing uncontrolled. It is a big cost, a big surcharge, to impose the high price legal costs on small businesses that way and it ought to be sorted out.Senator O'Chee interjecting—RF4Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOK—Kim Beazley has tried to sort it out. He has introduced a private member's bill and we have introduced one here. The government has not moved. Small business is in pain over this and the government's bleating is an indication of its embarrassment on the issue as well.What else does small business want? Let me tell you. Small business wants a restoration of the incentives for growth that applied under the Labor government and which were cut in the 1996 budget by this government. They want to see—and particularly now with the Asian currency meltdown—a restoration of export market development grant assistance for small business. Because the Asian economic crisis is destroying their markets, they need to be back in Asia to help protect and renegotiate their contracts. They need to be in third markets to develop opportunities for themselves.What is the government's response? The government's response in 1996-97 was to cut those incentives so they could not do it. With the present crisis when they need to do it, has the government's response been to restore those incentives to help them achieve it? No. There has been some playing around with the definitions and there has been some alteration of the red tape but, effectively, there has been no real improvement for small business. That is what they want. They do not want this particular law.I want to conclude in the few minutes available to me with another thing that I think small business wants as well. They want to know how to succeed. Most small business people I know want to become medium sized business people as quickly as possible and many of them want to become big business people. They want to be able to grow. This government cut the Australian Manufacturing Council, which for small manufacturers was a major source of guidance and advice on what you have to do to become a more effective company. I recall one of the surveys—the leaders and laggers survey—by the Australian Manufacturing Council. It took a snapshot of what a leader, a successful small business, looks like and what were the ingredients that had added to its success for Australia, and it took a snapshot of what a lagger, an unsuccessful small business, looks like and what were the ingredients of its failure.This survey is very instructive. The ingredients of success were good industrial relations, high investment and trading, protection for occupational health and safety, and harmonious workplace relations. They have a committed work force. None of those were problems. There problems were getting into new markets, finding opportunities for their goods. The ingredients of the laggers were bad industrial relations, no commitment to training, high staff turnover, and blame shifting—`everyone else is at fault, not me'.In short, leaders, successful companies, are outward looking and have formed their work force into a team, not into confrontation but into cooperation. Laggers are those who want this legislation and they are the failures. This legislation speaks to those companies that want to blame others because they do not succeed. They want to blame their workers because they could not lead an effective workplace team to grow their profits. This legislation should fail with them.10:38:001227Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—I join my colleagues in opposing this legislation. The opposition has already put on the public record its clear posi tion on the Workplace Relations Amendment Bill 1997 [No. 2] in both this chamber and the House of Representatives. What we are debating here is the government's broken promise on unfair dismissal and an attack on the security of working Australians and their families.We are also debating, as my colleague Senator Cook has pointed out, the government's election agenda, an agenda for a politically motivated and socially divisive double dissolution election particularly focused on the issue of race. At the moment unfair dismissal legislation provides for the right of all employees to have access to appeal mechanisms against unfair, harsh or unreasonable dismissal. If passed, this legislation will take away that right for thousands and thousands of Australian workers.9L6MACKAYSenator Mackay—Three million.5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—Thank you, Senator Mackay. Millions and millions of Australian workers—three million Australian workers, workers who are employed by an operation that has 15 or fewer employees. We just ask the question: why should workers in that situation have fewer rights than those workers who work for larger organisations? That is the nub of it, and not one speaker from the government has been able to defend that position.I would like to remind the Senate of the outstanding minority report that has been prepared by opposition senators on this legislation. I read that report with a very great deal of interest. They said that the legislation was very seriously flawed. They also pointed out that opposition to the measures in this bill could be grouped into effectively three major arguments. It is worth repeating them. Firstly, this exemption is an explicit breach of the government's pre-election commitments. Secondly, this exemption is totally unnecessary. Thirdly, this exemption is unfair. We stand behind those arguments.But I think we ought to also acknowledge that this legislation amends the Howard government's own unfair dismissal laws, the government's own much touted, much vaunted Workplace Relations Act. It extensively amended the unfair dismissal laws, which came into effect in January of last year. Who could forget the debates that took place in this chamber around those issues, so ably led by Senator Sherry and so many other opposition senators who participated in the debate at that time?The Prime Minister and his Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business, Mr Reith, boast that their new system of unfair dismissal laws provide for `a simpler, more balanced system that provides a fair go all round'. There is nothing fair about this exemption. It is an exemption that discriminates against employees who work for a small business employer with fewer than 15 employees. If Mr Howard and Mr Reith believe that their own unfair dismissal laws are so simple and balanced to provide a fair go all round, why do they have to seek this exemption for small business?We have heard the justification, the naive insistence, that this will boost employment by removing apparent disincentives for small business to hire new staff. But, as Senator Cook pointed out, there is absolutely no tangible evidence to support that assertion—none at all. This does not have any justification beyond what is the government's ideological obsession, which we have highlighted over the two years since this government came to office, to dismantle the rights of Australian workers.It is worth recalling the recent Morgan and Banks job survey that revealed that 80 per cent of small business employers did not believe that the existence of the unfair dismissal laws affected their decisions to employ staff. Only 16 per cent of small business employers believed they would benefit from the exemption that this legislation provides. I have to say that those figures were also consistent for all other sizes of business.We have heard about the claim that this government is committed to reducing the burden of red tape on small business.ZW4SHERRYSenator Sherry—GST.5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—Exactly. What about the government's assistance for small business? What is its commitment to reducing the burden of red tape? John Howard is absolutely kidding himself if he thinks that this legislation will solve the problems and relieve the burdens of small business. And just around the corner lies in wait a goods and services tax for small business! We do not know what corner it is around, and we do not quite know when we will get around the corner to see what the government has in mind because they are keeping it under wraps. But we know what that will mean for each and every small business in Australia.I think the government would perhaps be a little better served paying heed to a recent Yellow Pages Small Business Index showing that just five per cent of small businesses are concerned about industrial laws. But that same survey showed that 84 per cent of small business are far more concerned about this government's lack of action in getting the economy moving.The point has to be made in this debate that this bill is yet another betrayal of the electorate by the government. This is yet another betrayal by the coalition of the Australian people. They have, of course, had a very good record, I think we would all have to acknowledge, of breaking the promises they made to the Australian people in the last election. I think we would all have to acknowledge their record in that regard.ZW4SHERRYSenator Sherry—Non-core promises.5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—That is true. The other thing I think we would have to acknowledge is the capacity of this government to redefine political terminology and to redefine issues of public policy. If you break a promise, it becomes a non-core promise. The Prime Minister has been absolutely expert in the last couple of days in redefining his own discredited code of ministerial conduct. He has done a good job of redefinition. With those broken promises, the government really has revealed to the Australian people its true colours, and it has done so on many issues of importance to the Australian people.This is a government that wooed voters with its weasel words about its commitment to delivering to families. This is the same government that talked about protecting the poor and needy in our community. It is the same government, I recall, that guaranteed that no worker would be worse off under a John Howard industrial relations regime. Who could forget that promise?Mr Howard and Mr Reith promised to give workers a right of appeal if they were unfairly dismissed. What they did not do is qualify it. They promised to give workers a right of appeal if they were unfairly dismissed, but they did not say, `If you work for a small business, that promise does not count.' That was never said by anyone at any time. They did not say, `If you work for a small business, you do not have a right of appeal.' That was never said by this duplicitous government. What John Howard did say in the good old days when he was Leader of the Opposition was:I'm not going to have a law where an unreasonable employer can capriciously sack a decent, hardworking employee.That is what he said. He then went on to one of his headland speeches. Who could forget those headland speeches? He said:Let me make a hard and fast commitment that when we win government we will ensure that Australia has a balanced unfair dismissal provision which is fair to both employers and employees. We won't tolerate unreasonable dismissals.On 20 February 1996, the now Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business, Mr Reith, said that the redrafted system of unfair dismissals would not contain any exemptions. I remind the Senate that he also said, on 28 February, `Look,'—you have always got to worry when he starts his sentences with `Look,' and `our position is very clear'. We have always got to focus, when Mr Reith says, `Look, our position is very clear.' But that is how he started his contribution on 28 February. He said:Look, our position is very clear. If you have been unfairly dealt with at work, then you should have a right of appeal.Nowhere did either of them—Mr Howard or Mr Reith—say to anyone, `There is a major qualifier here. You can have all that, unless your employer employs less than 15 people.' That was never said by either of them, or anyone else from the government, at any time. It is just another example of broken commitment and broken word to Australian workers.The measures that are proposed by this legislation go to the very core of the lives of all working Australians and their families. There is a very strong link between a worker's role in the workforce and the quality of life that is enjoyed by a worker's family and children. John Howard promised to provide security and certainty to families. Yet this is legislation that does an enormous amount to dismantle the security of employment that Australian workers hope to enjoy. Of course, security of employment—something that the government does not seem to understand—is fundamental to the security that workers have as a family.We say, look, this is not something that John Howard ought to be messing with. And we say it is an absolute disgrace that he has asked this parliament to do so. This parliament has made a decision about this legislation. It was the right decision. The Senate has expressed its view to the government and properly rejected the legislation. You have got to ask yourself—why are we revisiting it? Why has it come back to the Senate? Because the government does want this ideologically-conceived bill to be a double dissolution trigger.We say that this legislation is also about the government's election agenda. This is just part of the government pursuing a desire to have a double dissolution election focused on the Wik issue, focused on race. This legislation, along, perhaps, with the Public Service bills, helps to provide a smokescreen for that race election agenda by providing perhaps one or two other triggers for the election. As with the native title legislation and the Public Service bills, the government is not interested in negotiation, it is not interested in compromise; what it wants is confrontation, what it wants is a double dissolution.Let me say very clearly on behalf of the opposition, we do not want an election on this bill. We do not want it. We do not even want to mask the government's race election agenda. But we are left with absolutely no choice. We are implacably opposed to the measures contained within this bill. We do not and we cannot support legislation which allows people to be sacked, even if that dismissal is harsh, unreasonable and unjust. We cannot support legislation which takes away the right of appeal and the right to job security and certainty.Our position on this matter remains unchanged. We will go right to the wire on this legislation. And I urge the Senate to stand by the view it has earlier expressed on this legislation and reject this unconscionable bill.10:58:001230Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, the Information Economy and the Arts10—I want to speak on Cheryl Kernot's law. Clearly it is something that she regarded as a triumph, and that is why she supported it in the first instance.But I want to make some preliminary remarks. I am sure none of us in this chamber will forget Greg Louganis—not only was he a gold medallist but he also inspired the former Prime Minister, Mr Keating, to actually boast about triple backflips with pike. The Labor Party in government had a notorious record for reneging on solemn commitments whenever it suited their political purposes.We do not have to simply refer to the occasion on which Greg Louganis was invoked, we have to remember not just the solemn promises, but the legislation actually passed through this parliament which misled millions of Australian voters into thinking they were going to get additional tax cuts, because they were l-a-w, law—ripped up as soon as Labor got back into power. We had all the promises on Qantas and the Commonwealth Bank, about not selling down any further or not selling at all. As soon as they won the next election, they immediately ripped up those promises. So I would have to concede that Labor has an outstanding track record on reneging whenever it suits their political purposes.During the life of this government, Labor has also done some amazing backflips. One only has to remember the work for the dole legislation and, indeed, the charter of budget honesty. We had Senator Faulkner fulminating about the evils of work for the dole. He thundered and he postured and he jumped up and down and he wanted to move a whole raft of amendments because these were such odious and unacceptable provisions. But, of course, what did they do? They rolled over. They were arguably much more significant pieces of legislation than this current piece, important though this is.Why is it that Labor will not roll over on this bill? Why are they prepared to go to the wire and face the prospect of a double dissolution on it? Quite simply because they have a massive and irreconcilable conflict of interest, because this chamber on that side is a wholly owned subsidiary of the trade union movement. They have said, `No, you are not allowed under any circumstances to support this legislation.' About two-thirds of those on the other side, including Senator Mackay, have very strong trade union backgrounds and have come here out of the sheltered workshop because they could never get a job in the real world.I should remind the chamber that Senator Lundy is a classic example. She recently addressed a seminar in this building and solemnly explained that she did not understand the procedures of the parliament because, after all, she came from a private sector background. It really took my breath away to think that dyed-in-the-wool trade unionists now regard themselves as private sector individuals. But of course they are not.AX5EVANSSenator Chris Evans—She does come to divisions though, Richard, which can't be said of all members of the chamber.LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTON—She does come to divisions. I will give her that. Certainly, I trust that those who miss them have very good reasons for not attending and that, when they are in that situation, they explain. The fact is that there are very many on the other side who simply have no choice. In fact, I think the last 10 who have come into this chamber as Labor senators, including Senator Quirke, have very solid trade union backgrounds.9L6MACKAYSenator Mackay—So what! What's wrong with that?LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTON—So what? What flows from that is that you have the biggest long-playing record in history. Of course the owner of that record is the trade union movement—His Master's Voice. They tell you what to do. They tell you whether they support legislation. They tell you whether they do not. Kim Beazley's office has been known to say that they cannot get back to us yet because they have not had a reply from the ACTU.The reason Labor will not roll over on this is that they are not allowed to do so because the trade union movement sees this as one of their last opportunities to somehow pretend that they have derived advantages for the workers, that they have been able to generate a little more by way of damages in common law suits and statutory claims, and that this is somehow a justification for trade union membership. We all know that people are deserting the movement in droves, but it is alive and well in this chamber. Here we have another trade union rep coming in for the debate.2L6BISHOPSenator Bishop—And pleased to be one.LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTON—It could have been anyone. I am not being personal. Anyone who could have walked in from that side would have been a trade union member. You have a two out of three chance. There is nothing surprising about you not rolling over on this one.AX5EVANSSenator Chris Evans—Are you still a member of the law society, Richard?LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTON—No, I never have been. Actually, I might have been in 1966 for one year before I became a barrister. They do not have law societies for barristers.AX5EVANSSenator Chris Evans—You joined the barristers' union then, did you?LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTON—I did. I also belonged to the BLF, if it is of any interest to you. I am certainly not in any shape or form anti-union.AX5EVANSSenator Chris Evans—Did you declare that?LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTON—Yes, I did. It won me the preselection. When I said I had been a member of the BLF, my people were absolutely astounded and said, `Well, you'd have a good understanding of the way the system works,' and I do.9L6MACKAYSenator Mackay—No, you don't.LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTON—I certainly understand the power of the union movement which tells you people how high to jump.2L6BISHOPSenator Bishop—Why are you trying to take advantage of it?LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTON—I paid my dues. You are still paying yours. You have your preselections. You have a lifetime commitment to repay, and I understand that.I would like to thank all honourable senators who have contributed to this debate. The debate is all about jobs and about letting small business get on with business. Small businesses want and need an exemption from the federal unfair dismissal provisions not so they can dismiss unfairly but to relieve them from the threat of unfair dismissal proceedings.AX5EVANSSenator Chris Evans—Your bill's provisions.LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTON—No. They simply want to be able to get on with it and act fairly. They do not need your crowd looking over their shoulders. They simply want to get on with being productive. We acknowledge that more needs to be done in this area and this bill will improve outcomes and help deter undeserving applications. Employers are still fearful of incurring very expensive and time consuming arbitrary outcomes which can impel them to a commercial settlement regardless of the merits of the case. A time-honoured tactic—you simply threaten long, drawn-out proceedings with the vast power of the union movement behind you—`Our pockets are limitless. You're a small employer. Pay up or else.'What those opposite fail to understand is that businesses take into consideration issues such as the dismissal of employees and how they might have to manage unsatisfactory workers when they decide whether to engage new staff. Probationary periods will not solve that problem because the employee might slacken off once the probationary period is up. I was very interested to hear Senator Faulkner quote a recent Yellow Pages small business survey—if this isn't the ultimate in selective quotation! He said that five per cent of small businesses were concerned about industrial laws. What he did not tell you was in that presumably same survey in November 1997 covering 1,200 small businesses—9L6MACKAYSenator Mackay—That's the one you paid for, Richard.LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTON—Well why is he quoting it? He obviously thinks it has legitimacy if he quoted it. In that survey, 79 per cent of proprietors thought that small businesses would be better off if exempted from unfair dismissal laws. Thirty-three per cent said they would have been more likely to recruit new employees had there been an exemption in 1996-97.We have unlimited funding coming from the trade union movement. Literally millions of dollars being money-laundered from a Labor government through the system and washed back in, in terms of contributions to the election campaign. An absolute scandal. You are shameless about it. It does not trouble you in the slightest because that is where your bread and butter is.We understand that, but you ought to at least declare it when you vote on this bill. You ought to stand up on the other side of the chamber and state whether or not you have an interest in the outcome of this legislation. Let there be no doubt that this bill is about jobs and that those opposite from the trade union movement have no idea about the issues confronting Australian small businesses. This bill will remove a major disincentive to small business growth, and that is why this bill should be supported. Question put: That this bill be now read a second time.11:11:00The Senate divided. (The President—Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid)33Abetz, E. Alston, R. K. R.Boswell, R. L. D. Brownhill, D. G. C.Calvert, P. H. Campbell, I. G.Chapman, H. G. P. Coonan, H.Crane, W. Eggleston, A.Ellison, C. Ferguson, A. B.Ferris, J. Heffernan, W.*Herron, J. Hill, R. M.Kemp, R. Knowles, S. C.Lightfoot, P. R. Macdonald, S.McGauran, J. J. J. Minchin, N. H.Newman, J. M. O'Chee, W. G.Parer, W. R. Patterson, K. C. L.Payne, M. A.Reid, M. E.Synon, K. M. Tambling, G. E. J.Tierney, J. Troeth, J.Vanstone, A. E.35Allison, L. Bartlett, A. J. J.Bishop, M. Bourne, V.Brown, B. Carr, K.Collins, J. M. A. Colston, M. A.Cook, P. F. S. Cooney, B.Crowley, R. A. Denman, K. J.Evans, C. V.*Faulkner, J. P.Forshaw, M. G. Gibbs, B.Harradine, B. Hogg, J.Lees, M. H. Lundy, K.Mackay, S. Margetts, D.McKiernan, J. P. Murphy, S. M.Murray, A. Neal, B. J.O'Brien, K. W. K. Quirke, J. A.Ray, R. F. Reynolds, M.Schacht, C. C. Sherry, N.Stott Despoja, N. West, S. M.Woodley, J.Gibson, B. F. Campbell, G.Macdonald, I. Collins, R. L.MacGibbon, D. J. Conroy, S.Watson, J. O. W. Bolkus, N.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the negative.Bills1232r4251232Debate resumed from 9 March, on motion by Senator Newman:That this bill be now read a second time.11:14:001232Bishop, Sen MarkSenator BISHOP2L6WAALP00—I want to make a few comments on the Charter of Budget Honesty Bill 1996 [No. 2] which is currently before us. It has been a fairly topical issue in Australia in the last four or five years, and probably derives from similar discussions and concerns in a number of Western European countries and particularly in the United States over recent years.It derives from concerns that developed in the late 1980s and early 1990s which arose primarily from decisions made in the United States in the early years of the Reagan government which legislated for massive tax cuts, with continued outlays growing at significant rates. That resulted, in the late 1980s and early 1990s, in huge budget deficits in that country. It was suggested that, in due course, the budget deficits that arose, and which were forecast to go on if the then budget prescriptions had continued, would imperil the welfare, health and social security systems of that country.One of the results that emerged from discussions in the United States in the early 1990s was the balanced budget bill, which was passed by both houses of the US Congress. That bill required the Congress to legislate for balanced budgets by the end of this decade. They have achieved that, not particularly as a result of that balanced budget bill, but because of growth in the US economy.Australia has picked up on a variation of that debate and it is apparent in the title of this Charter of Budget Honesty Bill. A number of issues arise from the presentation of the bill to the parliament which are worthy of discussion. I seek to place the views of the Australian Labor Party firmly on the public record. The issues of concern to us are, firstly, the lack of commitment to the real intent of this bill by the current government; secondly, the government's performance to date in relation to the spirit of the legislation behind the bill; thirdly, transparency; and, fourthly, compliance and interpretation when the bill becomes law.From the outset, I would like to place on record my support for the bill which has at its core the intent to ensure that there is transparent honesty in fiscal reporting by governments in this country. Such transparency is essential through all stages of the electoral cycle, and the spirit of the bill, as its title suggests, attempts to address this outcome. Unfortu nately, the spirit of the bill has not seen justice in the drafting by the government.That brings me to my first point: the lack of commitment by this government to the real intent of the bill. That intent, as the government has suggested for many years now, is integrity. There has been much discussion by coalition members of both chambers on the virtues of the Charter of Budget Honesty Bill. It has been heralded by the Prime Minister, Treasurer and government backbenchers as one of the great savers and enforcers of fiscal rectitude in the history of federation.Government members have talked ad nauseam about the importance of such a bill and the impact it will have on governments in the future. From the outset, I must say that I understand the need of this government to sing such high praise for this initiative. It is almost as though, if they keep talking about the charter of budget honesty long enough, the electorate may forget the blatant dishonesty that has characterised the budgets of this government to date. Unfortunately for the government, however, neither the community nor the Labor Party will forget the budget dishonesty exercised by this government.However, the opposition also believes that this bill presented to us by the government does little more than make nice noises about honesty, rather than drafting legislation that would actually play a role in enforcing some standards of decency and honesty in budget reporting. The problems with this bill are paralleled by the hypocrisy of the government. When this government was in opposition it made a commitment to budget honesty, while making a range of other promises.Those promises included: to maintain funding levels for the ABC; to make no changes to the operational subsidy of the community based long day care sector; not to introduce health policies which would entail funding cuts to public hospitals; to maintain expenditure on labour market programs; to maintain all concessions for older Australians; to continue support for research and development; to maintain regional development funding of over $150 million over four years; to give a fixed share of Commonwealth revenue to the states and territories; not to increase taxes or to introduce new taxes; and to maintain funding levels for Australian universities.What has happened to the promises made by the coalition, remembering that they were part of the package that promised the charter of budget honesty? I am sad to report that all of the above-mentioned promises have been broken in one form or another. The ABC has had its budget cut by $209 million over four years. Operational subsidies for community based long day care were abolished, costing families in the order of an extra $14 per week. The health budget was severely cut, with widespread reductions in public hospital funding, totalling approximately $800 million.Labour market programs were cut by $1.8 billion over four years. Concessions for the elderly were cut, with the most notable being the dental care scheme. Research and development concessions were reduced and syndication was abolished. The regional development program was abolished. Fiscal grants to the states and territories were cut by $1.5 billion over three years, and specific purpose grants were cut by three per cent per annum. New taxes have been introduced on superannuation, and the Medicare levy has increased for those without private health insurance. Operating grants for universities have been reduced by over $600 million over the four-year period.The government's response to the intent and spirit of the legislation is not the only issue. One of the fundamental problems with this bill and with the government's attitude is the lack of transparency. The Howard government provides significantly less information in its budget papers than the previous Labor governments. In the 1996 budget papers, the government excluded information detailing specific purpose grants to the states and territories, thus denying the states information necessary for the preparation of their budgets over time. After pressure from the opposition, the government agreed to publish those figures in the 1997 budget papers.Additionally, the government removed from the budget papers international comparisons that were common under previous Labor budget regimes. These international compari sons play an important role in the comparative analysis of the Australian economy. By excluding these comparisons, the government was trying to avoid that detailed comparative analysis.Finally, in respect of budget paper presentation, is the treatment of asset sales. The Labor Party was constantly accused by the coalition of fiddling the budget papers through asset sales. This was untrue as the Labor government always disclosed underlying as well as headline results. The coalition in government, though, has included asset sales, including property sales, only in its underlying budget bottom line, even though it attacked Labor for a similar practice.With the coalition's broken promises in mind and its hesitancy in ensuring transparency of budget papers, claims of budget honesty appear not to ring overly true with this government. To justify these broken promises, the coalition introduced the classification of core and non-core promises. It would appear that this classification of core and non-core promises overrides the necessity for budget honesty as far as this government is concerned.The introduction of the non-core promises fiasco and the blatant disregard for pre-election promises by the government highlight another key problem with the bill before the chamber—that is, transparency and compliance. If the government is serious about the need for budget honesty, then it ought to consider a range of options that would improve the process and make budget forecasting more transparent.Firstly, the government should allow full scrutiny of the bill. Appropriately, this would require the legislation to be examined by the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit. Such an examination is recommended by the committee for all fiscal reporting mechanisms. This is an idea opposed by the government in the House of Representatives, but imposed upon it by the Senate. However, the time allowed for such examination was very restrictive. The chair of the joint committee himself made this point, `Even without committee examination, there are a number of apparent problems.'Accountability is a significant issue. It has been widely recognised that this bill provides less accountability than that recommended by the National Commission of Audit, the government established body. The primary recommendation of the commission was that economic forecasts concerning pre-election reports, the budget and the mid-year economic review should be the responsibility of, and at the discretion of, economic bureaucrats instead of the Treasurer.The government has rejected this recommendation of its own commission and has decided instead to allow bureaucratic discretion for only pre-election forecasts. New Zealand, which is a country that this government likes to model itself on in terms of economic reform, requires bureaucratic certification of economic forecasts at all stages. It is apparently okay for that country but not for the government of this country to adopt.I would now like to turn to some comments regarding the fourth area of significant concern, which is compliance. Essentially, the government has drafted legislation that does little to ensure compliance. The bill is really a set of motherhood statements. The government has failed to draft legislation that ensures—or, indeed, even encourages—any degree of budget honesty. Why has the government failed to address this issue of compliance? Because at the end of the day it is not serious about the charter of budget honesty. The government has no intention of enforcing standards of decency and compliance. With its record we can see why it has avoided this compliance issue. This is the key problem with the bill. It is meaningless without compliance provisions.I return to the comments made by the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit. The financial committee stated:. . . the Committee does not see a need to formulate binding statutory principles of fiscal responsibility. In any case, such fiscal principles would be so imprecise and so wide open to interpretation that there seems little point prescribing them in legislation. The Committee is also wary of the idea that there are enduring fiscal principles. Of course, the committee is referring to the type of motherhood statements espoused by this government. For example, part 3 of the bill talks about managing financial risks prudently, achieving a reasonable degree of stability and predicability in the level of tax burden, and achieving adequate national savings. All of these points are worthy of support. The problem, however, is that all of them can be interpreted differently by varying governments. With the problem of interpretation we are brought back to the issue of compliance. On what basis is compliance enforced and what is the impact of no enforcement?If we need an example of compliance problems, we need look no further than the performance of this current government. Principle (d) of the bill requires the government to maintain the integrity of the taxation system. Yet the first test of their commitment to the integrity of the tax system has resulted in failure by this government. I refer to their refusal to cut back on tax avoidance, particularly in the area of family trusts. The first chance this Treasurer got to show his commitment to the charter, he broke one of the fundamental principles and, as we know, there is nothing that can be done about it because there are no compliance provisions.In the House of Representatives question time on 11 March the Treasurer was asked to comment on the opposition's view that the charter is unenforceable. Mr Costello responded:It is a completely binding law of the country. Once it is enacted it binds our government, Mr Beazley or any future government to come clean to the Australian people.However, section 3(2) of the bill states:Nothing in the Charter of Budget Honesty creates rights or duties that are enforceable in judicial or other proceedings.When the Labor Party proposed to delete this section from the bill, the government used its numbers and opposed such a measure.This is not the only failure of the government in regard to this charter, however. As I have already mentioned, the legislation espouses the commitment to achieving adequate national savings. We have been told time and time again by this government that fundamental to its budget strategy is the need to boost national savings. Yet when it comes to scrutiny of this commitment, as is the role of parliament, the government refuses to provide savings projections. The same issue arises when it comes to unemployment. The Treasurer continues to refuse to provide employment forecasts from the mid-term review beyond the immediate year. Clearly, the government has no commitment to transparency in budget preparation.The final significant problem with this piece of legislation is the government's lack of understanding of the real role of government. This matter shows itself to us in the principles of sound fiscal management. These principles, as drafted by the government, illustrate a commitment to government and budget formulation that is not appropriate. These principles are an accountant's view of the way in which government should be managed. There is no commitment within these principles to the role of government as policy maker. There is no real thought given to the government's role in solving problems such as unemployment, education and health care. In this regard, the document is an accounting tool and little else.The notion of a charter of budget honesty is one worthy of support. The spirit of the legislation is clear. However, the weaknesses in the legislation are also blatantly apparent. One can immediately recognise the spirit of the legislation and directly ignore that spirit, as this government has done, as there are no consequences for such action. If the government were sincere about a charter of budget honesty, they would accept a detailed review and examination of this legislation by the joint committee. They would take advice in a bipartisan manner to ensure that transparency in fiscal policy and management were unquestionable.Instead, they have presented this chamber with a piece of legislation that is highly cynical, largely ineffectual and potentially irrelevant. They have dishonoured their election promise through the shallowness of this bill. However, as I have said, the notion of budget honesty is indeed worthy of sup port. We should all aim for greater transparency within government and, importantly, through the parliament. For this reason, the Labor Party is supporting the bill, even with the acknowledgment of its many flaws. The best outcome for decision making transparency would be for this to be recognised as the first step towards honest fiscal reporting.11:31:001236Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—As the Senate knows, the Democrats were strong supporters of the introduction of the Charter of Budget Honesty Bill and did indeed commend the government for introducing it, but believed that it was a weak bill in a number of respects and needed reinforcement and strengthening. We still feel that way.By insisting on the amendments last time, we believe the Senate showed our disapproval of a government that will not accept improved legislation—amendments which, in our opinion, considerably improved the bill. However, we have been advised by Labor that they are going to let this bill through this time, so there is obviously no point in further pursuing amendments to the bill. Despite the fact that it seems we will have at least one double dissolution bill whatever happens—and one more will not make any difference—in my view it would be foolish to put to a double dissolution a bill we support in terms of the fundamentals. Even in its unamended form, this is a bill better passed before the election than after, since it does contribute to a better policy costing and appraisal for elections.The thrust of our amendments the first time around was that we focused on the fact that the act was unenforceable; it was not binding on the Crown. I pricked up my ears when Senator Bishop said Labor had been pursuing that same issue. I checked the amendments in the last debate—in October, I think it was—and it was in fact the Democrats who moved to make the bill enforceable. Labor quite correctly supported it, and subsequently moved that same amendment, I believe in the House of Representatives, when it came through the second time, and felt very strongly about it. I think Labor coined a rather nice phrase for it when they referred to it as the optional honesty bill.If there is anything which is a great sadness to the Australian Democrats, it is that the government should allow a bill which stands on accountability, which has honesty in its title, really not to enforce that dictum. Clause 3(2) of the bill states that the charter of budget honesty is not judicially enforceable and the charter is therefore much like a code of conduct which does not have any enforcement procedures or penalties, a situation which clearly is unsatisfactory. There is no penalty should a party fail to fulfil its pre-election reports and costings or its commitments. The only sanction currently available for when a government ignores the need to comply with the provisions of the charter of budget honesty does rest with the parliament, and that is an unsatisfactory situation given that the government of the day will have a majority in the parliament.As Senator Bishop outlined, in contrast, the New Zealand Fiscal Responsibility Act 1994 is binding on the Crown. This means that if the New Zealand government does not comply with the requirements in the act, any citizen has standing to initiate an action in the courts. What we and Labor and the other non-government parties in the Senate felt strongly was that this government should be obliged to face up to its responsibilities with an enforceable act. In our view, such enforceability would demonstrate a serious rather than an optional commitment to the provision of information and the accountability of the government to the electorate. We were disappointed not to see it in the legislation before us. The remedy of enforcement where there is a failure to act is denied Australian citizens, in contrast to New Zealand citizens in their act, and it effectively provides a shield of immunity to any claim on public interest grounds preventing the disclosure of information. This limits the effectiveness of the charter as a mechanism to improve scrutiny, transparency and fiscal responsibility.So, Minister, on the one hand, this bill is proclaimed to be an important contribution to the government's accountability efforts and we agree with that claim. On the other hand, the government cannot be held accountable to the provisions in this legislation, and we strongly disagree with that. I was so startled by the very concept that there could be a bill which could be valid when it did not provide for enforceable rights or duties that I put a Senate question on notice to the Minister representing the Treasurer on 30 October 1997. I asked:(1) Is the Minister aware of any Act which has been passed by the Federal Parliament which does not provide for any enforceable rights or duties; if so, which Acts are they.This was the answer; listen carefully:There are a number of Commonwealth Acts which impose duties on a statutory body, but provide that such duties are not enforceable in judicial proceedings. Some examples are:. the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Act 1986;. the Federal Airports Corporation Act 1986;. the Special Broadcasting Service Act 1991;. the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act 1983I surmise from that answer that there are no acts relevant to the operation of government, as opposed to a statutory body, which are not enforceable. So this is a first-time, appalling precedent, one which we do not agree with.The Australian Government Solicitor's Office advised in an answer to that same question as follows:The fact that the Bill is not enforceable in judicial or other proceedings does not affect its validity.I am not a High Court judge and I am certainly not a Solicitor-General so I am not going to quarrel with that, but it does not do away with the principle. The Treasurer, with his wonderful ability to spin lines, can never get over the fact that this is an optional honesty bill, that this bill is not enforceable. We commend the Treasurer for the bill, but it is an optional honesty bill.Other amendments we focused on the first time around included the fact that the act provided for costings only for the Liberal and Labor parties. I am often surprised in this parliament when the word `bipartisan' is used. I would have thought that they could at least use `tripartisan', because the National Party are part of the major scene. As for the rest of the cross-benchers, we prefer `multipartisan' or `cross-party'. The fact is that even the National Party are excluded from the costings of this bill. That struck us as extraordinary. We tried to fix it up for them, but they as the junior partner were not able to help themselves on this issue. Anyway, it is another amendment that went through which the government refuses to accept.We also focused on the fact that in appraising the effects of taxes and spending proposals, the social effects on future generations were insufficiently covered and the principles of ecologically sustainable development were not covered. In a country where, in the last 15 or 16 years, salinity has increased something like 18 times and is forecast to reach 12 million hectares, I would think that a focus on ecologically sustainable development makes very sound economic environmental and social sense.We also focused on the costing of election commitments and various matters to do with that. We focused on an issue which we have been running hard on for nearly 20 years now in a number of parliaments in the country, and that is truth in political advertising—to try to get some honesty in that area. And we focused on the nature of modelling processes used in economic and social forecasting. However, the government in its wisdom is not going to accept any of those solutions. If we are not going to push through those amendments this time, let us focus on why this bill is necessary. In the 1982 budget, an election budget, the then Treasurer, Mr Howard, forecast a surplus of $230 million which blew out to a deficit of $4,473 million. The post-election revelation of the budget deterioration allowed the new Labor government then to junk virtually all their election promises. It sounds familiar, doesn't it? Since then, that practice has become pretty much a recurring picture.Again, in 1992, Labor's then Prime Minister, Paul Keating, produced his infamous One Nation forecast which claimed that the deficit would repair itself. On the back of this, he and Dr Hewson went into the 1993 election campaign with what we regarded as outlandish and unfunded tax cut promises. The Democrats said at the time that the tax cuts were not funded and were not fiscally responsible, but the coalition joined with Labor to vote in the $4 billion of tax cuts which they both knew were not funded. Three years later, the coalition were busy gloating over the Beazley black hole, but if they had voted with the Democrats to stop an unfunded $4 billion in tax cuts, there would not have been a Beazley black hole, just a minor Beazley blemish.Over the last four years, fiscal reporting continued to be a very political process. The 1995 budget included the claimed headline surplus of $718 million. The real picture was an underlying deficit of $7.2 billion. Again, the coalition joined with Labor to defeat the Democrats' proposal to set up a Senate inquiry into the matter. It suited the coalition at that time, in our view, to rely on Labor's ridiculously rosy economic forecasts which Labor was using to build up unaffordable election promises of $7 billion. So with the change of government, again, the new government were able to junk most of their election promises, their so-called non-core promises, after a shock-horror revelation about the black hole which our parliamentary records showed they helped create. If this charter of budget honesty bill is in fact going to stop that kind of malarky between the two parties contending for power in this country, I think—and my party thinks—it is to be very warmly welcomed. The Democrats congratulate the government on recognising this as a problem, on recognising that there is a public perception problem out there, on recognising that a much improved budget presentation process, a much improved and transparent process, will advance the cause of more accountable and better government.In concluding, Minister, whilst I say that we are disappointed that the bill remains weak and optional we are nevertheless delighted that the bill will move into legislation, because it does at least advance the cause of accountability in a number of important directions. I move:At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate:(a) calls on the Government, at the earliest opportunity and preferably before the next or the following Federal election, to follow the lead set by New Zealand's Fiscal Responsibility Act and replace the optional and weak nature of the unenforceable Charter of Budget Honesty with a Charter that binds the Crown in right of the Commonwealth and creates rights and duties that are enforceable in judicial or other proceedings; and(b) is of the view that access to the bureaucracy to provide costings of policies should be extended to the nominated representative of any party which is registered under the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 or which has at least one representative in the Parliament; and(c) urges the Government to include consideration of the social and environmental effects of its policies on future generations, as well as the financial effects, in its principles of sound fiscal management and in intergenerational reports.11:44:001239Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—The key issues for the Greens (WA) in relation to this boomerang bill, the Charter of Budget Honesty Bill 1996 [No. 2], are the government's commitment or lack thereof to the democratic process and the inherent dishonesty of a bill which basically claims to be a bill about honesty; a bill which gives a narrow and misleading account of fiscal policy which does not include social or environmental accounts.The government's commitment to the democratic process is, we believe, highly questionable. The government seems to have no respect for the Senate as an institution or the legitimate role in the democratic process that the Senate plays. In that sense, it is tending to echo the last few years of the Keating government: contempt for the democratic process. We are moving, I believe, more and more to three-year elected dictatorships, judging from the kinds of statements that have been made in relation to the Constitutional Convention.But let us get back to the process in relation to the charter of budget honesty—or dishonesty, depending on which side you take. The first point I want to make is that the government has returned this bill to the Senate without considering the range of amendments put forward. I did not agree with all the amendments, but that was the Senate's decision in relation to those 10 amendments which were passed.A double dissolution is only intended for a situation where a hostile Senate fails to pass bills that render the government unable to govern. It is custom to provide the Governor-General with advice as to whether the parliament has become unworkable. It would, in the opinion of the Greens (WA), be preposterous to argue that this is the case with the charter of budget honesty. These are the reasons we believe so. The bill is not justiciable or enforceable in any manner, thus failure to pass the bill cannot affect the ability of the government to govern.The legislation is unnecessary to achieve its immediate purpose. What is to be achieved under the bill can be achieved administratively through existing executive discretions for the life of the present parliament. Regulations are not required to allow the government to provide the electorate with the sort of information that the bill seeks to guarantee. How can anybody say that the passing of amendments to this bill would make Australia ungovernable?The second point I want to make is in relation to a point I made in my speech during the second reading stage when we previously debated this matter: whether or not under the trade descriptions act there might be a problem with the naming of this bill. We believe the bill promotes a narrow and misleading account of fiscal policy. This is, in fact, a charter of budget dishonesty, as it does not give the full picture. Rather, it gives a narrow view of what the national accounts are and a narrow view of what the economy consists of and the implications for the economy in the future.Budgets are not about economics in the restricted sense; they are about public policy and people. These days, this mostly seems to be forgotten. All decisions on revenue tax and spending are about politics and how to make and direct choices. The use of fiscal accountability implies that fiscal benchmarks are the most important or, perhaps, the only relevant criteria for judging policy. This implies certain values. It pre-empts discussion and forces conclusions in certain directions. It fails to take into account, for example, environmental and social accounts, indexes on equity, employment, greenhouse gas production and so on, and fails to give a complete picture of what is happening in the wider economy. This is in contrast to the momentum established internationally against such narrow economic accountability. There has been much talk overseas about widening the accounts basis by integrating environmental and economic accounting and social impacts. Australia is going in the wrong direction.I find the Charter of Budget Honesty Bill a problem, as it suggests that the government presents budget information honestly. In other words, it suggests that the information presented to the Australian public concerning what is important now and in the future is honest whereas, in reality, they are presenting only one side of the picture and a very narrow view of life, valued in monetary terms, in the present.The reductionist nature of this bill is, of course, problematic to us. It has the potential to be used as part of the growing view towards fiscal restraint which is used as an excuse to further reduce revenue from those who cannot afford it and to devalue legitimate concerns in the community.The views of the Greens (WA) have been made very clear in this respect. We believe that many people—and Senator Murray has expressed the views of the Democrats—see this bill as weak. I see it as less than weak; I see it as going in the wrong direction, according to the principles of ecological and social sustainability.My views on the bill have not changed, but the way the government has dealt with this bill and the way the Senate has responded to this bill are, in my view, despicable.11:51:001240McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURANWH4VICNP10—I rise to speak ever so briefly to support the government's charter of budget honesty. But, having listened to the three speakers before me—Senators Bishop, Murray and Margetts—I am at a loss to understand Senator Murray's point that the National Party are losers in this. It is quite the opposite. The National Party, like my coalition colleagues, support the Charter of Budget Honesty Bill 1996 [No. 2] wholeheartedly for the reasons outlined in the government's second reading speech.Senator Bishop should be aware that his Labor opposition are, in fact, supporting this bill. We know they have done a somersault on this matter. They fear that this bill will become a double dissolution trigger. Just as they fear that the bill we have just dealt with, the Workplace Relations Amendment Bill 1997 [No. 2], will become a trigger for a double dissolution, so do they fear this bill; that is, the determination of the government to pass this legislation. The opposition have done a backflip.Although Senator Bishop spoke against this bill throughout his speech and went off on all sorts of strange tangents about the methods that the government used to balance the budget—for which it should get credit—he is going to vote for this bill. So work that out.No-one is really quite sure what Senator Margetts is on about, but we do know she has her own pet projects. If you do not come to hand for her pet projects, she finishes her speech—as she just did—and dashes out of the Senate saying, `This is despicable.'The truth of the matter is that this is a most important piece of legislation where major structural reforms will be brought to the parliament in presenting fiscal responsibility and policy. We all know how we got to this point. It is because of the legacy this government was left by the previous government. It was not just a $10.5 billion deficit.ZS6QUIRKESenator Quirke—It was $10.3 billion, I think.WH4McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURAN—It was between $10.2 billion and $10.5 billion.ZS6QUIRKESenator Quirke—Better get it right, Senator.WH4McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURAN—We know it grew from the first estimation, which was $8 billion. The deficit grew to $10.3 billion—I will accept your figure, Senator Quirke.ZS6QUIRKESenator Quirke—It's growing like Pinocchio's nose now, Senator.WH4McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURAN—It was definitely $10.3 billion, and we have reined it in. Straight after the election, we found out the dishonesty and the cover-up that occurred. The previous government went into the election campaign claiming that there was in fact a balanced budget. Not only that, the legacy of the debt that was left, I believe, is worse and harder to overcome than the deficit itself. The debt figure left for this government was well over $100 billion. To put that in perspective, ironically, when Mr Keating was first elected as Prime Minister, the Commonwealth debt was $30 billion—quite manageable. But, within four years of the Keating prime ministership, it blew out to $100 billion plus. That is a harder figure to pull back, Senator Quirke, than the $10.3 billion deficit, which we have done.We are now working on that major debt left to this government. We are doing it through asset sales particularly. This government's asset sales will be dedicated to reducing the Commonwealth debt. We believe that the two-thirds sale of Telstra will bring in some $40 billion, which will go towards reducing the Commonwealth debt to under the $50 billion mark. That is a responsible attitude towards privatising our national assets or our national carriers like Telstra.It is not just the Telstra sale that we will be dedicating to the reduction of this government's debt. The airport sales of over $4 billion must go towards reducing the heavy debt burden that this government was left. There are the sales of AN rail and ANL, Australia's shipping line. Commonwealth offices and property to the tune of billions of dollars will also be put on the market. There will be other such asset sales like Dasfleet. They will all responsibly go towards the reduction of Commonwealth debt.The point is that, when the opposition was in government, it chose to privatise in the most tortured way possible. For example, Qantas was on the budget four times to be sold and dishonestly used to reduce the government deficit of the day, yet it was not sold until the fourth occasion. Also, in relation to the sale of the Commonwealth Bank, those opposite went to the people in a dishonest fashion and said that they would not privatise it, and they did—unlike us. They got a very good price for it too. The Australian taxpayers got their first taste of shareholding a former government asset, like they did with Telstra.What did you do with those funds? You did not use it to reduce debt at all. You frittered it away on the current expenditure. It was completely frittered away. Where did the billions of dollars received from the sale of the Commonwealth Bank go? It was completely wasted on the budget because we still ended up with a $10.3 billion deficit.The point of the legislation before us today, the Charter of Budget Honesty Bill, is that that sort of dishonesty can no longer occur. We are locking you in now, should you ever have the opportunity to return to government—and perhaps in the decades to come that will be possible; the wheel always turns in politics, as we know. We are now locking a future Labor government and ourselves into responsible, transparent fiscal reporting. No longer can we set up budget surpluses for you to come in and fritter away on the taxpayers. We will come back into government, as a result of the slow turning of the wheel of politics, and have to rein in the expenditure again.Now it is going to be open for judgment by financial reporters and by the taxpayers. The books will be open to show exactly the government's financial situation. The underlying budget deficit or surplus can no longer be hidden from public scrutiny, as it was during the Hawke and Keating years. You never really reported correctly what your budget deficit was. You tried to constantly cover it up through asset sales. There is now going to be a separation of asset sales and proceeds from the underlying budget figure.In order to reach that situation of accurate government reporting, the charter of budget honesty will establish a framework within which formal reports will be made. Along with the release of each year's budget, a report will be required that states the government's economic and fiscal projection for both the budget year concerned and three years ahead. These projections will indicate the expected consequences of the proposed fiscal system. Midway through each financial year, another report will update the process of the fiscal and economic projections that were set out in the budget. Within three months of the conclusion of the financial year, a report will be issued detailing the fiscal outcomes of that year. Further, every five years, a report will be made outlining the long-term sustainability of the current fiscal policies.This bill ensures that the secretaries to both Treasury and the Department of Finance and Administration prepare a pre-election report providing an up-to-the-minute assessment of the government's fiscal policy. What could be more transparent? What greater scrutiny could be put on a government—and which we are putting on ourselves—than that form of reporting to the parliament and to the people?There will also be a provision for more equal access to Treasury and Finance costings of election commitments. That should make for a very interesting exercise in the upcoming election, because we heard from Senator Kemp yesterday during question time that the shadow minister for health, Mr Lee, has already committed the opposition to a $6 billion health budget, while at the same time the former finance minister and current Leader of the Opposition, Mr Beazley, has committed the opposition to a balanced budget. This is the man who left us with a $10.3 billion budget deficit, but now he has changed on the road to Damascus and he is going to produce three years of balanced budgets if he ever gets the opportunity.The pull on that is that Mr Ferguson, in the other House, does not believe in surplus budgets. He and his left wing colleagues will be coming to Mr Beazley saying, `We don't believe in balanced budgets.' So you can see the pull and the tug from the Labor Party but, under this legislation, they will be committed to costing their election commitments under the scrutiny of Treasury and Finance. So will our side, but we can deliver because we have delivered a balanced budget already and we are reducing the burden of the government debt.ZW4SHERRYSenator Sherry—It has gone up.WH4McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURAN—No, it has not.ZW4SHERRYSenator Sherry—Total Australian debt has gone up in the last year.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Calvert)—Order! Senator McGauran, do not be distracted by interjections.WH4McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURAN—Senator Sherry does distract me and, Mr Acting Deputy President, I take your advice that I should not be distracted by him. Finance and economics are not Senator Sherry's great strengths. Sure, I saw him stand up before and talk about industrial relations, on which he has some expertise, but haven't they all over there? Haven't they all got a self-interest in industrial relations? They can all wax lyrical when it comes to industrial relations and protection of their old union mates but, when it comes to finance, let us face it, on any sort of scrutiny or any sort of poll, the Labor Party are not known to be very good finance managers.Let us go back to the Whitlam years. What a financial mess the country was left in after the Whitlam years. What a financial mess. When you got your second shot at it, what a financial mess the country was left in after—ZW4SHERRYSenator Sherry—What did John Howard leave when he went out of government as Treasurer? What was the debt then? Twenty odd billion dollars—in today's money, $20 odd billion.WH4McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURAN—Senator Sherry, you are prone to exaggeration; it was not $20 odd billion. That is how much you know, and I refuse to be further distracted by you.In conclusion, I would just like to say that this is a very significant piece of legislation. I know quite often that the finance bills that come through this parliament are not met with great interest—in particular, by the press gallery—but this legislation is going to fundamentally change the financial reporting of governments and the responsibility that governments have. It is in fact quite a revolutionary reform, along with, need I say it, the other revolutionary reforms that have come out of the Finance and Treasury departments. So I commend this bill to the Senate.12:05:001242Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—Before I start on my formal remarks on the Charter of Budget Honesty Bill 1996 [No. 2] , I want to reply to one of the points raised by the previous speaker, Senator McGauran. He said that this is a revolutionary bill and that it will ensure honest reporting. Of course, it is nothing of the sort and I suggest Senator McGauran consult the bill to see where the accuracy of my comment is and where the error of his might be.There is nothing compulsory about this bill. If this bill becomes law, there will not be a charter of budget honesty that any party in Australia need comply with. It is not enforceable. No court in Australia will enforce it. We moved in this place to put in a provision that the charter of budget honesty be enforceable, and what you are proposing to do by what you are doing now is to remove that provision. You removed it in the House when the bill went back. The bill has now come back here and you want to take that provision out.So let us deal with this cant, this hypocrisy, that this bill will in fact do anything. This is an optional charter of budget honesty. There is nothing compulsory about this. If we wanted to enforce this legislation on the government, should it become law, no court in the land will be able to adjudicate on it because the government does not want them to do so and they are using their numbers to crush that possibility. So let us just get them little apples out there in the clear. This is optional. This is not real. This is a stunt. If it were not a stunt, you would make it compulsory. What have you got to hide? Why won't you do that? You prefer the stunt of course.Can I just say this: we are very disappointed that the government has taken the view it has. This bill was brought to this chamber some months back. This chamber, which is not a chamber dominated by the Labor Party, constructively amended this bill. We put through 10 amendments. The bill went back to the House and the government refused all of them. When I say this is not a chamber dominated by the Labor Party, I mean that the balance of power here is held by Senator Harradine, the Greens and the Democrats. All of us agreed that these changes would improve the bill. The government does not want to accept any of those changes. Who is being intransigent here? Isn't there a middle ground? Couldn't some of them have merit at least? Wouldn't it be a useful thing, for example, to make this compulsory, to give it a standing in law so that it could be enforced? What does it mean if it cannot be enforced? A sham is what it means. But, no, none of those proposals that this Senate put are acceptable and the government is confronting the Senate and accusing the Senate of causing obstruction if the bill is not carried.The second great lie about this legislation is that the Labor Party does not support it. We have supported this legislation in the House and we have supported it here. What we have tried to do, however, is improve it and make it workable—change it from a stunt to something of substance. That is what we have tried to do. Of course the government does not want to hear any of that. It is my intention at the conclusion of my remarks to move an amendment to the second reading, which has been circulated in the chamber.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Calvert)—Senator Cook, you will be foreshadowing an amendment because we already have an amendment moved by Senator Murray.RF4Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOK—If that is the right form, then I foreshadow an amendment. I have seen Senator Murray's amendment, by the way, and I will support that. The Labor Party will support the Australian Democrats on their amendment and I do anticipate they will support us on ours. However, I want to go to the detail of the amendment I intend to move because it does put this whole debate into context.The first part of it is that the charter of budget honesty should be legally binding on governments and not be optional. I have dealt with that in my lead off remarks. This is a sham. This is a fraud. The title `charter of budget honesty' can note something good is happening but if it is not enforceable then you can drive a coach and four through it and it does not matter. This is in the realm of core and non-core promises. We heard from the Prime Minister after the election that he made two types of promises. Only one type would be kept—they were core promises. The non-core promises would not be kept. But he never differentiated between them at the time of the election, so Australian electors did not know.This charter of budget honesty sounds cute, addresses some important principles I have to say, but unless it is enforceable then it has no real meaning. The first point of my amendment is to make it enforceable. The second part of my amendment is to include, among the stated principles of what constitutes sound fiscal management, commitments to achieve full employment in Australia. That should be something that a charter of budget honesty should examine, and it should examine the overall economic prosperity and welfare of the people of Australia and the maintenance or improvement of the real value of wages and conditions and the welfare of workers.Anyone listening to this debate who is familiar with the legislation governing the Reserve Bank of Australia knows that those principles are enshrined in the legislation of the Reserve Bank. The Reserve Bank, which fixes the interest rate level effectively in Australia, is governed by those values. Why can't we put in this bill those exact same values so that when parties make promises at election time those promises can be costed against the achievement of full employment and the overall economic prosperity and welfare of the people of Australia and the maintenance or improvement of the real value of wages and conditions and the welfare of workers? Isn't that reasonable? The Reserve Bank must do it. Why can't the political parties be made to measure up by those standards? The government does not want them to. We do. The government does not want that to be in their charter of budget honesty.The next provision in my amendment seeks to include in the required budget economic and fiscal outlook report an estimate of the net effect of the budget on public saving, private saving and national saving and an independent report by the Commissioner of Taxation and the secretary to Treasury on material threats to the tax base, the size of the fiscal threats and the specific means necessary to counter these threats. Let me take those two ideas together.The biggest problem this nation has is generating a level of national savings, that is, a pool of money owned by Australians, that can be used to invest in the development of this nation. Australia is a net borrower in the world. We do not finance all of our own development. We borrow from overseas to do so. A prime economic goal ought to be to build up a level of national savings so that we can finance our own development and we are not in hock to foreigners.One of the biggest advantages of Labor's great reform on superannuation is that it established a massive pool of national savings which will build up over years in order that Australians can own the farm and buy back the farm. That is something on common ground among most economists in Australia. When we ask the political parties to declare their promises, why can't they say what those promises will do about building up a level of national savings, both private savings and public savings, so that Australia can look forward to a time in which it can finance its own development?The second part of this provision is about tax. This is a major debate in Australia. Threats to the tax base—that is, areas of massive avoidance or evasion of taxes—means that governments increase taxes to compensate for the loss or, if they do not do that, they reduce the services provided by the government to the community, usually important services. We have seen in the last week the stand off between the Prime Minister and the premiers over health. The argument is that the government does not have enough money to provide Australians with a decent health system. The Labor Party will not cop that argument, but that is what the government's argument is.If the tax base is haemorrhaging because there is massive avoidance, why can't we know about that at election time? Which way is it haemorrhaging? What is the nature of those threats and what can be done about it?3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—Family trusts.RF4Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOK—There are two issues of considerable importance immediately. One of them has been mentioned by my colleague Senator Conroy—family trusts. It has been on the news this morning. We know that 19 members of the front bench of the government, 19 ministers, have family trusts, and the purpose of trusts is to minimise the amount of tax you pay. For every dollar a rich person saves on tax a poor person pays it. That is the effect.WW4KEMPSenator Kemp—You did nothing on trusts.RF4Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOK—He says that we did nothing. That is absolutely untrue. We introduced a bill into this parliament to deal with the matter. You referred it to a committee. You stonewalled it and then you brought back a pallid version of that bill. What the tax commissioner tells us is that the amount of resort to family trusts is getting to epidemic proportions and there is a real threat to revenue, that the number of family trusts is growing faster than the number of private companies in Australia. And here is a chance for people who have the income, who can consult the tax accountants and smart lawyers, to arrange their affairs so that they get under the tax-free threshold and not pay tax.Why can't we know about that in your charter of budget honesty, Minister? Why won't you allow that to see the light of day? Let me cite another example of a threat to the revenue—salary repackaging. This is where wealthy people say, `My salary is worth $150,000 a year, but I won't take it as money. Give me a car; put my kids in a private school; give me admission to all these private clubs; give me services in kind which I would like to buy, and reduce the amount of cash in hand I get so that I am down the scale and I pay less tax.' That is, you rearrange it with sharp accountants.Most wage and salary earners in Australia have their tax taken out of their wages every week, or every fortnight, or every month—whichever is the interval of payment for them. They cannot avoid that. So why should the salary repackaging, where people can avoid tax, be allowed? Why can't we honestly see, in this so-called charter of budget honesty, what the effect to the revenue base is of smart manoeuvres that minimise the tax payable by wealthy people in Australia? Why can't we see that, and why won't your government allow that to be in there? Because what you are proposing is to prevent it from being in there. That is exactly what this bill deals with. I have dealt with those three matters, Mr Acting Deputy President.Let me go to point (d) of the amendment:require the Government to improve the transparency of its fiscal reporting by publishing each month a consolidated list of Budget-significant decisions announced in the previous month, quantifying the effect of those decisions over the full forward estimates periodWhat does this mean? When the budget comes out, the government says, `This is the amount of surplus that there will be in the budget. These are the expenditures that we'll outlay funds against, and that's how it is.' Then, as the year rolls by, they make little extra payments here and little grants there and so forth, which alter the bottom line. So what you hear on budget night is one version of the truth; what you see at the end of the budgetary period is what actually happened, and the difference usually is the amount of change that went on through the year.But these things do not often go to the macrostructure of the budget. The government will not admit that its expenditure levels are increasing and it will not say what the causes of those increases are. The effects on the macro-outcomes usually are different. We want these rules applied to us; they should be applied to you as well. All we are saying is: when you do something that changes the bottom line on the budget, then declare it, and do so on a monthly basis. No change? Fine. Some change? Well, let's see what it is so that we know what the macroparameters of this budget are. To shift your funds around otherwise is to present a distorted picture to the community and, importantly in this context, to the money markets as well.Point (e) of the amendment says:require inter-generational fiscal reporting to occur at least every three years rather than five years;Intergenerational fiscal reporting is where we borrow in the future against the costs of today. Therefore, we bill our kids for what we are expending today. Intergenerational reporting is about exposing—H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—You disgraceful hypocrite. That is outrageous.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Calvert)—Order! Senator Campbell, withdraw that remark.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—These guys racked up $100 million worth of debt. How the hell can he come in here and be serious?10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Campbell, resume your seat and withdraw those remarks.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—I withdraw, but the hypocrisy is overwhelming, Mr Acting Deputy President.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—I asked you to withdraw those remarks.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—I withdraw again.RF4Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOK—You can dish it out, but you cannot take it.Senator Ian Campbell interjecting—RF4Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOK—If you want to speak on this bill, Senator, speak on it.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—I am going to interject. I can't stand your hypocrisy.RF4Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOK—No. That is against standing orders and you are in contempt of the chair. So behave yourself, and conduct yourself properly. Try to contain yourself a little, if you would not mind. I know this is uncomfortable for you.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order!RF4Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOK—Mr Acting Deputy President, I have described what intergenerational equity is about. In this bill, the government wants to report on it every five years. That is, they can now launch into their next parliamentary term and they will not have to say a word about this for five years. It ought to be something that is reported on every parliamentary term, so that it has to be reported on by the next election, and the election afterwards, and the election after that. If you hide it by saying that it falls between election periods, then you are hiding a full understanding by the Australian community of what the implications of budgetary decisions are. You cannot have a charter of budget honesty which, between election periods, hides issues of intergenerational equity. Despite Senator Ian Campbell's outburst, his extraordinary behaviour, all we are saying is that we are happy to abide by those rules. We want to see those rules enshrined in a charter of budget honesty; why doesn't the government? What are you trying to hide by not allowing that to occur?H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—It's ironic that you are saying—10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Campbell, would you resume your seat please. You have been interjecting not from your correct place and I would ask you to resume your seat.RF4Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOK—It is disorderly, Mr Acting Deputy President. I know that is a trial, but most of us put up with it. Point (f) says:require responsible secretaries—that is, the heads of the departments—to jointly publicly release a pre-election economic and fiscal outlook report either two years and nine months after the first day of sitting of the House of Representatives following the previous election, or, should writs for an election be issued prior to that date, within five days of the issue of those writs;We are saying here that, for the Australian public to understand what the implications of a budget are, three months before the scheduled time for an election we ought to have a full accounting. The departments should say what their expenditures are and what the outlook is. The outlook is particularly important so that we can get a clear idea, and so Australian voters have a clear understanding, of what the economic future holds for them by the paid bureaucrats of the departments who are bound to objectively report.It is very important that this be in the public domain. In an election campaign, it is often said that the first casualty, as in war, is truth because parties exaggerate claims and counter-claims. All we are saying here is: let us get the facts on the table, and let the bureaucrats who have access to that information put it there. Let the Australian people judge that, so that when they hear the argu ments and counter arguments between political parties, they will be able to say, `Well, hang on. This department said that the outlook for Australia, given the Asian currency crisis, is one per cent less growth than we anticipated, therefore more unemployment. We can then judge what the parties are saying to combat that.'That is a reasonable thing. In any charter of honesty you would do that. But does the government want to do it? No; it does not. It does not want those things to be on the table because it wants to be able to pretend what the circumstances are, not have the umpire say what they are. All we are saying is, `Let the umpire put them down so that the contentions between the major parties can be interpreted by electors on the understanding of what the truth of the situation is.'Item (g) of my amendment—and I see I have only a minute to go; I have three other subclauses to refer to, but I will not make the cut—H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—No, talk about (g); it's the Beazley clause.RF4Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOK—It is to prohibit the Treasurer from interfering in the production of pre-election economic and fiscal outlook report. Let me go to the next one—item (h).H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—Tell us about the Beazley clause.RF4Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOK—You can make your own speech. Item (h) refers to the requirement in the bill that the opposition give to the Prime Minister its election promises, and he decides how many are costed and how many are not. If this bill were fair, we would give them straight to the Treasury Department so that the Prime Minister does not intervene. An opposition has to give the Prime Minister its promises, and he then decides what goes ahead for costing and what does not? And you say this is fair? Why can't we just give them straight to the umpire? Why can't the umpire come back and say what the costs are? Why do we have to go through the Prime Minister? My foreshadowed amendment reads as follows:At the end of the motion, add: "but the Senate is of the view that, while the Bill should proceed in its present form, a Charter of Budget Honesty Act genuinely worth the name would:(a) be legally binding on governments and not optional;(b) include, among the stated principles of sound fiscal management, commitments to achieve full employment in Australia, the overall economic prosperity and welfare of the people of Australia, and the maintenance or improvement of the real value of wages and conditions and the welfare of workers;(c) include, in the required budget economic and fiscal outlook report, an estimate of the net effect of the budget on public saving, private saving and national saving, and an independent report by the Commissioner of Taxation and the Secretary to the Treasury on material threats to the tax base, the size of the fiscal threat and the specific means necessary to counter these threats;(d) require the Government to improve the transparency of its fiscal reporting by publishing each month a consolidated list of Budget-significant decisions announced in the previous month, quantifying the effect of those decisions over the full forward estimates period;(e) require inter-generational fiscal reporting to occur at least every three years rather than five years;(f) require responsible secretaries to jointly publicly release a pre-election economic and fiscal outlook report either two years and nine months after the first day of sitting of the House of Representatives following the previous election, or, should writs for an election be issued prior to that date, within five days of the issue of those writs;(g) prohibit the Treasurer from interfering in the production of the pre-election economic and fiscal outlook report, except for providing requested information;(h) amend the proposed costings regime during the election caretaker period, to remove the necessity for the Leader of the Opposition to send policies through the Prime Minister when requesting a costing from the responsible secretaries, and to remove the discretion of the Prime Minister to refuse to pass requests for costings from the Leader of the Opposition on to the responsible secretaries; and(i) provide the Leader of the Opposition with access to the responsible secretaries for the purpose of costing policies prior to the caretaker period for a general election".(Time expired)12:25:001248Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—We have been treated to one of the most amazing speeches that I have heard in this chamber.Senator Conroy interjecting—WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—It was even worse than Senator Conroy's speech yesterday. Truly, by that measure, that is saying something. Let me make it clear to people who are listening to this debate that you would not believe, from Senator Cook's speech, that he is actually supporting the Charter of Budget Honesty Bill 1996 [No. 2] . Admittedly, the Labor Party had to do a mighty backflip on this issue and, admittedly, they had to change their minds about it. But this bill has come back to the Senate and, despite what people may think, from what the Labor Party people have been saying in this chamber, their leader, Mr Beazley, has indicated that the Labor Party will be supporting it.The reason they are supporting this bill is that they know that out there in the public there is very strong support for a charter of budget honesty bill, and they understand the reasons why this has been brought in. As Senator Cook is still in the chamber—he is about to leave—I point out to him that one of the reasons is, of course, a result of the behaviour of Senator Cook and his colleagues, who were former ministers in the Keating government. In, I think, November 1995 Senator Cook made one of his many famous quotes in this chamber when he forecast that the budget was in surplus and would continue in surplus. Of course, in less polite society and in a less august chamber there is a word for the type of comment that Senator Cook made, but I will say that what Senator Cook said was untrue, and it was proved to be untrue.When we were looking through the pious amendments that Senator Cook is seeking to move, my colleague Senator Ian Campbell quite rightly got very upset at the hypocrisy, as he saw it, in all the amendments and particularly in amendment (g), which reads:(g) prohibit the Treasurer from interfering in the production of the pre-election economic and fiscal outlook report, except for providing requested information;Those who can cast their minds back to the last election will remember Mr Beazley, the current leader of the Labor Party, giving assurances to the public that the budget was in surplus. He was unable to give us the latest figures, but he gave us those assurances. However, two days after the election, on the Monday, the Treasury was able to inform the incoming government of a massive black hole that had been left by the Labor Party. That was the $10.3 billion black hole which the fiscal mismanagement of the Keating-Beazley government had created. That was the genesis of the Charter of Budget Honesty Bill.We said that no government should be allowed to pull the stunt—a disgraceful, dishonest stunt—that was pulled by the Keating-Beazley government prior to the last election, pretending that their budget was in surplus when in fact the budget was in massive deficit. As a consequence, we indicated that there would be a charter of budget honesty bill which would do quite a number of things but, among other things, it would make it very clear what the fiscal position of the country is before an election.So there has been very wide support for this bill. We welcome the comments by Senator Murray, who has qualifications. We do not agree with him on those qualifications. But Senator Murray of the Democrats indicated in his remarks that he saw this as a very big step forward, and he is dead right in that respect. That is precisely what this is.As I said, this is a very important bill. It is a bill widely welcomed by the public. It is a bill which was promised by the Howard government in the pre-election phase and it will now be passed by the Senate within, hopefully, a comparatively short period of time, largely as a result of the fact that the Labor Party has backed down on their amendments.Senator Cook made it very clear in his remarks that he was a bit concerned about tax avoidance, as indeed we all are. But, of course, one of the reasons why there has been concern about tax avoidance was the very lax administration of the previous Keating government and the holes that it left in tax law. I was amused to hear Senator Cook indicate that he was particularly concerned about certain measures on tax avoidance. If we hark back, we will remember that it was Senator Cook himself who, when we tried to close major tax loopholes like the R&D syndicates, led the attack and encouraged the Labor Party to vote against what the coalition was doing. If Senator Cook had had his way, a major hole would have been left within the tax law of this country on syndicates.Then Senator Cook was concerned about whether the wealthy were paying their fair share of tax. We well remember the campaign led by Senator Cook and Senator Nick Sherry to try to prevent the superannuation surcharge from being passed by this Senate. It was a very inglorious period for the Labor Party, out of a lot of self-interest on their part it has to be said, in their campaign to prevent the surcharge from coming in. So for the Labor Party to get up and pretend that they are serious about closing loopholes in the tax system when we review their record in government and out of government is a gross hypocrisy.The Charter of Budget Honesty Bill is a major structural reform in the way this country presents and runs its fiscal policy. As I said, the bill fulfils an election promise made by this government to make sure that the Australian accounts are presented in a fair and honest manner and to enshrine in legislation a requirement which will govern this government and any future government as to the way in which they present and improve their fiscal performance. No government will be able to do the sort of gross cheating that the Labor Party got up to before the last election and which was exposed within 48 hours of the Howard government coming to office. This kind of reform will be a permanent feature in making sure that Australian economic policies run better, in making sure that the public is kept better informed and in making sure that there is transparency in the economic policy of this country.This is the same bill that was introduced into the House of Representatives on 11 December 1996 and passed by the House of Representatives on 10 February 1997. On 28 October 1997, the Senate passed the bill with 10 amendments. These amendments were unnecessary and made aspects of the bill unworkable. I will not go through the arguments on those amendments, but let me make it clear that those people who are interested in this debate should refer to those earlier copies of the Hansard to see the pathetic way the Labor Party attempted to deal with this bill. As on a number of other issues, such as work for the dole, we have seen a very inglorious backflip as their hypocrisy has been exposed. Make no mistake: the Labor Party's intention was to make this bill unworkable. They knew the government could not and would not accept the amendments they moved. As a result of the government's determination and as a result of public support, the Labor Party has had to back down.The bill will reform fiscal policy formulation through introducing principles for sound management of fiscal policy against which governments must develop their fiscal strategy. These principles will focus attention on a range of issues that must be addressed if fiscal policy is to be sustainable over time. The charter of budget honesty will also ensure that up-to-date information is available so that the government's performance can be assessed against its fiscal objectives. To achieve this, the bill establishes a formal reporting structure. With each year's budget, a report will be released setting out the economic and fiscal projections for the budget year and three forward years. These projections will illustrate the consequences of the adopted fiscal strategy.A further report released midway through the financial year will update the fiscal and economic projections contained in the budget report. The details of fiscal outcomes for the just completed financial year will be presented in a report to be released within three months of the end of that financial year. In addition, an intergenerational report will be produced every five years to report on the long-term sustainability of the current fiscal policies.It was amusing to listen to all of Senator Cook's comments about the need to reform the fiscal reporting of this country and to note how little the opposition did during their term in office on that.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—You're not serious.WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—The Keating government will be remembered for attempting to cover up, Senator Conroy, the fiscal position of this nation. Senator Conroy, as you and I know, the sooner those Keating ministers like Senator Cook get off that front bench and space is made for people who have clean hands on this issue the better for the Labor Party. The Labor Party is in a very sorry shape in Victoria, and rightly so, but at least they have recognised that the former ministers had to go. The federal Labor Party has not made that decision and that is why you have people like Senator Cook still on the front bench.Senator Conroy interjecting—WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—I know this embarrasses you, Senator Conroy, because you fully agree with me. I know you fully agree with me. Your pathetic protesting will not fool anyone on that issue.Senator Conroy interjecting—WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—Senator Conroy, you just wait for the big one. The Labor Party, as you and your colleagues know, is history in that state. But at least, and let me make it clear, Senator Conroy, they have purged the failed ministers from their front bench. That is a decision that the federal Labor Party needs to make, particularly in relation to Senator Cook. The bill will provide a strong impetus towards achieving better fiscal outcomes by providing greater discipline in policy formulation, regular statements of fiscal objectives and increased accountability for fiscal performance. I commend the bill to the Senate.Amendment (Senator Murray's) agreed to.Amendment (by Senator Cook) proposed:At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate is of the view that, while the Bill should proceed in its present form, a Charter of Budget Honesty Act genuinely worth the name would: (a) be legally binding on governments and not optional;(b) include, among the stated principles of sound fiscal management, commitments to achieve full employment in Australia, the overall economic prosperity and welfare of the people of Australia, and the maintenance or improvement of the real value of wages and conditions and the welfare of workers;(c) include, in the required budget economic and fiscal outlook report, an estimate of the net effect of the budget on public saving, private saving and national saving, and an independent report by the Commissioner of Taxation and the Secretary to the Treasury on material threats to the tax base, the size of the fiscal threat and the specific means necessary to counter these threats;(d) require the Government to improve the transparency of its fiscal reporting by publishing each month a consolidated list of Budget-significant decisions announced in the previous month, quantifying the effect of those decisions over the full forward estimates period;(e) require inter-generational fiscal reporting to occur at least every three years rather than five years;(f) require responsible secretaries to jointly publicly release a pre-election economic and fiscal outlook report either two years and nine months after the first day of sitting of the House of Representatives following the previous election, or, should writs for an election be issued prior to that date, within five days of the issue of those writs;(g) prohibit the Treasurer from interfering in the production of the pre-election economic and fiscal outlook report, except for providing requested information;(h) amend the proposed costings regime during the election caretaker period, to remove the necessity for the Leader of the Opposition to send policies through the Prime Minister when requesting a costing from the responsible secretaries, and to remove the discretion of the Prime Minister to refuse to pass requests for costings from the Leader of the Opposition on to the responsible secretaries; and(i) provide the Leader of the Opposition with access to the responsible secretaries for the purpose of costing policies prior to the caretaker period for a general election". Question put:12:38:00The Senate divided. (The Acting Deputy President—Senator J.P. McKiernan)34Allison, L. Bartlett, A. J. J.Bishop, M. Bolkus, N.Bourne, V. Brown, B.Carr, K. Collins, J. M. A.Colston, M. A. Conroy, S.*Cook, P. F. S. Cooney, B.Crowley, R. A. Denman, K. J.Faulkner, J. P. Forshaw, M. G.Gibbs, B. Harradine, B.Hogg, J. Lees, M. H.Lundy, K. Mackay, S.McKiernan, J. P. Murray, A.Neal, B. J. O'Brien, K. W. K.Quirke, J. A. Ray, R. F.Reynolds, M. Schacht, C. C.Sherry, N. Stott Despoja, N.West, S. M. Woodley, J.33Abetz, E. Alston, R. K. R.Boswell, R. L. D. Brownhill, D. G. C.Calvert, P. H. Campbell, I. G.Chapman, H. G. P. Coonan, H.Crane, W. Eggleston, A.Ellison, C. Ferguson, A. B.Ferris, J. Heffernan, W.Herron, J. Hill, R. M.Kemp, R. Knowles, S. C.Lightfoot, P. R. Macdonald, S.McGauran, J. J. J. Minchin, N. H.Newman, J. M. O'Chee, W. G.*Parer, W. R. Patterson, K. C. L.Payne, M. A.Reid, M. E.Synon, K. M. Tambling, G. E. J.Tierney, J. Troeth, J.Vanstone, A. E.Collins, R. L. Gibson, B. F.Campbell, G. Macdonald, I.Murphy, S. M. Watson, J. O. W.Evans, C. V. MacGibbon, D. J.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.Original question, as amended, agreed to.Bill read a second time.Matters of Public Interest1251125112:45:001251Synon, Sen KarenSenator SYNONFQ6VICLP10—I stand here today to speak on a matter which has long been of interest to the Senate, to those in the other place and to many of my fellow Australians—the matter of Tibet, human rights in that country and the rule of law. The Australian parliament has a long history of acknowledging allegations of human rights violations in Tibet. This parliament has called on China to respond constructively to discussions with Tibet's spiritual and temporal leader, the Dalai Lama, and to address the issue of allegations of human rights abuse in Tibet.I stand here today in recognition that we live in a country in which our rights as individuals are recognised and respected. I stand in recognition that as Australians we have a duty to assist people elsewhere to receive similar recognition of their rights and dignity, and to assist people elsewhere in the exercise of their right to self-determination. For many years, I have watched the oppression of the Tibetan people and the suppression of their culture. I have watched as democracies around the world have passed and implemented significant initiatives in support of the people of Tibet. I am proud to publicly support that movement in championing the Tibetan people, their culture, their language and their identity.One of the most influential bodies which has been involved in and concerned by developments in Tibet for nearly four decades is the much respected International Commission of Jurists. The commission is made up of 45 leading judges and lawyers from around the world. In 1959, the International Commission of Jurists published a report called The question of Tibet and the rule of law. This report examined Chinese policy in Tibet, violations of human rights in that country and the position of Tibet in international law. The report found that:. . . almost all the rights which together allow the full and legitimate expression of human personality appear to be denied to the Tibetans . . . on the basis of the available evidence it would seem difficult to recall a case in which ruthless suppres sion of man's essential dignity has been more systematically and efficiently carried out.In the following years, the ICJ published further reports detailing evidence relating to genocide in Tibet and finding that acts of genocide had been committed in Tibet in an attempt to destroy the Tibetans as a religious group. The ICJ also found widespread violations of numerous civil and political, as well as economic and social, rights.The United Nations, like many individual countries, also expressed concern during those years about the continued ill-treatment of the Tibetan people. The UN called many times for China to ensure respect for the fundamental human rights of the Tibetan people and for their distinctive cultural and religious life. In 1961, the UN General Assembly called on China to cease `practices which deprive the Tibetan people of their fundamental human rights and freedoms including their right to self-determination'. This call was repeated again in 1965. Yet the situation of the Tibetan people deteriorated further.During the Cultural Revolution in China, every aspect of Tibetan culture came under attack. By 1976, Tibet's cultural and religious heritage was decimated, as were almost all of its thousands of monasteries. Hundreds of thousands of Tibetans had been killed. More recently, the Sub-Commission on the Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities of the UN Commission on Human Rights expressed concern at `the continuing reports of violations of fundamental human rights and freedoms which threaten the distinct cultural, religious and national identity of the Tibetan people'.In response in 1991, the International Commission of Jurists decided to conduct an up-to-date study of the situation of the rule of law and human rights in Tibet. The report Tibet: Human rights and the rule of law, published last December, is a result of that study. It notes the intensification of repression in Tibet since 1996, focusing particularly on the re-education drive in the monasteries, arrests of leading religious figures and the ban on photographs of the Dalai Lama. It also examines increasing threats to aspects of Tibetan identity and culture through colonis ation, the erosion of the Tibetan language and the degradation of Tibet's environment.The report describes the Tibetan people as a people under alien subjugation, entitled under international law to the right of self-determination. Many policies erode, or threaten to erode, the distinctive elements of Tibetan identity and culture. These are outlined in the report of the ICJ. They include the fact that systematic population transfer from China to Tibet has ensured that Chinese people now account for approximately one-third of the total population of all areas with Tibetan autonomous status. Tibetans have become a minority in their own land.The report also noted the undermining of Tibet's cultural heritage through the destruction of over 6,000 Tibetan monasteries, the restriction of cultural activities and the blatant assimilation policy, as well as the erosion of the Tibetan language—an issue intricately bound with identity, communication and education. Chinese language dominates education—an issue to which I shall return—and it dominates commerce and administration. In so doing it marginalises Tibetan as a language and the Tibetans as a people. Finally, the report also noted the environmental degradation and the resource exploitation which have destroyed most of Tibet's wildlife and seen much of its forests cut, hills eroded and the threat of flooding magnified. As a direct consequence, the long-term viability of Tibetan civilisation is threatened.Education—obviously a key factor in the propagation of a people's culture and identity—is also severely restricted. The United Nations Covenant on the Rights of the Child, of which China is a signatory, safeguards the right of a child to education, the development of the child's cultural identity, language and values, the minority rights of culture, religion and language, and the right not to be subjected to torture or other cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment.However, in direct contravention of this, some recent evidence suggests that many Tibetan children receive no education and the Tibetan language is being phased out of schooling and students are forbidden to worship the Dalai Lama, to visit a temple, to eat Tibetan food or to read material written in Tibetan. I note that there are many Australian school children in the gallery today. I ask how we would feel if they were forbidden to eat Australian food or to talk in English. Children are further promised money to report their parents if they talk about subjects relating to Tibetan culture, history or religion—obviously very divisive—and children often suffer brutal punishment in schools.Not only will Tibet's unique and special culture die if its children are not taught about it but the current system also prevents Tibetan children attaining a sufficient standard of education to participate fully in their community. This also decreases their chances of employment. Tibet's very survival is threatened. These are merely the policies which are subsuming Tibetan culture and identity, not the abhorrent breaches of political and religious rights perpetrated in Tibet and which have been well documented for over nearly 40 years.In 1948 Australia was one of the first members of the United Nations to vote for the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Since that time it has been a party to several declarations and conventions which reinforce that declaration. One of the most important of these is the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. This covenant stipulates that people have a right to, among other things: their own language and religion; participation in public affairs; freedom of expression and opinion; freedom from arbitrary arrest, detention or exile; freedom of association and assembly; a fair trial and equal treatment with others under the law; freedom from cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment; and life, liberty and the security of person.These rights, which we as Australians recognise and take for granted, are denied to the Tibetan people by a totalitarian regime. In particular: those in detention, as documented by groups like the Australia Tibet Council and Amnesty International, are often subject to torture and ill treatment; the death penalty may be imposed without due process or fair trial; restrictions on freedom of speech are rife and re-education is even monitored by neigh bourhood committees; freedom of religion has been inhibited by the destruction of monasteries, subjugation of monastic orders and the severe curtailing of religious teaching; the forced sterilisation of thousands of Tibetan women, the forced abortions and the imposition of fines ensure that Tibetan families are restricted to having only one child; since 1949, 1.2 million Tibetans have been killed; and the Tibetan people are clearly unable to exercise their entitlement under international law to self-determination.The history of human rights in Tibet is disgraceful. I stand here, as others have stood before me, to highlight the situation in Tibet and to call for the reaffirmation that human rights are both universal and indivisible. The Tibetan people are entitled to a constructive engagement on the issue of human rights in their country, a restoration of an atmosphere of trust and reconciliation between their leader in exile, the Dalai Lama, and the People's Republic of China, and the right of religious freedom and the release of all political and religious prisoners of conscience in Tibet. Together we must work towards a common goal—a goal that human rights abuses are eradicated around the world and that individual's rights are protected. The Tibetan people have suffered brutal treatment in their own country. Their human rights must be upheld.125312:58:001253Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—Today I wish to speak on how Senator Parer, the millionaire coal minister, turned a 44c investment in QCMM(ESP) Pty Ltd into a golden nest egg of $56,300 in the space of a couple of years. Many people may ask: how was this possible? How does one turn 44c into $56,300 in a couple of years when it can take a lifetime of work for ordinary Australians to save enough through their superannuation to have a semblance of a decent retirement income?When it comes to Senator Parer, though, all you need is some slick Sydney accountants, some wealthy Queensland mates and lots of money. Combine this with an abject abuse of the taxation system and you can, as Senator Parer has, turn 44c into a magical $56,300. Just as a point of comparison, it would take the ordinary person, if you assume a compound rate of 10 per cent, just over 120 years to turn 44c into Senator Parer's $56,300.We know this is just an impossibility, but not if you are a millionaire coal minister. So how did Senator Parer manage to achieve such spectacular gains? What contribution did Senator Parer make to the management and running of QCMM(ESP) Pty Ltd that added such amazing value to his 44c one cent shares he holds in QCMM(ESP) Pty Ltd? The answer is nothing other than some paper and money shuffling between companies that Senator Parer held shares in.Senator Parer first struck the big time in April 1994. It was during this month that Senator Parer first had allocated to him 12 one cent employee class shares in QCMM(ESP) Pty Ltd. Along with six other supposed employees of QCMM(ESP) Pty Ltd a total of 1,000 employee class shares were allocated for a total outlay of just $10 or one cent per share. On the very same day, each of the holders of these 1,000 one cent shares had their respective employee contribution accounts credited with $1,000 for every one cent share held. Hence Senator Parer, for just a 12c investment, on the very same day became entitled to $12,000.That is not a bad lurk one would say and one Senator Parer was happy to engage in along with his wealthy mates. But it gets better. We know that since that magic day in April 1994 Senator Parer received a further 32 one cent shares to give him a total of 44 one cent shares now worth $56,300. We also know that contributions to QCMM(ESP) Pty Ltd ceased in 1995, according to Senator Parer's own statement.In the space of just over a year a 44c investment in QCMM(ESP) Pty Ltd became worth $56,300. Not a bad return some may say. It would be if it were not for the fact that it was a tax rort. Senator Parer quite happily rorted the tax system and used it to enrich himself. Why? Because he could.EU4O'CHEESenator O'Chee—Mr Acting Deputy President, I raise a point of order. It is quite clearly improper to accuse an honourable senator of rorting the tax system. Senator Cook has done this deliberately and I ask that you ask him to withdraw it.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator McKiernan)—Senator Cook, I think that term is unparliamentary and I ask you to withdraw it.RF4Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOK—I withdraw the term on your advice, Mr Acting Deputy President, and substitute tax manipulation. Why did he engage in tax manipulation to enrich himself? Because he could. It is obvious that his $2 million worth of coal shares, which he conveniently forgot to disclose, were simply not enough, he wanted more. How best to achieve this but bring together some wealthy mates and manipulate the tax system. In for a penny in for a pound, as you would say.Let us have a look at how this complex tax manipulation works. In order to qualify for employee shares in QCMM(ESP) Pty Ltd one would assume that you must be some type of employee. As Senator Parer said himself, ESP stands for employee share plan and not extra sensory perception. Although, it is obvious that Senator Parer had the powers of ESP as he was able to foresee how much his 44c investment would soon be worth.What we have here is the moonlighting Senator Parer masquerading as some type of bona fide employee of QCMM(ESP) Pty Ltd in order to qualify for the company's very generous employee share plan. In fact, Senator Parer was a director of QCMM(ESP) Pty Ltd and the employee share plan was an exclusive club for him and six other directors. How else does a $10 investment entitle them to a $1 million payout on the same day?Let us not forget that this was just the first of many allocations because as we know Senator Parer has 44 one cent shares in QCMM(ESP) Pty Ltd. This still leaves the question of how the $1 million in QCMM(ESP) Pty Ltd became available to the owners of the 1,000 employee class shares who had invested just $10, of which Senator Parer invested just 12c? This is where the manipulation really comes in.If we look at the latest ASC return for QCMM(ESP) Pty Ltd we see that it has issued a total of 3,683 UNC employer class shares at $1 each but that it has a balance in its share premium account of just on $2.7 million. This means the owners of the 3,683 UNC employer class shares paid a premium for these shares of $2.7 million. This is very significant because it is this $2.7 million that forms the asset base of QCMM(ESP) Pty Ltd in which Senator Parer has a $56,300 interest based on his 44c investment in QCMM(ESP) Pty Ltd.It is important then to look at the owners of these 3,683 UNC employer class shares. A quick look at the annual return of that company reveals that Advance Queensland Resources and Mining Pty Ltd owns 2,350, QCMM Pty Ltd owns 570 and Tremell Pty Ltd owns 763. As we also know, Advance Queensland Resources is a fully owned subsidiary of QCMM Pty Ltd and that Tremell in turn is 51 per cent owned by QCMM Pty Ltd.What we see here is a nice little cosy arrangement between Senator Parer and his web of companies that has given life to this nice little tax manipulation. The best part of that is that the $2.7 million sitting in the share premium account of QCMM(ESP) Pty Ltd was in fact a tax deduction for all of the companies involved. We know that on that magic day in April 1994 when Senator Parer turned 12c into $12,000 Advance Queensland Resources and Mining Pty Ltd paid QCMM(ESP) Pty Ltd $1 million for 1,000 UNC employer class shares. This was comprised of $1 for each of the employer class shares accompanied by a $999 premium per share thus giving QCMM(ESP) Pty Ltd its capital base of $1 million.The beauty of it was that this $1 million was fully tax deductible to Advance Queensland Resources and Mining Pty Ltd, which is fully owned by QCMM Pty Ltd. In fact, the entire share premium balance in the accounts of QCMM(ESP) Pty Ltd of $2.7 million was fully deductible to the owners of the 3,683 UNC employer class shares. At the centre of this tax web is the $2 million man and the minister for coal, Senator Parer. All the companies that perpetuated this tax manipulation—QCMM Pty Ltd, Advance Queensland Resources and Mining Pty Ltd and Tremell Pty Ltd, through the purchase of 3,683 UNC employer class shares in QCMM(ESP) Pty Ltd at a total cost of $2.7 million—did so under the guidance and instruction of Senator Parer and his wealthy mates.Who was the director of QCMM(ESP) Pty Ltd when 1,000 employee shares worth $10 on the same day became worth $1 million? It was Senator Parer. Who was the director of Advance Queensland Resources and Mining Pty Ltd when the decision was made to acquire $1 million worth of UNC employer class shares in QCMM(ESP) Pty Ltd? It was Senator Parer. Who was the director of QCMM Pty Ltd when the decision was made to acquire 570 UNC employer class shares in QCMM(ESP) Pty Ltd? It was Senator Parer. In essence, all tax avoidance roads lead to Senator Parer. That is basically how Senator Parer turned 44c into $56,300.Some other issues need to canvassed in this tax manipulation saga. On what basis and how was it decided that Advance Queensland Resources would purchase $1 million worth of tax deductible employer class shares in QCMM(ESP) Pty Ltd? What did Advance Queensland get in return for this substantial transfer of money out of its coffers and into Senator Parer's and his six fellow directors' pockets?Was an independent assessment carried out to determine whether the $1 million transfer was a suitable purchase or was it made purely for tax purposes? Did Advance Queensland seek an opinion from the Australian Taxation Office as to the bona fide arrangement regarding the purchase of one million employer class shares in QCMM(ESP) Pty Ltd? Did Senator Parer have to actively engage in work for the companies that purchased the UNC employer class shares in QCMM(ESP) Pty Ltd in order to qualify for his $56,300 worth of employee class shares for which he paid only 44c?Lastly, let us look at Senator Parer's comments that QCMM(ESP) Pty Ltd was in fact a superannuation type company. There was no doubt that it was a very generous and exclusive superannuation type company for Senator Parer and his six mates. How many battlers are able to invest $10 in the morning and be entitled to $1 million in the afternoon? None at all. Yet this government has ensured that the minuscule superannuation savings of battlers must now be included in determining their entitlement to social security benefits. Yet it is okay for the $2 million coal minister to turn 44c into $56,300 and the government to put this down to being a successful business man when in fact it is tax manipulation.One may question why Senator Parer even needed to be in a superannuation type company when he is obviously a member of the parliamentary superannuation scheme. Senator Parer entered the Senate in 1985. When he was allocated his initial 12 one cent shares in QCMM(ESP) Pty Ltd in April 1994 he had been in the Senate for nine years and had therefore qualified for a parliamentary super pension. Given his re-endorsement, you would expect that Senator Parer would possibly be in the Senate until 2005 or in total 20 years. This 20 years would be comprised of two years as a minister and the balance as a backbencher. We know that he will be a minister for two years because we know that as soon as the poll driven Prime Minister (Mr Howard) sees the results of the Liberal Party focus groups Senator Parer will be left out to dry.Here we have Senator Parer looking at receiving a parliamentary pension equivalent of 80 per cent of an MP's salary or probably just on $65,000 a year plus his $2 million coal investment plus his $56,300 in QCMM(ESP) Pty Ltd employee shares, for which he paid only 44 cents. Why then did Senator Parer need an employee share plan in QCMM(ESP) Pty Ltd when he had one through his parliamentary superannuation scheme? The answer is that it was tax manipulation and Senator Parer could not help himself but take part.We saw the other day the plethora of government ministers and backbenchers who actively engage in income splitting and tax avoidance through their family trusts. Senator Parer has proved that he is no different. He is just another member of what is the wealthy ruling elite with its snout in the tax trough paid for at the expense of ordinary Australian PAYE workers.Finally, I would note Senator Parer's comments that QCMM(ESP) Pty Ltd stopped receiving contributions in 1995. Why was this so? Because the Labor Treasurer Ralph Willis closed down this manipulation in 1995 against a torrent of protests from the then Liberal opposition. Treasurer Willis said at the time in a press release:The new taxation arrangements will serve to achieve our objective of removing the previously unlimited tax deferral opportunities for higher income earners.This is exactly what Senator Parer was engaged in. If it was not for Labor's tax reform, no doubt Senator Parer would still be accumulating those extraordinarily generous employee shares in QCMM(ESP) Pty Ltd paid for by ordinary taxpayers.125613:13:001256Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—I rise in this debate on matters of public importance to discuss the issue of young people and unemployment and refer in particular to a report that was released by the Dusseldorp Skills Forum last Friday entitled Australia's Youth: Reality and Risk . I wish to highlight the increasingly desperate plight of a growing proportion of Australia's young people. Despite years of promises and expansive statements by governments of both persuasions, little has eventuated in the form of real relief for the suffering many young people are experiencing.It is the sad truth that the road to this hell has been paved with good intentions. I note in an address to ACOSS in 1995 that the Prime Minister, John Howard, said to those gathered:All Australians should have access to an adequate income, affordable housing, quality health care and a level of education that enables them to fully achieve their potential.I am sure that most members in this place and, of course, the Australian Democrats could not agree more with these particular goals. Yet this government has failed to match its rhetoric with any real action to achieve them. It has brought Australia to a current situation where Australia's young people have shown to be suffering more than ever before.I refer in particular to the release of quite a comprehensive report by the Dusseldorp Skills Forum last Friday entitled Australia's Youth: Reality and Risk. I know that I and other politicians in this place on all sides of the political spectrum were briefed on this report prior to its release. I think we are still awaiting a formal response or statement from government and perhaps from the opposition on some of the findings in this report. It is a comprehensive report dealing with the manifold ways in which young people lack opportunities—a failing on the part of society, contributed to by this government through its cutting back on education, training and employment opportunities for young Australians.Figures released by the Australian Bureau of Statistics last week show that youth unemployment is still at an unacceptably high level of 26 per cent and that regional unemployment continues to rise. The report by the Dusseldorp Skills Forum reveals that almost 15 per cent of all 15- to 19-year-olds are not in full-time education or work—a proportion that has actually increased during the past decade.The report does paint a rather bleak picture for the prospects of young people. In 1996 the number of unemployed 15- to 19-year-olds stood at 78,200. At the start of this year that number had risen to 88,500. In 1996, there were 67,800 15- to 19-year-olds in part-time work. By the start of this year the figure had risen to 78,900. We have discussed many times in this place the increasingly casualised nature of the work force. Where jobs have been created they are usually part-time or casual positions. We are really failing to address the issue of the provision of long-term, sustainable and meaningful jobs not just for young people but for people generally in our society.The report tabled on Friday raises an even more worrying issue—that is, the number of young people who are simply not reflected in the official figures. We are conscious that the official rate is 26 per cent—and we all condemn that figure as unacceptably high—but more worrying are the number who are not considered in that estimate. The report estimates that as many as 25,000 young people have simply fallen through the holes in our social infrastructure. For every young person seeking work there is at least one other who is not counted in the official statistics.We know that young people often find themselves disempowered or disenfranchised. Unlike previous generations, represented by many colleagues in this place, young people lack many of the opportunities afforded to the majority of Australians a decade ago. I do not underestimate some of the difficulties that confronted previous generations in many forms, but I think we have to accept that we have a radically different and restructured work force, for a number of reasons, and that youth unemployment is at almost unprecedented levels.As the report states, young people face numerous challenges in their transition to adulthood and the spectre of unemployment looms large in frustrating many of their efforts to meet these. From completing education to leaving home and developing stable relationships, young people rely on finding long-term, meaningful employment to enable them to fulfil their potential. Yet the policies that have been implemented by this government in particular have prevented many young people doing just this. Instead of providing access to high quality education, we know that this government has cut funding to many of our education and training institutions—that is, at the primary, secondary and tertiary education levels. These cuts have directly advanced those already advantaged members of our society and usually, if not undoubtedly, at the expense of those who most need assistance. I have spoken many times in this place of the adverse impact that cuts to operating grants for universities have both on quality and access and equity. Certainly my colleague Senator Lyn Allison has spoken many times of her concerns and our party's concerns in the relation to the cuts to public education at the primary and secondary level. Cuts in training programs and apprenticeships have also compounded this attack on access to skills development and education. We know that the key to a successful, an educated, a skilled and a competitive work force now and in the future will be effective education and training opportunities for all Australians, because education is increasingly a lifelong pursuit, as well as specifically for young Australians. I note we have three opportunities over the coming days in this place to address some of the changes that have been made to apprenticeships and traineeships in relation to cuts to the craft schemes. I think the opposition parties will seek to prevent the government making changes to the employer subsidy in relation to full-time apprenticeships.There are also the recent changes to the common youth allowance which will affect especially lower middle income families, but which will again increase the financial burden and other burdens on families and reduce opportunities for many young people who are not in full-time employment, education and training.Since coming to power, this government has been engaged in a sustained attack upon young people. As if the common youth allowance was not bad enough, young people must now contend with the imminent commencement of the new Job Network scheme. I say `imminent commencement' but I am just wondering exactly how many of the operators and providers will be up and running by 1 May with the necessary social infrastructure, support base and community links that they will need, if they are to tackle the seemingly intractable problem of unemployment and youth unemployment in particular.Under the scheme, young people stand to be further disempowered in their search for employment and opportunities to fulfil their potential. Large numbers of young people will not be eligible for the common youth allowance, for example, because their parents earn more than the threshold at which the parental income means test kicks in—and at around $23,400 it is not even average weekly earnings; it is an extraordinarily low threshold at which to begin kicking-in for a parental means test. Those people will be either barred or have their payments reduced as a result of that parental means testing arrangement. These people will also find themselves barred from receiving real assistance from employment services providers.The Dusseldorp Skills Forum report presents a number of proposals worthy of consideration and I commend them to this chamber. They include: prioritising marginalised young people, including those outside the labour market and those in part-time work, as well as those who are unemployed; recognising the need to better address the needs of early school leavers; placing a stronger emphasis on demand side policies in the labour market; reforming secondary education; and reforming vocational training to better address the needs of young people.I have been rather concerned by the response to this report from both sides of politics, because many of the recommendations to which I have just referred are shared by people in this place. I see Senator Amanda Vanstone, who has talked many times about the need for reform in secondary education and about the need to match, in many cases, the education that we provide at a secondary level to the needs of not only the work force, but of young people, so that we cater more broadly and more diversely for the needs of young people in secondary education. So there is common ground on a number of these recommendations.However, I noted the response of Dr Kemp, the minister responsible, to this report. It was that it was all Labor's fault. Labor's response, from their youth and education spokesperson, was that it was Dr Kemp's fault. Despite the fact that this is not really an issue about simply affording blame, no-one was prepared to accept that there were very real problems and very necessary recommendations in this report that required some response—even just a willingness to suggest, yes, this is a devastating problem and we will at least make some attempt to address the issues contained in the report. Rather than getting down to finding those solutions to the problem the report identified, both the old parties were engaged in a protracted buckpassing exercise. This political point scoring went no way to addressing some of the challenges in the labour market and the new challenges which may face young people and, of course, their families.It is time for all politicians—all of us—to recognise that young people have enormous potential and should be given opportunities to realise this. Instead, young people are increasingly finding themselves blamed for the predicament in which they find themselves—for the lack of opportunities with which they are presented, and most often in an environment which serves only to disenfranchise or alienate them further.It is little wonder that a Victorian education report came out about three weeks ago which suggests that young people's trust of politicians or their elected representatives is at an all-time low. I believe six per cent of young people trust us. It is no wonder that they feel so cynical and disillusioned when one report, perhaps the most comprehensive report in the last couple of years into the issues facing young Australians, has been met with such a disappointing and despondent response.125913:25:001259O'Chee, Sen BillSenator O'CHEEEU4QLDNP10—Today is a day of interesting coincidences because I had in fact been planning to give an address today on the Grafton meatworks and I will do that. But it is interesting because the sale of the meatworks was announced today by the local state member, Mr Harry Woods, in New South Wales. It is interesting because Mr Woods did not announce the sale price for the meatworks.Why is this matter of interest and why should it be of interest to the parliament of this country? Let me explain the problem which is faced. The meatworks at Grafton has been operated by a company called R.J.Gilbertson (Queensland) Pty Ltd and is part of a group of companies called the Gilbertson group. There was another company involved at the meatworks, a company called Giltech Pty Ltd, which employed about 50 people. For some period of time, these two companies had been part of a group of companies controlled by the Gilbertson family, which operated in the meat industry.On 7 October last year, administrators were appointed under the Corporations Law to both R.J. Gilbertson (Queensland) Pty Ltd and Giltech Pty Ltd, and those administrators were Mr G.J. Kelly and Mr S.L. Horne of Clark and Co., who are chartered accountants in Melbourne.Prior to this happening, a very peculiar thing occurred. Remember that the appointment of these administrators was on 7 October 1997. I am reliably informed that on 27 June 1997, two cheques were drawn in favour of other companies in the group from the accounts of one or other of these companies. One cheque was in the amount of $4,611,908.21. Another cheque, drawn on the same day, was in the amount of $1,233,981.96. These two payments alone total $5,845,890.17. Why, you may ask, were two cheques drawn on the same day to related companies in these massive amounts? I will get back to that. What is important to know is that the payments occurred at a time when the directors knew that these companies were probably insolvent. They certainly occurred within six months prior to the appointment of those administrators, which, as honourable senators will recall, occurred on 7 October 1997.The administrators had to prepare a report for creditors. They prepared that report and presented that report to creditors, and that was dated 21 October last year. So they prepared the report within 14 days, and that was presented to a meeting of creditors of that company on 31 October last year.The report is quite interesting because one of the obligations of the administrators is to investigate whether there have been any preferential payments, which are also called voidable dispositions. This is where a payment has been made to somebody who knows that the company which is making the payment is unable to meet its debts, and the payment has happened within the six months prior to the appointment of an administrator. It has the effect of giving the person who receives the payment a preference or an advantage over other people who are owed money by the company. Mr Stirling Horne of Clark and Co. cited section 588FA of the Corporations Law, and this is what he said about unfair preferences in his report:This section of the Corporations Law provides for the recovery by a Liquidator of payments made by RJGQ to its creditors in the event that the company is wound up. Transactions that may be investigated are those made in the six months immediately prior to the commencement of the winding up which would be the date of the Administrator's appointment in this case.A review of the creditors balances does not indicate any creditors received payment of their accounts ahead of other creditors.All purchases and payments appear to have been made in the normal course of business with no suppliers threatening legal action. In the two weeks, prior to the appointment of Administrators I understand livestock suppliers had refused to allow the company to purchase further stock without a reduction in the debt. However, this situation generally applied to all livestock suppliers and again no one supplier appears to have been preferred.Accordingly, I am of the opinion there were no unfair or other preferences of any material amount.I think I have ably demonstrated that the two payments in question, which total some $5.8 million or more, are in fact prima facie preferences because they are paid to companies related to these in the group, at a time when the common directors knew these companies were in trouble—because they were about to apply for a release from the class order which governed the accounts of the group—and it had the distinct effect of preferring related companies over other creditors. Those other creditors included the employees of meatworks as well as local suppliers in the town of Grafton.I think it was rather surprising that Clarke and Co. should form the view that they did. I think that most insolvency practitioners would have formed the contrary view. I think every insolvency practitioner I know would form the view that massive preferences existed here. I do not believe that Clarke and Co. acted with any mala fides at all. I think they were not aware of the full situation.But what was the effect of that statement they made? The effect of that was to say to creditors, `You do not need to put these companies into liquidation. Put them under a deed of arrangement and you will get just as good an outcome if not better.' Of course by going into a deed of arrangement the effect of the deed was to prevent the creditors or a liquidator from going back and recovering that money. So in fact what has happened is that the creditors have been disadvantaged. Remember, the creditors include the workers and the local suppliers in the town of Grafton.These matters were drawn to the attention of the Australian Securities Commission I understand as early as November last year. To the credit of the union they were drawn to the attention of the ASC by the Australian Meat Industry Employees Union, the Newcastle and northern branch I understand. That is to their credit.It is a shame that I understand that the Australian Securities Commission took no action. It was not in fact until my colleague in the other place, the honourable member for Page, Mr Ian Causley, had his staff repeatedly contact the Australian Securities Commission that any action was taken by ASC relating to this matter. I understand though it is not just the $5.8 million that I have outlined here. I understand that preference payments could exceed $6 million. But not only did Mr Causley contact the Australian Securities Commission; he only contacted the scheme administrators, Clarke and Co., to say that he had very grave concerns about the matter.In the interim Mr Causley has also provided me with documentation, including a letter sent by the union to ASC on 25 February this year and also material which was prepared by Clarke and Co., and I would not have been able to give this speech if it was not for Mr Causley's assistance in providing that information. When I saw the statement that was made in the circular to creditors dated 21 October, I was immediately concerned. So yesterday I contacted a representative of Clarke and Co. who admitted that they were not aware of the payments until Mr Causley drew them to their attention.To their credit, however, they said that immediately they were aware of the payments they contacted the directors of the Gilbertson group and said that they thought there was a major problem. I think that was probably a understatement because if these payments go through and they are not recovered then the employees are out of pocket. The reason why the employees are out of pocket is because the ANZ I understand is owed around about $3.24 million. That was what it was owed on 7 October. I understand that interest has accrued in the interim and a payment may have been made to reduce it as well. But I understand the amount outstanding to the secured creditors is $3.2 million. They get first bite. They get first bite under legislation that was prepared by the previous government.So if it is in fact the case as I suspect that the purchase price for this meatworks is in vicinity of $3.2 million, the only people who will get paid out will be the ANZ Bank, and the workers and the other unsecured creditors will be left with nothing. Of course, the Gilbertson group would also have the advantage of not having any liability for that $6 million in preference payments which may have been made.Clarke and Co. as a result of Mr Causley's approaches to them, and also as result from pressure from Australian Securities Commission—and Mr Causley and the union have both written to Australian Securities Commission, but Mr Causley had contacted them on a number of occasions—then proceeded to contact the directors of the Gilbertson group and said, `Look, we think you had better do something about this because the whole deed could be set aside.' Honourable senators who are familiar with the operation of the Corporations Law would know that it is quite possible, even right now, for the court to order that the deed be set aside and a liquidator appointed to these companies to recover the amount of money.I am pleased to tell the Senate that I was told yesterday by Clarke and Co. that an offer has now been made of a guarantee of further moneys outstanding to unsecured creditors from the Gilbertson group. This has been a direct result of the assiduous work of the honourable member for Page, Mr Causley, and a direct result of his pressuring both the Australian Securities Commission and Clarke and Co. to do something about this.Why do I say that? Because yesterday, in a debate on another matter, I had to sit here and endure the usually tirade from Senator Forshaw who claimed that the members of the government and in particular the members of the National Party were doing nothing to look after the workers. Let me point out that while Senator Forshaw was grandstanding to the media, he was not doing any of hard work and was not actually looking after the interests of workers. He can thank the member for Page, Mr Causley, that that is now a possibility. But, it would wrong for me to say here and now that the matter is over. Because it is not.There are a number of matters which now arise as a direct result of this offer of a guarantee. Let me run through those matters because they are very important. First of all, you have to know who is giving the guarantee, and that is not clear. Who would benefit under the guarantee? Will it be just the workers or will it also be all the other unsecured creditors in Grafton. I understand that they total in the vicinity of $3 million or more. So it is a massive loss, not just to workers but to small business people and to the cattle producers and so on.Would the creditors be better off accepting this guarantee or would they be better applying for an order to set the deed aside and liquidating the companies, because it may well be that guarantee is worthless or the guarantee is not as good as the amount of money which could be recovered in event that companies were put into liquidation.The other matters that have to be considered are how would it be administered and who would decide on the claims that unsecured creditors would make? It is quite obvious that Clarke and Co., for all their good efforts, are somewhat compromised because of this situation. It should not properly be adjudicating on the claims of unsecured creditors when the people who appointed them are the people who are probably giving the guarantee.These matters I believe need to be resolved immediately. The reason why they need to be resolved immediately is that this sale has been announced but probably will not be completed for some weeks. In that period it is critical that another meeting of creditors be called at which all of the workers should have representation, and all of the small business suppliers as well. It should be at that meeting that a full and accurate and independent assessment of situation is provided to those unsecured creditors so that justice can be done in this case. We are close to achieving justice but until these matters are resolved, justice will not be done. I think if justice is finally done it will be in large part due to the efforts of my friend, the Hon. Ian Causley, and all the work he has done as well as, in large part, as a result of the work of the union. I think both of those deserve to be congratulated. But I warn that unless these matters are resolved there is remains the distinct possibility that workers and small business people in Grafton will remain hopelessly out of pocket.126213:39:001262O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—I want to talk about the Asian economic crisis and the impact it is having on the tourism industry, particularly the Tasmanian tourism industry. The effect of this crisis is already being felt in this key sector and I fear the worst is yet to come. That is certainly the view of the industry. For that reason, the Tourism Council of Australia has been pursuing the Howard government for months to help cushion the industry against the collapse in the number of Asian tourists.This is an industry that provides one in nine jobs. It contributes $60 billion to the domestic economy and $16 billion in export earnings. The March 1998 American Express Tourism Leading Indicators, a survey of industry expectations, showed business was expecting sales and profits to deteriorate in the March quarter, with job prospects to remain weak until September. Tourism Council Australia chairman, Bruce Baird, said the results of the survey highlighted the need for the federal government to act to support the industry. He said that negative growth in the industry was likely in the coming months as the Asian crisis fall-out fully affects arrival figures.There was a similar view in a report from the Metal Trades Industry Association. The report, entitled The Economic Contest in 1998, states that tourism is already feeling the effects of the Asian crisis, with short-term arrivals slowing noticeably—and it forecasts worse to come. The report says that efforts by the industry to offset losses from South-East and North-East Asia, through increased numbers from China, Europe and America, will be very difficult. It says the reversal of growth in the South-East Asian and Hong Kong markets is even more damaging because spending per visit of these tourists is on the high side—a combination of more spending per night and longer stays. The evidence is there for all to see and the impact is already being felt. But so far the industry's quite legitimate call for assistance from Mr Howard has largely fallen on deaf ears. The package the Tourism Council of Australia is asking Mr Howard to support includes three key strategies. First, the introduction of a 12-month visa-free trial for selected markets, including the United Kingdom, the USA and Singapore. According to the Council, the current visa policy is costing up to 15 per cent of our potential Japanese market and costs more than $45 million a year to administer. Secondly, a one-off campaign designed to boost domestic tourism in partnership with the states and the territories—the `Holiday at Home' campaign. And finally, a strategy to grow emerging markets, such as China and India.Government support for this key sector of the economy is very important nationally, but it is vital from a Tasmanian perspective. A report prepared by Tourism Tasmania last year, which was based on 1995 data, shows just how important this sector is to the Tasmanian economy. In that year, visitors to the state spent $857 million on travel, the industry employed between 13,500 and 18,700 people and contributed between 5.8 and 8.3 per cent of the gross state product.Three industry groups accounted for more than 70 per cent of the jobs created by tourists. They were the wholesale, retail and insurance industry; restaurants and hotels; and the entertainment and recreation industry. A key feature of the employment generated by the tourist sector in Tasmania is the wide distribution of its benefits. The study found that more than half the employment was generated in the southern region, 30 per cent in the northern region and 19 per cent in the north-west. The economic benefits are also spread throughout the state, with the small business sector being a big winner. Without a properly funded and marketed plan, the Tasmanian industry is badly exposed to the Asian crisis.While a reduction in the number of international visitors will not have a direct impact in Tasmania, it will certainly have an indirect effect. The decline in international visitors in Queensland—particularly in Cairns—will see heavy discounting of airfares and accommodation in the north to build up domestic visitations. If successful, that strategy could hit Tasmania hard and the leakage of domestic travel into relatively cheap Asian destinations will only add to these problems.This trend is likely to strengthen over the coming months, especially after May. Not only is May the month when the industry in Tasmania expects the difficult market conditions to bite, it is also the month when the Howard government delivers its third budget. This budget holds the key to the future of this key industry. With the right support, tourism will continue to earn millions of dollars in export income and to generate thousands of new jobs. If the government does not financially reinforce the strategies the industry has put in place to counter the Asian downturn, then the sector is in for a tough time.The future welfare of the Tasmanian industry is heavily dependent on interstate visitations. In 1995, 76 per cent of holiday travellers came from interstate, with intrastate travellers accounting for just under 10 per cent and international travellers 14 per cent. From a local point of view, the planned `Holiday at Home' campaign is a key to minimising the anticipated downturn. The campaign would focus on encouraging more Australians to holiday at home instead of travelling overseas. The efforts of Tourism Council of Australia to further boost the number of tourists from the traditional markets of the United Kingdom, the USA and Europe would also help Tasmania.Investment in tourism is money well spent because of the number of jobs generated. Investment in promoting tourism is money well spent in that each dollar spent generates eight dollars for the economy. Governments also get a good return from their investment through taxation revenue. The Tasmanian tourism study found that in 1995 government tax revenues from tourism in Tasmania amounted to an estimated $287 million, with about 73 per cent going to the federal government, 22 per cent to the Tasmanian government and 5 per cent of the revenue going to Tasmanian local government authorities.Last year was a boom year for the industry in Tasmania. Just under half a million tourists visited the state. There was a 7.7 per cent increase in international tourist visitors, with a 9.6 per cent increase in Asian tourist visits, excluding Japanese. There was a 2.7 per cent increase in interstate visitors.I have noted that the Tasmanian tourism minister, Mr Groom, was quoted in the Launceston Examiner as saying that he was quietly confident that the 1998 tourism season would produce even better results. I hope he is right but, frankly, I fear that he is not going to be right on that score. Certainly, his prediction will not be realised unless there is a concerted effort by the industry, the state government and the Commonwealth government to put in place a strategy to insulate Tasmania from the Asian crisis.This is not a time to sit back. It is certainly not a time to take the approach promoted by the Minister for Industry, Science and Tourism, John Moore. Mr Moore said on ABC television, in response to calls by the tourism industry for support to help beat the Asian crisis:If they're—by `they' he meant the airlines—not filling the seats, then don't run the planes.His comments came as the government announced a $300 million rescue package for exporters to Indonesia through the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation.Mr Acting Deputy President, if the airlines don't fill their seats and they then do not fly their planes, then the hotels and motels do not fill their rooms, the restaurants do not sell meals, service stations do not sell petrol and other small businesses do not sell their goods and services. Then they all start laying off workers. Let us hope Mr Moore sees some sense before the next budget in May. Otherwise states like my state of Tasmania will pay heavily for this indifference.There are two other issues the Howard government has put on the agenda that are having a significant impact on the tourism industry, particularly in Tasmania. They are, firstly, the threat of a goods and services tax; and, secondly, the constant threat of an early election. Both these issues are creating considerable uncertainty in the community and people are less likely to spend money on a holiday as a result. Mr Howard's GST will also turn tourist operators into tax collectors. According to the President of the National Tax and Accountants Association, Mr Ray Regan, the GST will cost small businesses at least $7,000 a year in compliance costs, and will require at least 228 hours to meet monthly compliance requirements. This is just what the Tasmanian tourism industry does not need.In the upcoming budget Mr Howard should do two things to help the tourism industry. He should give it the financial support it needs and he should rule out a GST. He should also stop fuelling election speculation every time he does not get his way in the Senate. It is very bad for business, especially the tourism business in Tasmania.In closing, I want to say that following the division this morning on what is being touted as a double dissolution bill—the Workplace Relations Amendment Bill 1997 [No. 2]—one of the government senators, after the announcement of the vote, punched the air in an indication of exultation or triumph. I think it is important to put that on the record because I think it demonstrates the approach of this government to that legislation. It is very distressing for industries, like the tourism industry, to see the games being played about legislation that will impact on their industry if this government isn't very careful.126413:51:001264Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEYO15NSWLP10—I rise to make the first of a series of three speeches dealing with my continuing study of the rapidly changing world of information technology. IT is constantly changing and it is very important that Australia keeps abreast of the latest overseas developments.Four years ago I visited the US, to examine the information superhighway—at that time it was a relatively new concept to Australia. Digital broadcasting and interactive television was then a dream of the future but now, of course, it is ready to go. The Internet back then was a new concept that most Australians did not understand. Nowadays, people will actually give you their home page number—big changes in a relatively short time.In 1994 I called for Australia to take account of these converging new technologies. I called for the introduction of one broad act which would allow open competition and movement of services across different technologies and businesses to take advantage of business opportunities that this new age created. Just as I believed in 1994 that we must ensure universal access to this technology to make sure that there was not a developing underclass in Australia, I also made the point at that time that there was an opportunity for Australia to become the information hub of South-East Asia.Australia has many advantages in this regard in the new information age. We are politically stable, we have a highly educated population and a single communications structure which moves across major population centres. These are based around the south-east corner of Australia where up to 80 per cent of the population live in a narrow crescent between Brisbane and Adelaide. We have highly developed information technology and a very high take up rate of that technology.Therefore, three and a half years on, it was very useful to visit one of our neighbours—Malaysia—which also felt that it should become an information hub for the whole South-East Asian region. Recently, in Kuala Lumpur, I met with industry executives and government officials who were involved in information technology. Malaysia is in high-speed mode to get its multimedia super corridor—the MSC—operational. They claim to be 10 years ahead of their time, which actually makes Australia's failed multifunction polis in Adelaide of 20—or was it 10 years ago—4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—Ten years is better.O15Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEY—Twenty years ahead of its time, perhaps, Senator Schacht. The MSC concept is, in many ways, similar to the multifunction polis but with two very significant differences. Malaysia in 1998 is starting this on the cusp of the information age and, unlike the ALP's stewardship of the MFP from the mid-eighties to the mid-nineties, Malaysia's MSC is part of their 2020 vision for their nation and is driven from the top, by Malaysia's Prime Minister.The multimedia super corridor is being sold as the region's launch site for companies developing and using multimedia technology. This is competition for Australia and Malaysia is pushing itself as the location for multinationals in this sort of industry across the region. It is important, then, that we in Australia keep track of how the Malaysian multimedia super corridor is progressing. Senator Alston visited Malaysia about 12 months ago and in that short time, things have progressed significantly.You would think the project's high speed would be slowed by Asia's economic meltdown—not so. The Malaysian government is so keen for this project to get going that they have quarantined it from any budgetary cuts. The Malaysian government has cut its expenditure by 18 per cent but nothing came off the MSC funding. I was told the Malaysian government sees this project as the key to its future. The MSC is a 15 by 50 kilometre zone extending south from Kuala Lumpur to the new airport. It includes building two new cities, one known as Cyberjaya—cyber city—which will house businesses and workers. The government plans to base itself in a new city next door called Putrajaya which will be the new administrative centre of Malaysia.The MSC will bring together four elements. It will bring together firstly, leading edge software infrastructure, including highly attractive incentives; unrestricted import of foreign knowledge; the world's first comprehensive framework of `cyberlaws' and the world's first multimedia convergence legislation. Secondly, world class IT networks consisting of a high-speed backbone network and cost-competitive telecommunications tariffs will be put in place. Thirdly, a multimedia development corporation will be created and this will ensure that companies interested in locating in the MSC can get what they need to succeed and will expedite permit and licence approvals. Fourthly, this will all be done in an environment of top quality urban development in Cyberjaya.It is ultimately planned that this city will house 240,000 people—about the size of Canberra. It is estimated that 500 information technology and multimedia companies will be located in Cyberjaya by the year 2020. I was told by several sources that 116 international companies have already signed up to locate in the MSC. The Malaysian government has put together a number of commitments to companies interested in coming on board. These include the incentive for unrestricted employment of local and foreign knowledge workers; freedom of ownership so that total foreign control of firms is actually welcomed; a five-year exemption from Malaysian income tax, renewable to 10 years or 100 per cent investment tax allowance on new investments made in the MSC cybercities. In addition, government officials, including the Malaysian Minister for Communications, said that the country should have its convergence act in place by the middle of the year—a broad act to create a very flexible environment for new business. I was told during the meetings with industry and government officials that other areas in Malaysia also want to establish MSCs with Penang already fairly well advanced.This is a huge project and it is important to Australia that we are aware of what is happening in Malaysia in this international context. I will look forward to sharing with the Senate what else I discovered and other aspects of this dawning information age in future MPI speeches.Questions Without Notice126612661266Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—My question is directed to Senator Parer, the Minister for Resources and Energy. Minister, do you recall that you told the Senate yesterday in relation to the QCMM Group (ESP):I have never had any involvement in what that company puts money into . . . I have no control over it and never have had any control over it—Minister, isn't it actually true that on at least eight occasions you chaired meetings of QCMM Group (ESP) which discussed allotting 1,000 employer shares to AQRM, putting money into Bruce Resources, the impact on ESP shares of Tomen's takeover of AMI and which authorised you to sign off on the annual financial statements? Do you still maintain, as you said yesterday, that you have no involvement and no control? Minister, why did you mislead the Senate again? Will you now correct the record?1266Parer, Sen WarwickSenator PARERKI4QLDLPResources and Energy10—Here we have a regurgitation of this over and over again. You are at the bottom of the barrel, Senator. What I said is that I had no involvement in the decision making process, certainly in relation to the time that I got out of it. I had very little involvement in the past. Certainly for the official returns you have to sign off on them. Let me also say, because I suspect there will be some more questions coming from the other side, that this was set up as a retirement type fund.During the debate on matters of public interest Senator Cook came in here and tipped a bucket, or tried to tip a bucket all over me. Normal courtesies in this place are—whether you do it in a public interest debate or an adjournment debate—that you let the other person know that you are going to do it. All I can say is that you people on the other side have sunk to absolute lows.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Madam President, I raise a point of order. I asked Senator Parer a direct question about a statement that he made to the Senate yesterday which I believe was a deliberate and serious misleading of the Senate. Senator Parer may well want to respond to something else that was said at another time. There are plenty of opportunities, as you are aware, Madam President, that he can take if he cares to do so, not the least of which is a personal explanation at the appropriate time. But I do think on this occasion you ought to direct the minister to answer what is a very serious question that I have directed to him about his misleading the Senate yesterday.LD4ALSTONSenator Alston—Madam President, on the point of order: an even much more serious matter is Senator Faulkner's consistent use of points of order to effectively impugn the integrity of other senators. His question was: why did you deliberately mislead the Senate yesterday? He then got up and said that he believed that Senator Parer had deliberately misled the Senate. He is simply using points of order as a vehicle for saying things that are quite contrary to standing orders. That should not be allowed. There is no point of order, of course. He does not even purport to have one because Senator Parer has not even started to answer the question. He is simply abusing the processes of this place and he should not be allowed to continue.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Parer has been answering the question, and I do not know whether anything that Senator Cook raised relates to this or not. So I cannot comment on whether the remarks arising from that are relevant to this answer or not. I would draw Senator Parer's attention to the question that has been asked of him.KI4Senator PARER—Everyone knows in this particular chamber—and, from the scurrilous campaign waged by Senator Faulkner and others, I assume everyone in Australia knows—that I was on the board and was chairman of the Queensland Coal Mine Management companies and all subsidiaries. They also know that when I was appointed as a minister I resigned from those and had no involvement whatsoever in the operation of either the Queensland Coal Mine Management company or its subsidiaries. The people on the other side tried to run the line that I did. They said that I went to Japan. There was a scurrilous article in the Sydney Morning Herald that said I had met with one of the major trading companies and, as a result of that, additional coal sales contracts. The dope who wrote that did not even realise that the group I spoke to do not buy coal. They are a trading company.UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—Sue him because we were not behind that one.KI4Senator PARER—Good idea, Senator Ray. Then they were running the line saying, `Have you met with Mr Shand? What did you talk about?' That has been totally debunked. You are running this technical question saying that I somehow misled the Senate deliberately. I can assure you, Senator, I did not. The point I made yesterday was that I had no involvement, and the implication is since I actually resigned from those boards. Naturally I did because I was there up until that time and everyone knows that.1267Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Minister, yesterday you said to the Senate—let me quote you again:I have never had any involvement in what that company puts money into . . . I have no control over it and never have had any control over it—Now you are reinterpreting that answer. You do accept that that was a mislead yesterday, do you, Senator Parer? Do you stand by your statement, Senator Parer, of yesterday in question time?LI4PATTERSONSenator Patterson—Madam President, I raise a point of order. I ask that you direct Senator Faulkner to direct his questions through you and not scream them across the chamber at Senator Parer.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Questions should be addressed to the chair.5K4Senator FAULKNER—I ask the minister whether he stands by his statement yesterday:I have never had any involvement in what that company puts money into . . . I have no control over it and never have had any control over it—Minister, do you stand by your statement in question time yesterday?1267Parer, Sen WarwickSenator PARERKI4QLDLPResources and Energy10—I stand by the statement that I have made over and over again that I was involved with those companies up until the day I was appointed a minister. I resigned all positions and have had no involvement with them whatsoever since.Distinguished Visitors126710000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! I draw the attention of honourable senators of the presence in the gallery of a parliamentary delegation from Papua New Guinea led by the Speaker of the National Parliament, Mr John Pundari MP. On behalf of honourable senators I welcome you to the Senate and wish you a happy and enjoyable visit to this country. With the concurrence of the Senate I invite the Speaker to take a seat on the floor.UNKNOWNHonourable senatorsHonourable senators—Hear, hear!Questions Without Notice126712671267Coonan, Sen HelenSenator COONAN2M6NSWLP10—My question is to the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Hill. It relates to Australia's anti-jobs unfair dismissal laws which today were supported by the Australian Labor Party. What will be the impact on job creation as a result of this action?1267Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment10—Yes, it is extraordinary that the Labor Party is opposed to the creation of jobs. The way the Labor Party continues to oppose the interests of small business is also extraordinary. They have not learnt a thing. They have not learnt the necessity to create an economy in which small business is free enough to grow, expand and create employment opportunities. Anti-jobs is the Labor position. Anti small business is the Labor position.One would have thought that they would have listened. The evidence was overwhelming. They could have listened to what was put forward through the Yellow Pages Small Business Index, which showed that 79 per cent of small businesses thought that small business would be better off if exempted from the unfair dismissal laws. Thirty-three per cent said that small business would be more likely to recruit new employees had there been such an exemption, and 33 per cent of small businesses said they would be more likely to recruit new employees if they were exempt from the current unfair dismissal laws. So there is the evidence from small business itself.3M6MURRAYSenator Murray—I raise a point of order, Madam President. Is the minister referring to federal laws in that survey or to state laws?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—There is no point of order.BH4Senator HILL—If they were not prepared to listen to small business as expressed through the Yellow Pages survey, perhaps they could have listened to the state chamber of commerce in New South Wales, which surveyed 700 small businesses. They said that 42 per cent of businesses believed unfair dismissal laws were a deterrent to employing more staff. An overwhelming 85 per cent of small businesses nominated unfair dismissal laws as a key factor affecting businesses with 15 or fewer employees. If they do not want to look at the statistics, they could have listened to what the chamber said.656FORSHAWSenator Forshaw—Common rule awards.Opposition senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order, Senator Hill. There are far too many people interjecting on my left. I ask them to desist.BH4Senator HILL—I know this is embarrassing for Labor. They do not want to be seen as the anti-jobs party. They do not want to be seen as the anti small business party. But the evidence is overwhelming. They could have listened to the chamber of commerce saying that `the small business community is the engine room of job creation and it is crying out for relief from what it sees as an impediment to employing people and growing small and medium-sized companies'. But of course the new Labor Party simply will not listen.If they did not want to listen to the chamber of commerce from New South Wales they could have listened to the fact that 50 small business organisations referred to under the umbrella of the Small Business Coalition all met in Canberra last month and unanimously said that the exemption should be passed in the interests of small business and more jobs. Or they could have listened to the Council of Small Business Organisations, which indicated even this week that 50,000 jobs would be created in small business if the exemption law were passed. Fifty thousand jobs: I would have thought that that would have caused the Labor Party to stand up and listen, but they will not. What are they embarrassed about? Is it the fact that the coalition, by contrast, has created 220,000 new jobs since it came into office? Are they embarrassed by the fact that they have asked only three employment questions in 88 sitting days? Why is the Labor Party so disinterested in job creation? Why isn't the Labor Party interested in supporting small business, freeing them up so they have the opportunity to grow and to employ more Australians, particularly young Australians? Those Australians out of work will be very disappointed by the Labor Party of today. (Time expired)BE4NEWMANSenator Newman—I raise a point of order, Madam President. Why is it that yesterday when the Leader of the Opposition was on his feet we were repeatedly asked on this side to be in entire silence while he was speaking? Why is it that the Leader of the Government is not accorded the same treatment in the Senate by the chair and particularly by those opposite who expect silence for their own speakers.12681268Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—My question is addressed to the Minister for Resources and Energy. Minister, can you confirm that QCMM (ESP) Pty Ltd was established as nothing more than a tax lurk to enable QCMM Pty Ltd and its fully owned subsidiary, Advance Queensland Resources and Mining Pty Ltd, to claim hundreds of thousands of dollars in tax deductions through the purchase of UNC employer class shares in QCMM (ESP) Pty Ltd? Minister, how is that you are able to qualify for an employee share plan offered by QCMM (ESP) Pty Ltd when you are not an employee but a full-time senator? How is it that your 44 shares in QCMM (ESP) Pty Ltd issued to you for 1c each in what you term a superannuation type company became worth $56,300 in the space of a few years?1268Parer, Sen WarwickSenator PARERKI4QLDLPResources and Energy10—I have already answered the question here a number of times. In fact, I made it very clear. This ESP is the employees' share plan. It was available to certain directors and shareholders. I have said that right from the word go.Opposition senators interjecting—KI4Senator PARER—It is directors and employees. And they were ones selected, I might tell you, by the three major shareholders, the three owners of the operation—3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—Employees?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senators on my left will cease interjecting.1269Parer, Sen WarwickSenator PARERKI4QLDLPResources and Energy10—Let me say that this ESP was established on professional advice as an employee sponsored investment plan. The share issue did not really matter. Those were the people who qualified, hence they had to take shares. It was actually put out as an alternative to superannuation, and a holding is akin to a preserved benefit. As I said in here yesterday, certainly when the company makes those contributions it gets a tax deduction. The way it was set up was some formula—bear in mind I was not the chief executive; I was the chairman—based on profitability. I said this again yesterday—Opposition senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Parer, would you resume your seat? There is far too much noise on my left. I require senators to abide by the standing orders.KI4Senator PARER—As I said yesterday, if you are prepared to listen, because of the way the company itself was set up it pays tax on any investments on which it gets a return. When the amount is withdrawn on retirement as a retirement benefit, full taxation is paid. Let me also say, because here you are talking about scams, Senator Cook, the professional advice received at the time was that these types of retirement benefit funds were approved by the taxation commissioner.1269Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Minister, I note that you said that you were not the executive, but the chairman. I understand the buck stops with the chairman. I refer you to your statement in regards to QCMM (ESP) Pty Ltd that contributions made to that ceased in 1995. Minister, isn't the reason they ceased due to the fact that, in 1995, Treasurer Ralph Willis outlawed such arrangements because they allowed `unlimited tax deferral opportunities for higher income earners'—such as yourself? Minister, rather than being a tax lurk, isn't it true that QCMM (ESP) Pty Ltd was nothing more than a tax rort? Doesn't this explain your failure to declare your 44 1c shares held by QCMM (ESP) Pty Ltd that are now worth $56,300?1269Parer, Sen WarwickSenator PARERKI4QLDLPResources and Energy10—Senator Cook, the answer to your question is no. I made this point very clear from the beginning. My reading of this was that it was a retirement type benefit. There was no deliberate attempt to do anything in that way. In regard to the scheme itself, as to the reason it ceased, Senator, I am not aware. I do not recall it. All I know is that it was decided not to continue with it. But the professional advice received at the time had the blessing of the taxation commissioner.12691269Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEYO15NSWLP10—My question is to Senator Alston, the Minister representing the Minister for Workplace Relations. The minister would be aware that the Maritime Union of Australia is pursuing a politically motivated payback through an unnecessary seven-day strike in Sydney to punish Patrick Stevedoring. Is the minister aware of a report that identifies Sydney as the worst port surveyed bar one—number 17 out of 18—and will this seven-day strike further damage Sydney's reputation, already damaged by the inefficient work practices of the Maritime Union?1269Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, the Information Economy and the Arts10—Senator Tierney is quite right that, in the recent survey, in terms of value for money, Sydney came in second last—17 out of 18. But, when they included reliability and speed, the Bureau of Industry Economics report found that Sydney came in dead last. This is the very port where this union—this greedy, grubby silvertail union, with people earning $100,000-plus—is now going on strike claiming even more money for less work.Why are they doing it? Because they have had legal advice that, unless they at least pretend that it is a claim related to earnings, they have no justification at all. But, in fact, of course, they have no justification, full stop. We know from the recent little strip show effort a couple of months ago that these boys, who are only able to work about 15 cranes an hour, when told that they could knock off early to get down to the strip show at the pub were able to get that up to 29.4 loads an hour. An absolute explosion of work! It is a wonder they were not all on sick leave the following day. They must have been exhausted. Of course, they were not. They had hardly worked up a sweat, because that is about what you ought to be able to do if you are serious about it.Of course, they have never been serious, and nor have the Labor Party. This is the crowd that went down to Hobart a few months ago and said that they believed in waterfront reform. They said they would encourage greater competition through new stevedoring operations. What have we heard? Not a peep! When Mr McMullan was asked whether the MUA has the Labor Party's unequivocal support, he said, `Well, it's not a question of unequivocal support.' I do not know what it is. What it really is is: `Keep your head down. Don't come here and ask questions.' We have not had a word about Patricks here, have we, because they do not want to raise the issue. They are terminally embarrassed by this. Lindsay Tanner is out there saying, `We can't defend the indefensible'—that is his position—`but we'll say as little as possible and hope no-one notices.' This is gutlessness at its highest, Madam President.The fact is that Mr Beazley's position is that he wants to call in Bob Hawke. What would Bob Hawke do? Bob Hawke happens to be the bloke who, in 1989, when he was presiding over the pilots strike, said, `This mob will cop every instrument of punishment and retribution. It's a different game this time, boys. It's war. They are exceptionally greedy.' Surely those words apply. Those words apply in spades to the MUA, so why won't Labor stand up and criticise them? Why does Labor tolerate the airconditioning rorts where everyone goes out if the temperature gets to 39 degrees celsius outside, even if you are freezing to death inside?This is the mob that supports the safety card rort where, the moment you want to put pressure on a shipowner, you claim that the gangway is a bit unsafe. They support the car loading rort. We have two security wharfies, one first aid wharfie and two wharfie clerks watching cars being unloaded. Has Labor criticised any of these? Of course they have not, Madam President. They stand shoulder to shoulder with the MUA. They know full well that is unconscionable and outrageous. But, no, because they are told that they have got to stand in support, they do it.This is the greatest conflict of interest in history, Madam President. Let there be no misunderstanding. When nine out of the last 10 Labor senators in this place have trade union affiliations, when two-thirds of them are locked into the trade union movement, what else can you expect? It is an outrage. They ought to come clean about it and say they are not prepared to do anything that would jeopardise the interests of the trade union movement. They are certainly doing it by their actions. Why don't they come clean and say it in words? The public of Australia already know it, but they would like to hear it so they know precisely where you stand on this issue.1270Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEYO15NSWLP10—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. It is very interesting that the people opposite, Minister, show absolutely no interest in a real issue that is concerning Australians and are just interested in character assassination. How does this Maritime Union strike action contribute to the process of waterfront reform and improve the living standards of all Australians, not just the silvertails in the Maritime Union?1270Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, the Information Economy and the Arts10—The last time that Bob Hawke had a chance to do something about the waterfront, it cost taxpayers $420 million. What return did we get for that? Some of them are still back there, having taken their redundancy pay, working at half pace. It is quite clear that Labor has no interest in job creation, no interest in export competitiveness. This is all about trying to improve productivity.Why won't you stand up and argue for productivity on the waterfront? You were prepared to kick the pilots to death, but you are not prepared to say boo to the puppet masters on this one, are you, because you know that the MUA does not have any friends in the wider community. But, because it rattles the tin at election time, because it will come to the party if you keep quiet, you are more than happy to see the money laundered through it. It is a damning indictment of Labor's total lack of interest in real productivity and job creation. If you got efficiency on the waterfront, you would make a very significant difference to manufacturing competitiveness. That is the last thing you are interested in doing. (Time expired)Distinguished Visitors127110000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! I draw the attention of honourable senators to the presence in the President's Gallery of a delegation from Botswana, led by the Minister for Agriculture, Mr Ronald Sebego. On behalf of honourable senators I have pleasure in welcoming you to the Senate and trust that your visit will be both informative and enjoyable.I would also take the opportunity to welcome to the Senate former distinguished Tasmanian senator Mr Brian Archer.UNKNOWNHonourable senatorsHonourable senators—Hear, hear!Questions Without Notice127112711271Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—Through you, Madam President, to Senator Parer: Minister, were you present at a meeting of QCMM (ESP) Pty Ltd held on 24 April 1994 in Brisbane where you were issued 12 1c employee shares out of a total of 1,000 employee shares worth a total of 12c? Can you confirm that on the same day your employee contribution account of QCMM (ESP) Pty Ltd was credited with an amount of $12,000? Minister, is it also true that your employee contribution account and those of six other individuals were credited with a total of $1 million on 28 April? Will you also confirm this $1 million employee contribution account was funded through a $1 million tax deduction claim by the QCMM Pty Ltd group through the purchase of 1,000 $1 UNC employer class shares at a premium of $990 per share in QCMM (ESP) Pty Ltd? Is this a rort or not? (Time expired)1271Parer, Sen WarwickSenator PARERKI4QLDLPResources and Energy10—Obviously, both Senator Cook and Senator Faulkner have a clear advantage over me. Where their clear advantage over me is, when I resigned as chairman and director of all those companies, I got rid of all the records. You have stolen documents. That is what you have.Opposition senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! We will proceed with question time when order is restored to the chamber.KI4Senator PARER—I made it very clear as to how that QCMM (ESP) operated. It was a retirement type scheme which was approved, as I understand, on professional advice at the time.AX5EVANSSenator Chris Evans—You were in the Senate.KI4Senator PARER—It does not matter whether you are in the Senate or not. It was a retirement type scheme. It was available to employees and directors. It was a system whereby a certain amount of profits was put into the program. The whole idea of it was to be as a retirement type benefit. As I pointed out—I do not know how often I have to say this—it goes into the company, the company makes investments, it pays tax on the investments and, when you take your money out, you pay full tax.1271Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. That is a very interesting answer, Minister. We will deal with that. Minister, can you also confirm that your initial allocation of 12 1c shares is now in fact 44 1c shares? Was it just convenient, or did you forget to declare those 44 1c shares in QCMM (ESP) Pty Ltd when, by your own admission, they are now worth $56,300?1271Parer, Sen WarwickSenator PARERKI4QLDLPResources and Energy10—I have explained in the Senate—and I think it was last week—that I looked on that as being a retirement type benefit. Under the rules, as I knew them, I would be only too happy to declare them once these were made known to me. There has been no other comment that I have made about that. That is quite true, Senator.12721272Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEYHX5QLDAD00—My question is addressed to the Special Minister of State, Senator Minchin. I refer to media reports of closed door negotiations between the government and the opposition which may see Labor backing down on key sticking points in the Native Title Amendment Bill next week. Will you confirm that these negotiations are taking place? Will you tell the Senate whether they are being held directly with the Labor leadership through Gareth Evans's office, thus sidestepping their spokesman Daryl Melham? Will you confirm these talks are the real reason behind the government's curious decision not to list the bill for debate this week, even though it was exempted from the cut-off rule 14 days ago because you claimed that it was vitally urgent?1272Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPSpecial Minister of State;Minister Assisting the Prime Minister10—It is true to say that the government takes a very sensible, cooperative approach to the Native Title Amendment Bill. We want this bill passed by the Senate. We are not looking for a double dissolution, unlike some of our opponents. We want the Native Title Amendment Bill passed by the parliament to restore certainty in land management to the whole of Australia—including to Western Australia, the state of the ALP leader, who is selling out his state in the interests of the Left in Sydney and Melbourne. We will not compromise on the four remaining sticking points. They are, as you know, the right to negotiate, the sunset clause and the Racial Discrimination Act.4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—That is three. What is the fourth one?JX4Senator MINCHIN—The registration test, in case you had forgotten. We are prepared to discuss with other parties ways of achieving the outcomes the government desires in a way that is acceptable to all parties. We have set a minimum standard that we will not compromise because this act must be made workable, and the current act is unworkable. We have said that there are standards that must be met but, in the spirit of cooperation, for which this government is famous, we are prepared to discuss ways to achieve those outcomes that do not water down the bill in any way. So there have indeed been discussions at officials' level with the ALP and with Senator Harradine's advisers to see if there is any way in which those parties can be persuaded to accept the standards that we have set in order to see this bill passed, because we do not want a double dissolution, unlike some of the lunatics on the other side.Regrettably, the Democrats and the Greens have completely dealt themselves out of this debate because you are just retreating to the position adopted by the National Indigenous Working Group. You are going to crawl into this chamber and just put forward those ludicrous amendments which are no advance on the position they put down in April last year. One of the fundamental positions the National Indigenous Working Group have is that there should be an absolute Aboriginal veto on development on 79 per cent of Australia. That is a statement in the famous yellow book that you are endorsing. The Democrats and the Greens have dealt yourselves right out of this debate by your position of retreating to that document, which does not allow any basis for sensible consultation, negotiation or discussion as to how we advance this debate. We want the bill through. If you want to deal yourselves back into the debate, then get away from the Indigenous Working Group position, which is utterly untenable, unworkable and unacceptable.1I4McKIERNANSenator McKiernan—Madam President, on a point of order: during the minister's response he referred to the `lunatics on the other side'.Government senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senators on my right will obey the standing orders.1I4McKIERNANSenator McKiernan—Madam President, I know there has been a struggle recently to maintain control in this place. I suggest that, if words like that are left on the record and become acceptable parliamentary terms, we will all in the future suffer because of it. I think the words ought to be withdrawn and ruled as being unparliamentary for now and for the future.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—I agree with that and would ask that the words be withdrawn.JX4Senator MINCHIN—I did not realise Senator McKiernan was so sensitive to such a term.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Minchin, I asked you to withdraw.JX4Senator MINCHIN—I am happy to withdraw. I was merely quoting Alan Ramsey, who referred to the `looney left'.1273Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEYHX5QLDAD00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Minister, the Democrats do not want a double dissolution either, but we are not prepared to sign a blank cheque so you can short-change the first Australians over native title just to avoid one. Does the indigenous community have a seat at the table at these talks, not second- or third-hand reports but directly on either your team or Gareth Evans's team of negotiators? Finally, isn't the only minor consolation in this matter the fact that Senator Bob Collins, a man of great passion on this issue, will avoid the humiliation of rubber-stamping a deal in this chamber next week by dint of his impending resignation?1273Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPSpecial Minister of State;Minister Assisting the Prime Minister10—Can I say that, regrettably, we have offered you briefings and discussions about some of the sticking points in relation to the bill but there does not seem to be much of a response. We are certainly keeping all parties informed in response to their requests to be kept informed. So legal representatives of ATSIC and the Indigenous Working Group are properly being kept informed of the discussions in relation to the sticking points between the parties. It is the Indigenous Working Group that walked away from the table last May. They were the ones who walked away from the government. The government has been open to consultation with ATSIC and the Indigenous Working Group throughout this process. They left the table. They walked away from it. We are keeping them informed, as they request and as they desire, as to the discussions that we are having about technical amendments in an attempt to resolve differences between the parties in the Senate. So our good faith has been exhibited.12731273Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—My question is directed to Senator Parer, the Minister for Resources and Energy. Minister, why haven't you made a full declaration of your family's trust's shareholdings to the Registrar of Senators' Interests as you promised to do on numerous occasion. I remind you that it is now 14 days since your flouting of the parliament's requirements was made public, yet you have continued your flagrant breach. Minister, do you intend to make a full declaration, or will you be hiding your pecuniary interests behind your decision to transfer interests to your family members, despite this disguise being clearly contrary to the Prime Minister's now discredited code of conduct?1273Parer, Sen WarwickSenator PARERKI4QLDLPResources and Energy10—That deserves a serious answer, because I did say here I would make full disclosure, bearing in mind that I was unaware of the letter—UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—Two letters.KI4Senator PARER—We were unaware of those; I think you will accept that that was the case. I was unaware of those and I said I would make full disclosure. Other things have occupied my mind a little over the past two weeks, but let me tell you that the intent is to get those declarations in this week and, when I put them in, I will put them in based both on the position as it is now and the position as it was last week.UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—Before Thursday's question time?KI4Senator PARER—That is the intent.12731273Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—My question is to Senator Alston, the Minister for Communications, the Information Economy and the Arts. Professor John Quiggin's analysis in the Australian Financial Review on 19 March 1998 outlined that the sale of Telstra from a pure economic perspective is not in the best interests of Australians. He asserted that, firstly, the government's calculations are downright inaccurate in two crucial respects—the calculation of $4 billion savings on interest repayment should be $2.5 billion, and the valuation of Telstra based on its dividends is a completely discredited way of valuing a company—and, secondly, that, within five years of the sale, the government will be making a loss on the sale of Telstra. Faced with the reality that the sale of Telstra is neither economically nor socially viable, how can the government claim that this sale is anything more than short-term electioneering?1274Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, the Information Economy and the Arts10—The last thing I would do is treat Professor Quiggin—I do not know how he is a professor but anyway he purports to be an economist—as any sort of sensible economic analyst on this issue. The fact is that he takes the view that somehow there is an inherently greater value attaching to something in the public sector, for no other reason than it is in the public sector. I have never followed his argument. Whether or not he is right about the true level of PDI savings or whether he is right about the fact that valuations based on dividends are discredited has nothing do with the benefits that would flow from allowing all Australians to have a greater stake in one of the country's great enterprises.It would not only make the company itself more efficient by focusing more on the value of the company at the same time retaining all the regulatory and community safeguards, but it would also ensure that the taxpayer gets best value for money. There are some big bets to be made in the telecommunications industry. I do not see why the taxpayer should be taking those. I do not accept the proposition that valuations based on dividend streams are discredited. In many respects, price earnings ratios are also at times rubbery. These things are all indicators that are relevant in trying to put a judgment on the valuation of a company.Last time around, as it transpired, of those 1.8 million who took up shares, in excess of half a million bought shares for the first time. As we know, 92 per cent of Telstra employees bought shares. They bid the share price up to higher levels than our advisers had indicated. All these things are yardsticks. They are not discredited measures that mean you simply do not take any notice of them and that you rely on the likes of Professor Quiggin to somehow give you a sensible valuation. Quiggin's position is utterly ideological. He does not believe there is any value in selling off any government business enterprise, no matter whether it is exposed to full competition or whether or not it is an enterprise that can be just as easily or better handled in the private sector. He does not believe under any circumstances to my knowledge that there is any basis for moving in that direction. That is simply quite contrary to economic orthodoxy around the world.I know you like to trade in unorthodoxies and will continue to do it. I am sure there will be a small following out there who will clap and say, `Isn't it wonderful to have someone going against the system.' But we prefer to rely on people who can make sound economic and financial judgments.The fact is that in the United States the telecommunications industry has always been fully privately owned. It is thriving. It is prosperous. It is actually generating more jobs. If you look at BT over the last four years you will find that at the time they reduced their work force by something like 7,500, the increase in jobs amongst their competitors went up by something like 19,000. You are actually generating much more jobs and economic activity by having full competition accompanied by private sector ownership.I am sure I will never persuade Senator Margetts and I do not expect to for a moment. But I think overwhelmingly the public of Australia understand that there this is very good value. Because you can retain those community service obligations, you can have an industry funded levy scheme that operates in all APEC countries—that operated in the US for many years—that fully protects things like untimed local calls, price caps, community customer service guarantees and all those other necessary safeguards. But at the same time you can aim for efficiency in ways that were never even dreamed of when you had government business enterprises operating as monopolies.1274Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Is the minister not confusing taxpayers with shareholders when he talks about best value for money? Minister, is it not the case that 55 per cent of those 1.8 million shareholders do not even think it is a good idea to sell the rest of Telstra? How many Australians in excess of that 1.8 million could actually afford out of their current marginal incomes to buy Telstra shares if you put the rest of Telstra on the market?1275Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, the Information Economy and the Arts10—If you do not have a spare $3 or $4, I suppose you cannot afford to buy a share in Telstra. I would have thought there are very many people who can afford to buy shares in Telstra if they judge it to be good value. To the extent that there might be any misgivings about going down this path, it is because of the disgraceful behaviour of the Labor Party in terms of previous privatisations where they basically splashed the proceeds up against the wall, where they went out there and said that they would not go any further and they did. People are very suspicious. I can assure you they would be highly suspicious of your behaviour.You only have to look at the latest recruit, who seems to be disappearing without trace when it comes to serious policy debate. She was out there expressing the view that Mr Beazley could not be trusted on this issue, and I think the people of Australia very much understand that the last people you ought to take at face value on this subject are the Labor Party. They know, and Mr Beazley knows because he told Mr Blount—he has never denied it in the House. He has never gone in there and had the guts to deny that proposition.UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—Say that outside the House.LD4Senator ALSTON—He has had a press conference. I am happy to hear his explanation. (Time expired)Distinguished Visitors127510000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! I welcome to the chamber the former distinguished senator from South Australia Mr Don Jessop, who is in the President's gallery.UNKNOWNHonourable senatorsHonourable senators—Hear, hear!Questions Without Notice127512751275West, Sen SueSenator WEST1X4NSWALP00—My question is to Senator Hill, the Minister representing the Prime Minister. Does the minister agree with the Clerk of the Senate, in his advice to Senator Faulkner of yesterday's date, that a conflict of interest exists where a senator has a private interest which could be served by the senator's performance of official duties? Does the minister agree with him that it is a complete misconception to maintain that a conflict of interest does not exist until it is established that public duties have been performed in such a way as to favour a private interest? Does the minister agree with his view that the conflict of interest exists regardless of how the public duties are performed? Or does the minister subscribe to the Prime Minister's interpretation of conflict of interest as being the actual performance of public duties so as to favour a private interest—the so-called `hand in the till' interpretation?LD4ALSTONSenator Alston—Madam President, on a point of order: that question seems to be directed to ascertaining a legal assessment of something that appears to have been leaked by the Labor Party based on a few remarks from the clerk, who is not a legal expert. I would have thought in those circumstances it is completely out of order to ask the government to, on the run, express a qualified legal opinion on a matter such as that.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! It is certainly not for the Leader of the Government in the Senate to give a legal opinion on a matter, but he can address the question that has been put to him as he sees fit.1275Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment10—I think I could give a pretty good legal opinion, but I know it is inappropriate. I understand that Senator Faulkner sought advice from the clerk as to what `conflict of interest' might mean within the terms of the Senate resolution. If Senator Faulkner is so uncertain, there is nothing wrong with him seeking advice from the clerk or anyone else. I understand that the clerk expressed his view, and that is one view. It can be matched against the views of others.Opposition senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senators on my left will remain silent.BH4Senator HILL—What I can tell you with great certainty, Senator, is that I have not seen any evidence of a conflict of interest in this place in the last couple of weeks. What I have seen is an appalling attack upon a good minister who is doing a fine job, and possibly believed by some to be the finest resources minister in the history of this country, I might say.Opposition senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Hill, we will wait till we have some order in the chamber.BH4Senator HILL—In such circumstances, one wonders why the Labor Party continues with this attack. I think perhaps we got a hint of the reason from Mr Beazley, the Leader of the Opposition who, when speaking to Jeremy Cordeaux on Radio 5DN in Adelaide about his job, said:The toughest part is just sitting down to get a positive set of solutions. I mean, it's easy to be negative.Doesn't that reflect the Labor Party of today? All they have done for a fortnight is come in here and attack Senator Parer—made no case, established no conflict; dredging in the gutter, apparently now using stolen documents to try to advance their interests when there are so many big issues out there that the Labor Party ought to be addressing, issues of job creation, issues of health policy and issues of education. How many policies have they got?UNKNOWNGovernment senatorsGovernment senators—None.BH4Senator HILL—None. Two years of opposition—in fact, Mr Beazley said it. He went on to say, `We've been trying to develop a set of policies and it's not always easy to get these together.' It is certainly not easy for this Labor Party.UNKNOWNGovernment senatorsGovernment senators—Ha, ha!10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! The level of noise is too high.BH4Senator HILL—So if you have been struggling at it for two years and you have not been able to settle on one policy—therefore, not able to demonstrate in any way that you are presenting yourselves as an alternative government in this country—how do you cover that deficiency? Just be negative; just attack; just dredge in the gutter. Try to get something to distract from your incompetency in opposition, let alone your incompetency in government. That is what this is all about. Senator Faulkner is welcome, as often as he likes, to seek advice from the clerk on what the clerk might believe is meant by any set of words.1276West, Sen SueSenator WEST1X4NSWALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Does the minister, unlike the Prime Minister, stand by the ministerial guide he tabled on 30 April? Does he stand by his words at the time that the guide sets out the `principles and practices which will be followed by the Howard administration'? Or did he perhaps mean `may' be followed by the Howard administration?1276Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment10—Of course I stand by what he said. It is absolutely correct. This government has set down a set of principles and practices which it will abide by.UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—It's not a death sentence, remember.BH4Senator HILL—No, it is not a death sentence.Senator Robert Ray interjecting—BH4Senator HILL—Aha! Senator Ray at least can read. It says it is a guide, and it is being applied as a guide. I have to say that it has been a guide that has been applied pretty strictly too—ask former Senator Short; ask Senator Gibson—more so than the Labor Party ever did.Honourable senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Hill—BH4Senator HILL—Senator, my suggestion to you is to start to develop a set of alternative policies.Honourable senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Hill, resume your seat. The level of noise in the chamber is far too high. The speaker who had the call could not hear when I called to him to sit down. Nobody else can hear either. I call Senator Hill.BH4Senator HILL—What I am saying is that it is easy to be negative, as Mr Beazley said. The test will be whether this opposition turns itself into an alternative government. In two years they have not even attempted to do so. The clock is ticking; time is running out. Not one policy after two years. The Australian people will say, `What alternative does that represent?' And so far it is no alternative. (Time expired)12771277Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—My question is directed to Senator Minchin, the Special Minister of State and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister. Minister, I refer to statements made this week by the National Biodiversity Council that your Native Title Amendment Bill 1997 [No. 2] will have `profound negative impacts on Australia's biodiversity'. Do you accept the advice of these 17 eminent scientists that your bill will result in a significant loss of plant and animal species? How do you reconcile this critical information with your entrenched stand on the Native Title Amendment Bill?1277Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPSpecial Minister of State;Minister Assisting the Prime Minister10—I would note that we are having a very lengthy debate about native title next week—and the week after, I guess—but I am happy to answer any questions on native title this week.I read with interest the National Biodiversity Council's statement, issued on 23 March 1998, which I found absolutely extraordinary, given that our 10-point plan was released some 10 months ago. This apparently eminent body of scientists has just discovered it and now, 10 months later, has put out a statement. I have enormous respect for scientists concerned with the biodiversity of Australia, and as a great fan of Tim Flannery and his book Future Eaters, I am very sympathetic to the arguments they put on biodiversity. But it is a pity that they know absolutely nothing about native title and absolutely nothing about the Native Title Amendment Bill, let alone the Native Title Act.They have proceeded on the very strange presumption that the federal government has always had control over land management in Australia—one of the constant myths that is perpetrated by opponents of the Native Title Amendment Bill. It is a fact of constitutional law in this country that the states have total responsibility for land management and have had since our federation commenced.The Wik decision did change that. The Wik decision did mean that, as a consequence of the discovery of the fact that native title may have survived on pastoral leases, the Native Title Act automatically was triggered on pastoral leases and came into application. Therefore the states, which, up until that point, had a completely untrammelled sovereign right to manage pastoral leases in a way that accorded with the laws passed by democratically elected parliaments in the states, and implemented by their governments, were all of a sudden constrained by the Native Title Act. The constraints imposed by the current Native Title Act can, in many ways, prevent the states doing anything on pastoral leases and, indeed, mean that pastoralists cannot actually do what is legally allowed under their leases. That is the unintended consequence of the application of the Native Title Act on 42 per cent of Australia, as a consequence of the Wik decision.What we are trying to do, despite the obstruction from the Labor Party and the Democrats, is fix that Native Title Act so that pastoral lessees can continue to operate according to their leases and according to laws passed by sovereign governments in the various states. We do happen to believe that this is a federation and that the states should primarily continue to have responsibility for land management. However, under our Native Title Amendment Bill, that will be able to continue, but within the constraints imposed by the Native Title Amendment Bill. The states will no longer have the free and untrammelled right to issue upgrades or changes in land use conditions on pastoral leases. In future, they will have to comply with the Native Title Amendment Bill and, hopefully, if the Senate cooperates, the new Native Title Act.So the Biodiversity Council is completely wrong in its premise. It is coming from the position that, somehow, the Native Title Amendment Bill is all of a sudden authorising things on pastoral leases that were previously not allowed. It is the complete reverse. Their proposition is a complete perversion of the reality that it is the states that manage these things and have always done so. All of a sudden, they now can only do so if they comply with the Native Title Act, and the Native Title Act as amended by us. Our bill will ensure that rights granted to pastoralists can only be in accordance with state law. There can be no arbitrary extinguishment of native title on pastoral leases. All the environmental conditions that apply now to pastoralists must be observed. Nothing is changed in that. There are no new rights granted to pastoralists by the Native Title Amendment Bill, so the Biodiversity Council, regrettably, has no idea what it is talking about. (Time expired)1278Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Minister, I note your answer that the National Biodiversity Council is completely wrong. Can I ask you: are you aware that the National Biodiversity Council also said that the Native Title Amendment Bill will have an environmentally significant action? Do you realise that, according to the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act, as a responsible minister you have an obligation to refer to the environment minister anything that will have an environmentally significant action for an environmental impact assessment? Will you give a commitment to the Australian people that you will refer the Native Title Amendment Bill to the environment minister for this decision?1278Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPSpecial Minister of State;Minister Assisting the Prime Minister10—The Native Title Act deals with native title; it is not an environmental protection act. That is the problem with where the Democrats are coming from. The environment should be protected by the appropriate legislation at state and federal levels, and it is. If you have particular concerns about the environment, then suggest amendments to those acts. The Native Title Act deals with native title, not with the environment per se. The Native Title Amendment Bill will allow us to deal effectively and efficiently with native title in a way that protects it consistent with the future development of this country.As far as the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act is concerned, I advise you that, after considering advice, the Prime Minister, who is the action minister for this purpose, has decided not to designate a proponent under the administrative procedures approved under the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974 in relation to the decision to proceed with legislation to implement the 10-point plan.Distinguished Visitors127810000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! I welcome to the chamber distinguished former South Australian Senator, the Hon. Tony Messner.UNKNOWNHonourable senatorsHonourable senators—Hear, hear!Questions Without Notice127812781278Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—My question is directed to Senator Herron, the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs. Minister, do you stand by your statements on the 7.30 Report last night that `ATSIC is simply engaging in a political stunt', that `they did it with a previous government', and that `this is nothing new'. If so, can you tell the Senate—Senator Alston interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Herron needs to hear the question.AX5Senator CHRIS EVANS—Are you finished, Senator Alston? Senator Herron needs to hear the question. Minister, if so, can you tell the Senate when in the past ATSIC has accused its minister of disrespect for the Aboriginal people; when in the past ATSIC has claimed the minister's assurances cannot be trusted; and when in the past ATSIC has declared a total lack of confidence in its minister and called for his sacking?1278Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—I was a bit mystified, as a matter of fact, that this happened yesterday because I have had very constructive meetings with the ATSIC board of commissioners. Then, out of the blue, this happened. I understand that when the Labor Party was in power for 13 years they ran it out of the minister's office. Well, look what happened to him! I am not aware whether he was reprimanded or not. In fact, I asked if he was reprimanded, and they could not tell me.RF4COOKSenator Cook—He wasn'tVW4Senator HERRON—He was, was he, Senator Cook? That is interesting.RF4COOKSenator Cook—I said he wasn't.VW4Senator HERRON—Senator Cook seems to know whether he was or he was not. They were in for 13 years. The thing that strikes me about the Labor Party is that, after 13 years, the life expectancy of Aboriginal people did not improve—not even by one day. It is now an 18 or 19 year discrepancy between the life expectancy of Aboriginal people and other Australians.The priorities of the government, which are not accepted—and I accept that from Senator Evans—by some of the ATSIC commissioners, are that we want to concentrate on health, housing and education. What I did on Monday was announce an economic development paper, and that is being opposed. I remember the ATSIC board opposing me about the army ATSIC program. Go to those communities, which I have done. I have to tell you that every community the army has been into is grateful. You will recall that, at the time, ATSIC said that it was a `white fella's solution to a black fella's problem'. That is what they said. So when this comes out of the blue, I have to think to myself, `What's on with them? What is going on?' Well, it does not need a genius to know that the Wik debate is going to come on next week. I have no doubt that there will be further stunts like this. That is what that was—a stunt.I accept they have a genuine desire and a genuine interest in the native title debate, and that comes from the heart unanimously. That is not the government policy. I accept that they have a legitimate interest and a legitimate opinion, and we should accept that.Madam President, you will recall right at the beginning that I put a special auditor into ATSIC. You are probably not aware that, after tightening up accountability, that is still being opposed. But what did the special auditor find? He expressed serious reservations about 292 of the 1,200 ATSIC funded organisations examined. In their last year of funding, these organisations received a total of $172.4 million. Sixty of these organisations were judged as not fit and proper.Senator Faulkner interjecting—VW4Senator HERRON—I want to give the correct figures, Senator Faulkner. It was $27.8 million that they defunded. They said that they were not fit and proper and the remainder were required to undergo remedial action. Despite that, I note that the latest Australian National Audit Office report of December last year, Senator Faulkner—this is reporting on when the government was in opposition and when the Labor Party was in power—states:In respect of the 1995-96 grants which were required to be acquitted during 1996-97, despite remedial action the level of compliance with grant acquittance procedures by grantees and, in some instances, ATSIC staff remained unsatisfactory.That is their record. That is the record that they had in government. They cannot talk. I regard the fact that I am being criticised by the ATSIC board with a certain amount of pride because I am on about accountability, and the government is on about health, housing, education, economic opportunity and the future of the Aboriginal people. So I wear that as a badge of honour. If you are not producing change within the Aboriginal community, then you are going to be stuck in the welfare dependency mode of the previous government and the Labor Party.1279Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Minister, I think the Australian community will be saddened that you regard a vote of no confidence in you by ATSIC as something you take pride in. My question was: last night on the 7.30 Report you said that `they did it with the previous government' and that `this is nothing new' in terms of the vote of no confidence. Today you said you did not know. Were you lying then or are you lying now?VW4HERRONSenator Herron—Madam President, I would ask Senator Evans to withdraw that comment. 10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Evans, I ask you to withdraw that.AX5Senator CHRIS EVANS—Certainly, Madam President. I will rephrase it. Were you misleading the 7.30 Report or are you misleading the Senate?1280Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—What I said last night was that ATSIC was critical of the previous government. They were critical of the previous government, and so they should have been critical of the previous government given the record that you left behind. Whenever you try to produce change you get resistance, but I am not going to be deterred from the fact that we are going to produce improvements in health, housing, education and economic improvement for the Aboriginal people of this country. I do not resile from that, nor will I resile, nor will this government resile from that.BH4HILLSenator Hill—Madam President, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper .Questions Without Notice1280128015:03:001280Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—I move:That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for the Environment (Senator Hill), to a question without notice asked by Senator West today, relating to conflicts of interest and ministerial responsibility.It is true that I did seek advice from both the Clerk of the Senate and the Registrar of Senators' Interests in relation to the issue of conflict of interest. If a person was serious about this issue, it would be extraordinary if they sought advice from this government, which has redefined the concept of conflict of interest in public life. But I did seek advice from the Registrar of Senators' Interests. I would like to quote part of a letter in response to my request. The registrar said this:A conflict of interest is a state of affairs in which one's concern for personal benefit coexists with one's public duty in a relevant office to act in the public interests without regard to personal benefit.He went on:This coexistence of personal interest and public duty gives rise to the risk that concern for one's personal interests may influence performance of one's public duty in that office.He then said:The influence of personal interest over public duty may not arise or, if it arises, may be suppressed. However, for there to be a conflict of interest, actual influence, let alone personal benefit, is not necessary, only the risk of such influence.That is what has been known and understood as the definition of conflict of interest in Western democracies. It has been well understood by most. In relation to risks, the registrar went on further to say:. . . so grave that both formal codes of conduct and practical modes of political accountability often require prior removal of the risk of influence. Prior removal is achieved either by disposal of the personal interest before assuming the public office or by declining the public office.Again, that is an accepted course of action—hitherto an accepted course of action. I want to quote one brief paragraph of the advice of the Clerk of the Senate on the same issue of conflict of interest. He said:It has been said that a conflict of interest does not exist until it is established that public duties have been performed in such a way as to favour a private interest. This is a complete misconception. The conflict of interest exists regardless of how the public duties are performed.Again, this has been an understanding that all of us have had in relation to what conflict of interest is and how a person holding public office deals with conflict of interest.The problem that we face in Australia today is that Mr Howard and his government have redefined conflict of interest. What Mr Howard now says is that a conflict of interest does not arise unless you have literally been caught with your fingers in the till. That is what he is saying—unless you have literally got your hand in the till and you have been caught. That is what Mr Howard has now redefined as conflict of interest. The problem is that that is a redefinition to suit Mr Howard's own purposes because any proper definition of conflict of interest would ensure that Senator Parer would have to resign.The government says we are muckraking as we focus on Senator Parer's many investment related activities, but there is very good reason why an opposition would concentrate for such a period on Senator Parer, on the Prime Minister's code and on the issue of blatant conflict of interest. We have a situation where this redefinition has led to a very sad day for Commonwealth decision making. I believe that Mr Howard should hang his head in shame and that Senator Parer should resign. (Time expired)15:08:001281Abetz, Sen EricSenator ABETZN26TASLP10—It is quite clear that the wheels have fallen off the Labor Party's smear wagon against Senator Parer. Day after day we have been subjected to these allegations against Senator Parer, none of which have stuck. What do they do now? They come out with a version of conflict of interest which is completely and utterly irrelevant to the ministerial code.I have some questions in relation to the commentary provided by officials of the Senate in relation to conflict of interest, but that aside, that only relates to senators in relation to declarations in this chamber. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the ministerial code of conduct, which the Prime Minister wrote up and which the Prime Minister applies. We are talking about two completely different documents and two completely different scenarios. What Senator Faulkner, quite cleverly, has sought to do is to merge the two to try to make them into the one, and then further besmirch Senator Parer.There are two things that Senator Faulkner does in his little repertoire—and there are only two things. He never has the facts, so we witness hysteria like we did on Monday and Tuesday of this week or he struggles through his speech without his heart being in it, as was quite obvious today. Indeed, the real Leader of the Opposition walked out of question time early and, I am sure, will not participate in this debate because he saw that the tactics were falling to pieces and he did not want to be associated with the sham with which the Labor Party were associated.If the Labor Party were so genuine about conflict of interests, I wonder whether Senator Faulkner wrote to the good Clerk of the Senate or to the Committee of Senators' Interests, or indeed to people in the House of Representatives, to inquire whether there was some conflict of interest when a person who was then federal Treasurer of this country gained a loan from the Commonwealth Bank for a piggery that was basically impecunious. No, of course Senator Faulkner did not write then, and that was a clear case where somebody enriched themselves through their position. The Labor Party were deathly quiet on that. Yet they seek to besmirch Senator Parer when they have been unable to lay a glove on him.If the Labor Party were genuinely concerned about ministerial ethics, they would explain to the Australian people why they still hold out Senator Nick Bolkus as an appropriate person to be the first law officer of this country—a person who, if Labor were to win office, would be in control of the Skase matter; indeed, as Attorney-General, would be in control of funding for the Federal Court. Do you know what he did? In breach of Federal Court rules, he leaked a confidential affidavit from the Federal Court. He got caught red-handed. This senate censured him for it. Every single person in this Senate, other than Labor Party senators, voted for that motion.If you are so concerned about ministerial ethics, why is it that Senator Nick Bolkus is allowed to retain a position on the front bench of the Labor Party? It is because the leadership of the Labor Party is too weak to remove him. But if the people of Australia want a clear demonstration of the standards that would apply in relation to ministerial conduct were Labor ever to win, all they need to do is look at Senator Bolkus, who is allowed to leak, in breach of Federal Court rules, confidential documents which have the capacity to undermine our chase for the Skase assets, and he is allowed to continue on the front bench.While Senator Nick Bolkus remains on your front bench, the opposition has no right to talk about ethics in any shape or form because the actions of the Labor Party speak a lot louder than their words during Senate question times.15:13:001281O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—In speaking to this motion, I wanted to refer again to the speech which the Prime Minister, Mr Howard, made to the House of Representatives on 11 April 1986. I see that two journalists writing in the Sydney Morning Herald today have recited large tracts of that speech in their articles, no doubt having regard to the fact that it was drawn to the Senate's attention yesterday in my speech. The reason I want to do that is that it places Mr Howard's position today in such stark contrast to his self-righteous indignation in 1986 when the mother of the then Minister for Trade, Mr John Dawkins, held BHP shares, which Mr Howard said was a heinous crime. Mr Howard was attempting to censure the then Prime Minister over this.Mr Howard wanted the House to censure the then Prime Minister for condoning the failure of the Minister for Trade to make full and frank disclosure of matters which may have given rise to a conflict of interest. He also said that he wanted to censure the Prime Minister for his failure to maintain proper standards of ministerial conduct. He also wanted to censure the Prime Minister for his blatant double standards relating to ministerial propriety and for his expedient and opportunistic interpretation of rules which he himself had laid down for the conduct of ministers. If that does not apply to Mr Howard today, nothing does.Clearly, the Prime Minister has redefined and reinterpreted his own rules so that Senator Parer can get off the hook. He is clearly caught. The editorials of the major newspapers around this country have said that Senator Parer should stand down and that the Prime Minister should cease protecting him. That is what they have said. They said it days and days ago. But this government has decided that it is going to abandon its standards because it cannot afford to lose a minister.No-one on the government side should talk to us about double standards, because here we have evidence that the Prime Minister has changed his standards. The standards which Mr Howard wanted applied to John Dawkins because his mother owned BHP shares do not seem to apply to Senator Parer, who is part of a family trust with $2 million worth of coal shares. Other issues were raised in question time today relating to the non-declaration of valuable shareholdings, which he was required to declare by the Senate. No doubt we will hear more about that.In April 1986, Mr Howard, quoting Prime Minister Hawke—but he chose to repeat it and he took comfort in it—said:If a man . . . shouts from the roof tops that those in high office should be subject to scrutiny he should have exactly the same standards applied to himself.I say to the Prime Minister that they do apply to him and they will be applied to him. As quoted by Mike Seccombe in today's Sydney Morning Herald , the Prime Minister said:Everybody knows that if a man who stands to gain . . . goes out of this Parliament and tries to tell the average Australian that he may not have a conflict of interest . . . there is not a man or a woman who would believe him.That is what the Prime Minister, Mr Howard, said.5F4CALVERTSenator Calvert—That is just the politics of envy, that's all.8O6O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN—You are the one who punched the air over the vote this morning, Senator Calvert. You want a double dissolution on Wik because it suits you. You do not want a double dissolution on the issues.Government senators interjecting—TH4KNOWLESSenator Knowles—Where were you this morning?8O6O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN—I was here. The Prime Minister said in 1986:There is only one thing involved and that is whether or not in the circumstances applying to the minister for trade there was a potential for a conflict of interest to arise.In this case, Senator Parer had a situation where there was potential for a conflict of interest. Indeed, he clearly broke the guidelines. He broke the guidelines in a way that in other cases caused the demise of Senator Short and Senator Gibson, but in this case the Prime Minister's friend Senator Parer is being protected, notwithstanding the stance of the Prime Minister when he said that John Dawkins should go and that the then Prime Minister should be censured because Dawkins's mother had BHP shares. That was the stance of the Prime Minister then. The question is, are the electors of this country entitled to have confidence in the integrity of their elected representatives? (Time expired)15:18:001283Lightfoot, Sen PhillipSenator LIGHTFOOTWP6WALP10—I rise to speak on the motion to take note of the answer supplied by Senator Hill, the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I have had some experience in parliamentary procedure, particularly at question time, and I must say that in my experience, which spans 11 or so years in state politics in Western Australia, I have never seen an adversarial atmosphere like this in politics before. What is it going to achieve for Australia? Nothing. Nothing has been achieved in the last two weeks in question time. There has been an unmitigated attack on Senator Parer.TH4KNOWLESSenator Knowles—We have asked some very good questions.WP6Lightfoot, Sen PhillipSenator LIGHTFOOT—There have been some valid and warranted questions from this side, but there has also been an unprecedented and unwarranted attack on Senator Parer. What is it? Is it the politics of envy? Is it the politics of hate? Is it the politics of lack of achievement that drives this along? Why do we have a situation where nothing can be achieved of any consequence by the other side?It is like a pack of jackals attacking a lion. The more jackals there are, the more likely it is that they will bring the lion down, but they will not bring this lion down because there are not enough jackals on the other side. I am not the only one who says that that is so. In an article in the Sydney Morning Herald of 24 March, Kate Askew said:Because Pan Australian is a small explorer, not a miner, its activities arguably would not be affected by any of Senator Parer's policies. It has been a loser as an investment for him and his partners.They do not seem to have landed anything on Senator Parer yet that is in any way approaching a conflict of interest. Indeed, the Prime Minister himself has said that there is no conflict of interest. The head of the Prime Minister's department, Mr Moore-Wilton, has also said that there is no conflict of interest. But if there was a conflict of interest and it has been rectified by the senator, why is he still being pursued to the detriment of the Australian people?There is no doubt that Senator Parer is one of the best that this nation has ever seen in the portfolio of minerals and resources. People of his acumen, ability and expertise do not come along every day who are prepared to give up a very rewarding life in the private sector in order to come into this place and serve their nation as they see fit and as the expertise which they have built up over a lifetime in that particular area dictates.As I have said, even if there had been some blows landed, I do not believe they have been justified in any way. It is cowardly to accuse a man of a conflict of interest, of misleading parliament, in this place. People who do it without justification and when there is evidence to the contrary are nothing less than cowards in everybody's eyes.There is no question that the media know that the other side are running out of puff, out of steam. How much longer is the charade going to go on? They are hoping and praying that at some stage they are going to lay a blow but they will not lay a blow on Lion Parer. The jackals can yap, scream and screech all they wish. I think it is disgraceful for the opposition to continue this to the detriment of Australia.Senator Warwick Parer is here in the national interest. It costs him money to come into this place. I think that the politics of envy, the politics of hate and the nefarious behaviour by the other side should be condemned by this side. No doubt we do that privately, but we do not use the chamber and we do not use the time of this place to discredit someone who does not justify it. But we do heap discredit upon the other side for what they propose and hope—indeed, they have failed to bring about the degradation of one of the finest senators this chamber has seen. (Time expired)15:23:001283Quirke, Sen JohnSenator QUIRKEZS6SAALP00—Senator Lightfoot just made a few interesting remarks. One of them, about halfway through his address—I cannot remember the exact words, Senator, but I think the words were something of this order—was that the Prime Minister has signed off on this; therefore there is no conflict of interest. Unfortunately, we are not as naive as that. We cannot accept that, because the Prime Minister has signed off in this instance, a potential, at the very least, conflict of interest does not exist.I do not want to spend much of my time here this afternoon on Senator Parer. Basically, I think Senator Parer is a decent fellow and a good minister. I think his administration of that area, at least as far as I have seen it—and I have had only some six months to take a close look at it—is reasonably good. But, unfortunately, owning shares—albeit in some contorted system of ownership that keeps them supposedly at arms-length—in an area of portfolio responsibility is inappropriate. In my view it is an open and shut case.I want to quote a couple of people who I think share that view. On 14 October 1996—Senate Hansard page 4,074—Senator Hill, in referring to the guidelines that we are talking about that are at the very heart of this matter, said:Ministers are required to divest themselves of all shares and similar interests in any company or business involved in an area of their portfolio responsibilities.Again on the same day—page 4,064 of the Hansard —Senator Hill 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—and this was talking about a much earlier one—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—the highest price a minister could pay. I would have thought that that is the proof that this government intends to maintain high standards of ministerial conduct.Again, this time two days later on 16 October, Senator Hill—page 4,265 of the Senate Hansard —said:I remind you that those guidelines say that ministers are required to divest themselves of all shares and similar interests in companies or busi nesses involved in any area of their portfolio responsibilities.Again on the same day, 16 October, Senator Hill said:The guidelines provide 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. As I interpret that, if the company in which the minister holds shares is the company out of which the conflict arises, there would be a need to divest.Sadly, I think it is quite straightforward that in this instance the Prime Minister's code of conduct is not to be applied. I can only speculate as to the reasons for that. Those reasons have been speculated upon in this chamber.Quite frankly—and I agree with the clerk on this point—Senator Parer owned those shares, however so constructed—and I use the word closely and I make no point on that. The fact of the matter is that at the time he was a minister he had a family trust that owned extensive mining shares in areas of his ministerial responsibility. In my view, that is inappropriate. I would have thought that the Prime Minister would need to be consistent on this matter for the sake at least of poor old Senator Gibson and, indeed, for Senator Short, who was in this place before I got here.15:28:001284Knowles, Sen SusanSenator KNOWLESTH4WALP10—I am rather pleased that the opposition is yet again wasting time on this issue because it does give me an opportunity to carry on from where I left off yesterday. I did complain in yesterday's five-minute slot that I did not have enough time to go through a complete list of conflicts of interest of the Labor Party. Now I will have time to finish it off.I think Senator Quirke is probably quite an honourable gentleman, from what I know of him in his short time here. I am sorry he did not follow me yesterday or today because he might have been able to explain to the Senate why the Labor Party remained deafeningly silent through many of those things that I mentioned yesterday, such as Minister Griffiths owning a sandwich shop while he was the minister for industry and Senator Richardson, while minister for communications, being a director of a radio station, not declaring his interests and using his position as a minister to influence the President of the Marshall Islands on behalf of his cousin, Greg Symons.I wonder why they did not complain about Treasurer Dawkins not declaring that his mother owned Bell shares while Holmes a Court was trying to take over BHP and why they did not complain about Prime Minister Hawke's personal friend Peter Abeles trying to crush the pilots' union. Why didn't they complain about Prime Minister Hawke using his position as PM to collect $1 million from four Western Australian business leaders at the gold tax lunch?I went on to outline a whole range of other things, like Prime Minister Keating and Gareth Evans using their positions to attack Justice Marks and the royal commission on the Easton affair. Why did they not go for the then minister Carmen Lawrence when the Marks royal commission found that she had lied to the royal commission? They did not do a thing in relation to that. Why did they not have a go at the then Speaker Leo McLeay, who used his position as Speaker to collect $60,000 for falling off his bike? Why did they not have a go at Paul Keating when in the wilderness he bought a piggery using his superannuation as collateral? He did not declare that piggery. They did not have any answers to that.Why was it all right for Paul Keating to use his position as Treasurer to protect the State Bank of Victoria from going under by selling it to the Commonwealth Bank? Why did they not have a go at Paul Keating when he was Treasurer for not lodging his income tax return for two years? Why did they not have a go at Gary Punch when he was minister for aviation and was opposed to a second runway? Why did they not have a go at Senator Bolkus when he was Minister for Administrative Services for negotiating to move the audit office into the ALP Centenary House, thus just happening to give the ALP an absolute windfall?Unfortunately, none of those questions have been answered at all. Yet we still have a situation where the Leader of the Opposition in this place, Senator Faulkner, in his screech ing, yelling and screaming across the chamber, has still asked only three questions without notice on unemployment in 12 months. What is wrong? Do you know that in 1997 the opposition did not ask one single solitary question on debt, not one on inflation, not one on interest rates and not one on small business—all the things that are crucial to this country. Inflation is down under the coalition government to zero, and yet not one thing has interested them in those issues.What has interested them is the question of smut, muckraking, innuendo and everything else that can be smearing the government, but nothing on policy. As I said yesterday and as Senator Hill said today, there are no policies coming from the opposition. Here they are two years into opposition and not one policy—no policy on tax, trade, primary industry, environment, communications, industrial relations, social security, foreign affairs, industry, defence, health, finance, employment, transport, justice, immigration, resources and energy, family services, status of women, veterans' affairs, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander affairs, schools, vocational education, sport, customs, regional development—not one single solitary policy. They are constantly day after day muckraking and smearing an excellent minister who has been the best minister for resources the country has ever seen.Question resolved in the affirmative.Notices128512851285Quirke, Sen JohnSenator QUIRKEZS6SAALP00—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the Senate notes that:(a) on 14 October 1996, the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) 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 children have access to';(b) the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) responded without equivocation, `Well the guidelines don't allow you to do that if you owned the shares at the time the guidelines operate'; and(c) the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) obviously no longer applies these standards. 12861286Ray, 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 15 days since the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) defied his own guidelines.12861286Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the Senate—(a) notes that: (i) tobacco use is the most significant cause of preventable death and disease in Australia, accounting for 82 per cent of all drug-related deaths and costing the economy an estimated $12.7 billion per year, and (ii) the opening dinner for business delegates at the recent Liberal Party of Australia's Federal Convention, held on 13 March 1998, was sponsored by the tobacco manufacturing company, Philip Morris; and(b) calls on the Government to declare its intention to refuse donations and sponsorships from any company involved in the manufacture or wholesale of tobacco.12861286Reynolds, Sen MargaretSenator REYNOLDSXI4QLDALP00—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the Senate—(a) welcomes the release of the international publication, Mapping Progress , which details the policy initiatives of 90 governments to implement gender policy reform in line with the 1995 Beijing Platform of Action for Women;(b) regrets that the Australian Government did not respond to the questionnaire circulated to assess the record of individual governments; (c) notes that: (i) more than 70 per cent of countries now have action plans in progress, but Australia is not one of them, (ii) 61 countries have involved their non-government organisations in the development of the action plans, but Australia is not one of them, (iii) 27 countries have women's budgets, but Australia is not one of them, and (iv) 22 countries have new laws on women's political participation, but Australia is not one of them; and(d) calls on the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) to give Minister for the Status of Women (Mrs Moylan) both the freedom and the resources to catch up with the standards being set internationally by all those governments which seriously meet their obligations to implement progressive policies to raise the status of women.12861286Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the Senate—(a) notes that: (i) in the week beginning 22 March 1998, hundreds of protesters formed a blockade against the Energy Resources of Australia uranium mine at Jabiluka, (ii) the protesters have established a permanent base camp and intend to stop the construction of the mine, and (iii) the traditional land owners, the Mirrar people, have welcomed the blockade;(b) urges the Federal Government to recognise that this project will generate 20 million tonnes of radioactive waste and that the project threatens the cultural and natural values of the World Heritage listed Kakadu National Park; and(c) calls on the Federal Government to reconsider its decision to allow uranium mining at Jabiluka in the World Heritage listed Kakadu National Park region.12861286Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the Senate— (a) notes that: (i) draft frameworks of ethical principles for members and senators, and ministers and presiding officers, developed by the Working Group to Develop a Code of Conduct for Senators and Members, were tabled in the Senate on 21 June 1995, and (ii) since debate on an Australian Democrat motion to adopt the framework of ethical principles for senators and members, with amendments, was adjourned on 16 November 1995, no action has been taken to advance this matter; and(b) calls on the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) to convene a new working party, consisting of members and senators from all parties and groups represented in both Houses of the Parliament, to prepare a report for tabling by 30 June 1998, on the following: (i) the status and adequacy of existing guidelines or codes of conduct for ministers, parliamentary secretaries, senators and members of the House of Representatives, (ii) the appropriateness and desirability of establishing new bodies to supervise the operation of parliamentary and ethical standards or codes of conduct, including:(A) an independent commission or commissioner, and (B) committees of each House of the Parliament or a joint committee, and (iii) the appropriate functions and powers, including enforcement powers, of the bodies mentioned in subparagraph (ii).12871287Bourne, Sen VickiSenator BOURNETW4NSWAD00—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the Senate—(a) notes: (i) the apparent refusal of the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) to sign an international register on human rights to be presented to the United Nations Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, on International Human Rights Day on 10 December 1998, which will mark the 50th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, (ii) that the international register is an expression of personal commitment to the human rights principles enshrined in the Universal Declaration and will be signed by thousands of individual Australians throughout the year, (iii) that the register has already been signed by the President of the United States of America, Mr Clinton, and the British Prime Minister, Mr Blair, and (iv) that Australia helped draft the Universal Declaration and should play an equal leadership role in the 50th anniversary celebrations; and(b) calls on the Prime Minister to sign the international register to demonstrate his personal commitment to universal human rights and the Universal Declaration.12871287Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT5F4TASLP10—On behalf of Senator Watson, I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, he will move:That the time for the presentation of the report of the Select Committee on Superannuation on the provisions of the Commonwealth Superannuation Board Bill 1997, the Superannuation Legislation (Commonwealth Employment) Repeal and Amendment Bill 1997 and the Superannuation Legislation (Commonwealth Employment—Saving and Transitional Provisions) Bill 1997 be extended to 1 April 1998.Business12871287Motion (by Senator Chris Evans, at the request of Senator George Campbell) agreed to:That business of the Senate notice of motion No. 2 standing in the name of Senator George Campbell for today, relating to the reference of a matter to the Economics References Committee, be postponed till 30 March 1998.1287Motion (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.1287Motion (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.1287Motion (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.1288Motion (by Senator Brown) agreed to:That general business notice of motion No. 1020 standing in the name of Senator Brown for today, relating to classification laws, be postponed till the next day of sitting.1288Motion (by Senator Gibbs) agreed to:That general business notice of motion No. 1027 standing in the name of Senator Gibbs for today, relating to the Federation Fund, be postponed till the next day of sitting.1288Motion (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.1288Motion (by Senator Bartlett) agreed to:That general business notice of motion No. 1028 standing in the name of Senator Bartlett for today, relating to the practice of face branding cattle, be postponed till the next day of sitting.1288Motion (by Senator Gibbs) agreed to:That general business notice of motion No. 1029 standing in the name of Senator Gibbs for today, relating to electricity blackouts in Queensland, be postponed till the next day of sitting.1288Motion (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.Miscellaneous1288Motion (by Senator Bartlett) agreed to:That the Senate—(a) notes that:(i) the Victorian duck hunting season commenced on 21 March 1998, (ii) the practice of duck hunting not only results in the immediate death of many thousands of native birds, but also in many others dying slowly and painfully from their injuries,(iii) there is strong public support for a nationwide ban on duck hunting, as evidenced in the South Australian Parliament, and(iv) duck hunting is already banned in New South Wales and Western Australia; and(b) calls on all State and Territory Governments to ban the cruel and environmentally damaging practice of duck hunting.15:46:001288Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment10—by leave—I just want to say on behalf of the government that, whilst we acknowledge the Senate has passed this motion and that we called no, we are nevertheless concerned with the two issues of cruelty and environmental damage. Duck hunting is something that is governed by state or territory legislation. We would expect state or territory legislation to put in place a regime that respects animal welfare matters and, therefore, makes all due efforts to avoid any undue cruelty in this particular activity. We also expect such regulations to regulate against activity that might threaten endangered or threatened species of ducks, which I think is the concern that is being expressed by the honourable senator when he refers to environmentally damaging practices.Business1288128815:48:001288Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—Madam Deputy President, why aren't we dealing with the disallowance motions?10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—They will be called on when we reach that business, Senator Harradine.6H4Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE—I rise to order. On page 2 of the red, it says `Discovery of formal business, Business of the Senate, notice of motion no. 1'.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—That is for the possibility of the mover making application for formality. That has not happened at this stage.6H4Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE—Madam Deputy President, I seek leave to make a statement.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—They come up again in item 17 on page 4 of the red. Is leave granted on this matter for Senator Harradine to make a statement?Leave granted.6H4Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE—I thank the Senate. I was not aware that one would be faced with this situation at the present moment. It is an example of the fact that honourable senators are faced with a growing number of notices of motion. The time that is given to us does not enable us to seek or obtain detailed information and advice on these notices of motion, particularly when you are in the situation, as I am, where you have a whole range of matters to get over. In this particular case, one is engrossed in discussions and negotiations about very important legislation that is likely to come before the Senate in the next few days and particularly next week.I raise with honourable senators the fact that, over the last few years, the number of notices of motion which have been placed before this chamber, declared formal and voted upon has more than trebled. In the last year they have at least doubled. If honourable senators continue to do this, I believe that we will reach a stage where motions which are adopted, decisions made by the Senate, will lose their credibility. I do not believe that that is good for the Senate or the institution itself, nor is it of benefit to those honourable senators and their constituents for whom this procedure is necessary. I believe that we need to do something to bring this to a head. Frankly, from tomorrow onwards I intend to deny leave to any notice of motion that is put forward until such time as some rationality enters this particular area. I do hope that honourable senators realise that it is in our best interests if we come to some sort of understanding and arrangement.The other thing is that, because of the change in sitting times for the Senate, notices of motion are now put forward in the afternoon. Then there is the whips meeting, and one gets a response from the whips meeting on how the various parties are going to vote on particular matters. There is no time at night to make contact with relevant experts in the field, so as to be properly informed, or to contact the library. Quite often the people are just not available at that time of night. You might say, `Well, there's always the morning.' I do not know about other honourable senators, but I get in here at half past seven in the morning and I find that my day is considerably taken up.I do apologise to honourable senators, but I am not in a position to do justice to the matters that come before us in this particular fashion. I wonder whether at some stage you could all think about possibly setting aside one afternoon, whether that be Thursday afternoon, to look at them, which would give us plenty of time to consider the ramifications of the notices of motion. Let us ensure that the decisions of this Senate are mature and not just taken on the hop.15:53:001289Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAYUI4VICALP00—by leave—I agree with a lot of what Senator Harradine said, but I think notices of motion fall into three categories. One category is those that are given so you can put your views on the record and are never brought up for formality. We have all been through that.The second lot are those that express an opinion of the Senate that are often executed by sending them to an embassy or somewhere else, and I think this is the nub of Senator Harradine's problem. But I would urge him not to refuse leave to those machinery matters which may extend the time for a report or for a public sitting because they are running out of time. I think they are in a third category. You did say you were going to refuse leave for all, Senator Harradine; I hope you will exempt those.15:54:001289Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—by leave—I share with Senator Harradine a prodigious workload, in my case on behalf of the Australian Greens, having to canvass the whole gamut of legislation, questions, notices of motion and so on. That is something that Senator Tambling and others opposite have never had to experience, but it is part of our duties.What does concern me about Senator Harradine's proposal is that, of tomorrow—and I think it is the second or third time that such a proposal has been flagged here—he will, and can, as a single senator, block formality being granted by a simple vote on the voices or, if necessary, a division on the matter as a protest about that workload. It would be a better solution for an arrangement to be made so that the motions can be dealt with in a more expeditious fashion, if indeed it is available.Another option is to look to increasing the wherewithal in Senator Harradine's office and those of others who have to deal with this workload. But it is up to each senator and to each party to evaluate for themselves what is important that is happening in this nation, in our states and to the world and to be able to bring forward those issues and have them dealt with as expeditiously as possible.Simply blocking them as a wholesale act of discontent about that workload is not giving proper weight to the content of those motions, some of which are extremely important and urgent. So I would think that the sensible thing would be to find the alternative solution rather than simply to block the process. Of course, I do know that, if the process is to block, we spend more time in here debating process rather than the issue itself. I do not think that is a good solution.15:56:001290Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—by leave—Madam Deputy President, I claim to have been misrepresented by the last speaker, Senator Brown, who unfairly suggested or implied that I was taking this action in some sort of chagrin at my own workload. That is not the point at all, not at all.I am saying that all honourable senators, including me, particularly those who have a workload, need time to properly and maturely consider their attitudes in respect of the notices of motion. That is what I have been asking. If Senator Brown does not want to take that in good faith, that will be it. It is not a situation where I am just denying leave for the sake of denying leave.QD4BROWNSenator Brown—The effect is the same.6H4Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE—It is not for that purpose at all.QD4BROWNSenator Brown—But the effect is the same. 6H4Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE—I think other honourable senators know what I am talking about, even if Senator Brown does not.Miscellaneous1290Motion (by Senator Allison) agreed to:That the Senate—(a) notes the statement by the National Biodiversity Council of 22 March 1998 that the changes to land use proposed in the Government's Native Title Amendment Bill 1997 could have profoundly negative impacts on Australia's biodiversity;(b) recognises that members of the National Biodiversity Council are some of Australia's most eminent scientists and experts on biodiversity matters;(c) believes the Government should be doing all in its powers to better protect Australia's biodiversity, cited in the `State of the Environment' report as the number one environmental issue facing the nation; and(d) considers these important matters relating to Australia's biodiversity when the Native Title Amendment Bill returns to this chamber.Matters of Urgency1290129010000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT— I inform the Senate that the President has received the following letter, dated 25 March 1998, from the Leader of the Australian Democrats, Senator Lees:Dear Madam PresidentPursuant to Standing Order 75, I give notice that today I propose to move:That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:That the people of Australia are guaranteed that their access to public health services will not be reduced due to the current disagreements over funding between the Federal and State/Territory Governments.Yours sincerely,Meg LeesLeader of the Australian DemocratsIs the proposal supported?More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places— 10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—I understand that informal arrangements have been made to allocate specific times to each of the speakers in today's debate. With the concurrence of the Senate, I shall ask the clerks to set the clock accordingly.15:59:001291Lees, Sen MegSenator LEES8U4SAAD00—I move:That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:That the people of Australia are guaranteed that their access to public health services will not be reduced due to the current disagreements over funding between the Federal and State/Territory Governments.I believe this is an urgent matter. It is one that this chamber does need to discuss. I have worded my motion in such a way that I hope we can get bipartisan support and that we can send a very clear message to the people of Australia that this chamber—and, hopefully, both the government and the opposition—supports the Medicare system and, in particular, supports the public hospital system.This ongoing funding dispute between federal and state governments is nothing new. I think the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs (Senator Herron), representing the Minister for Health and Family Services, was quite right yesterday when he suggested that a lot of huffing and puffing goes on whenever we have a Medicare agreement up for negotiation, but I think we all must agree that this time it has gone a lot further than just people taking their own corner, digging themselves into a trench and doing a bit of arguing. What we have got now is a funding deadlock, and what this is doing in all states is undermining the confidence people have in the public health system and, in particular, the confidence they have that, should they need a public hospital bed, one will actually be available for them.Yes, some of the messages that have been sent out by various states have helped in that undermining process. I am not saying for a moment that it is all the doing of the federal government, but my aim in discussing this motion today is to send a very clear message that we are determined to see this problem sorted out and to get a commitment from this government that it will be involved in the sorting out process.I am particularly concerned about the longer term. Since this government came into office, its health policies have resulted in a perception that there is a covert agenda to gradually starve the public health system—in particular, the public hospital system—of funds and get it down to the point where people give up and say, `Okay, I'm going to have to get private health insurance and go private.'I do not want to start pointing the finger at any particular state; that will only take us back to the realm of buck passing and that is what we want to try to avoid. I think I can make a very general statement, though, that all parties have been involved both in cost cutting measures that went far beyond realistic levels and in cost shifting. I put very clearly on notice that all state governments have been involved in this practice of trying to shift costs on to the Commonwealth and also shift costs on to the individual.I have held the Democrats health portfolio for over six years and, during this period, have been disturbed by the continuing drain of funds—and I go back to the previous Labor government as well as this present government—out of the public health sector. We have seen, for example, the dental health program go altogether, and we now see this difficulty with our public hospitals. Part of the attraction for governments when they see this big pot of money is that they think, `A couple of percentage points here this year, a couple of percentage points there this year and a bit next year won't make much difference.' But that has been going on for so long now that it is making a difference—a considerable difference—and that is why we have reached the impasse.A number of things have been suggested over the years as we have been moving towards this impasse, and I would say that our public hospital system is now on a precipice. I suggest that not just the minister but a number of government members—if they have the time in the break after Easter—should actually visit several hospitals in their own state, talk to the nurses, doctors and administrators and look particularly at the pressure on beds and at some of the wastage that is occurring, with wards being closed because there is simply not enough funding to keep the hospitals operating properly.The Democrats on many occasions have proposed a range of what we believe are very practical and responsible positions. In some cases, these were put on hold, and two or three months or maybe two or three years down the track they were revisited and looked at by government. We had a case under the Labor government where they were looking at some of the reasons why people were leaving private health insurance. We are not convinced that people leaving private health insurance is a key factor in the situation public hospitals find themselves in—it is certainly a small factor, but not a key factor—but, if funding levels for public hospitals had been maintained, they would not be where they are.A major reason for the shift away from private is the out-of-pocket expenses that people find themselves facing. People think, `Hopefully, the day will not come but, if I had to use a private hospital, I do not want to face the extra costs.' The knowledge that the costs are there, the knowledge that others have faced them and the knowledge that two or three months down the track some people are still getting their fourth, fifth and sixth bills from a visit to a private hospital does nothing for confidence in private health insurance.We could not talk the previous Labor government into seriously considering this, but I am pleased to say that this government is now setting up pilot programs in this area and we at last seem to have doctors interested in this issue and doctors understanding that it is a problem. It has taken five years, but at last we are getting somewhere.Another example of some of the suggestions we have made—and this one was made in 1997—is a progressive Medicare levy. I believe Australians on higher incomes would be prepared, if they saw the money going into the public hospital system, to pay a little extra. Unfortunately, when the government adopted this in 1997, they did not put the money being raised into the public hospital system at all; it has gone off into general revenue. If they had been looking at a higher levy going into public hospitals, we would have at least another $350 million available.As we look for a solution to this impasse, we are looking to the Productivity Commission's recommendations for a broad review of the Australian health system. That was made in April 1997 and has been echoed by the South Australian Premier, Mr Olsen. But we heard yesterday that this government is apparently not interested in finding a solution to this impasse. They have now ignored that call and have preferred apparently to leave the average Australian in this situation of uncertainty, where we have an inefficient financing process that leads eventually to insecurity. (Time expired)16:06:001292Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment10—The government will accept the urgency motion moved by the Australian Democrats. It states:That in the opinion of the Senate the following is a matter of urgency:That the people of Australia are guaranteed that their access to public health services will not be reduced due to the current disagreements over funding between the Federal and State/Territory Governments.It is the view of the Commonwealth government that the failure of the states to accept a new Commonwealth-state health care agreement should not be at a cost to the public and that the security of the public in relation to public health services should be continued.One wondered when the premiers walked out of the meeting with the Prime Minister last week, refusing to agree to the Commonwealth's offer in relation to the health care agreement, what their real intention was and exactly what were their tactics. One hopes that their tactics were not that they believed as a result of disagreement over a new agreement and failure to achieve a new agreement that there would be pressure through patients. The Commonwealth, in any event, was certainly not prepared to allow that to occur. Thus the Prime Minister very quickly said that the key parts of the Commonwealth offer would be implemented even without the agreement of the state premiers. Notwithstanding their walkout, and no matter what their motive in doing so, patients will not be allowed to suffer as a result of that particular negotiating tactic.It is important in this debate to establish the facts because there has been a lot of misinformation out there in the community. One of the facts relates to just how much money the Commonwealth does contribute to health care through the states. In the last five years the Commonwealth has in fact spent $27.3 billion on Commonwealth-state health care agreements. As I said yesterday in answer to a question, the forward estimates show that the funding would rise to $30.3 billion over the next five years. So the government was committed, through its estimates, to increasing public expenditure funded by the Commonwealth through taxes raised by the Commonwealth over and above that which the Commonwealth paid last year—an additional $3 billion. Our intention was therefore to increase the funding to some $30.3 billion.On top of that it is also important to understand that the Commonwealth has been willing and is prepared to pay even further. It offered to the states an extra $1.5 billion in base funding over the next five years. That is on top of the $30.3 billion. It is prepared and will pay an extra $750 million for funding for veterans being fully treated in public hospitals. It is prepared and will pay an extra $500 million for initiatives in efficiency and effectiveness in hospitals, particularly in the area of information technology. All of this is going to be paid even though the state premiers are not prepared to sign the agreement. That is the security in terms of the motion moved by Senator Meg Lees, that public health services will not be reduced as a result of the premiers' walkout last Friday.In addition to that, the Commonwealth is also prepared to pay another $120 million to reduce waiting lists in public hospitals. I want to come back to that in a moment. Therefore, what we are offering above the forward estimates actually adds up to another $2.9 billion of new money. This is a 6.9 per cent increase in the first year of funding, moving towards a 15.4 per cent real increase over the five years of the agreement. With that very substantial real increase—what is being offered is a 6.9 per cent real increase a year over an inflation rate of practically negative levels—it is very difficult to understand what the state premiers are complaining about.The only complaint one really hears that has some bite is this issue about people leaving the private health sector and therefore putting further pressure on the public health sector and whether in fact that should be compensated in some way. This government, in contrast with the previous Labor government, is prepared to address that as well. We have done so by giving a commitment that if the level of private health insurance coverage drops then we will add another $83 million a year to health care agreements for any one per cent reduction in the number of people covered by that private health insurance.We of course do not want to see private health coverage reduced any further. It was substantially reduced in the years of Labor—in fact reduced from a figure of almost 70 per cent of Australians having private health in 1983 to 35 per cent at the end of Labor's reign. Labor was basically opposed to private health insurance. We have heard it so often from the former Prime Minister, Mr Keating. He did not believe that it was a necessary part of the health system. In that environment people got out of private health care and that has placed further pressure on the public sector. We do not want to see that continue, but if it does we have provided this extra funding support which should give confidence to the states that they will be able to meet that extra demand.How we act then to ensure as best we are able that there is not a further reduction is, as we have done, by providing a health insurance rebate of $450 a year for families, which grosses to some $600 million a year. So we have already put in $600 million a year to support the private health cover system. That will be continuing of course on an ongoing basis, except if Labor happen perchance to win the next election. They are opposed to that $600 million, so they will withdraw that, which will place further pressure on the public sector again. As a matter of interest, in passing, they are also opposed—which is really extraordinary—to the surcharge that we placed on the Medicare levy in respect of higher income earners to put more money into the sector.So what you have from the coalition government is an assurance that we will continue to fund the sector at an increased rate from the past—an extra benefit that we will put in if, unfortunately, the coverage of private health is further reduced—and, as I said, $120 million also to reduce waiting lists in public hospitals.This is an incentive for the states. Only one state or territory has taken it up so far, and that is the ACT. The ACT is getting significant benefit. In fact, the ACT, having signed an in principle agreement—and that is all we ask of the states—will be able to draw half a million dollars this week which will fund an extra 200 admissions.One can see what benefits would flow to each of the states—the extent to which they would be able to reduce their waiting lists if they took up our offer of a share of that $120 million. I would have thought that not only is this a generous offer that has been put to the states but also it gives assurance to the public that they will not suffer as a result of the intransigence of the state premiers. On top of that it provides the extra incentive of $120 million to reduce waiting lists very substantially and thus meet this extra pent-up demand which is really a flow-on from the failures of the last Labor government in this sector. I put the offer to state premiers again and urge them to see sense on this issue in the interest of the health of all Australians.16:17:001294Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—There can be few greater responsibilities, I would suggest, on governments in this country, be they federal or state, than to ensure that all Australians have access to health care and particularly hospital care. It is a pity that the minister who has the responsibility in this chamber is not participating in today's debate. I noticed, however, that the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Hill) stated that his government has a commitment to ensuring that no Australian will suffer as a result of the current impasse between the states and the Commonwealth on renegotiating the Medicare agreements.All Australians will note that commitment. This parliament certainly notes that commitment. The test will be whether or not it is delivered. I submit that, on the government's performance so far, in the two years it has been in office, it is unlikely to meet it. I fear that Australians will have reduced access to public health services.The Minister for Health and Family Services (Dr Wooldridge) has outlined details of the offer that has been made to the states with respect to renegotiating the Medicare agreements. I will come to the figures that have been cited by the minister in a moment. If what Minister Wooldridge was saying, if what the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) was saying and if what the Leader of the Government in the Senate was saying today was correct, why is it that all the state premiers in this country do not believe the minister for health or the Prime Minister or Senator Hill? Why is it that every single premier and every single state health minister in this country is telling the government that, firstly, its offer does not represent a real increase in health funding when one considers the amounts that have been taken out of the health budget in the last two years by this government and, secondly, it falls way below the amount that is required for the states to deliver an effective public hospital system?As we know, the states have the responsibility to provide the hospitals, the staff and the infrastructure of public hospitals in this country. But, at the end of the day, the financing of that largely comes from the Commonwealth. Despite all the arguments about cost shifting—when we were in government we were aware of those issues as well—we have a situation where this government has come up short by billions of dollars in respect of what is needed in the public hospital system.Time is running out. This matter has been on the negotiating table now between the federal minister, Minister Wooldridge, each of the state health ministers and the health ministers of the two territories for well over a year. There is still no agreement across the board. The only agreement that has occurred is with the ACT and it occurred not long before the recent election in the ACT assembly. But each of the state ministers and now the premiers—because this matter was referred to the Premiers Conference last Friday—has told the government that its offer is just insufficient.Why are they saying that? The current offer from the Commonwealth is of the order of $2.9 billion over five years, but much of what is being offered to the states in that respect is simply a return of money that was slashed out of the health budget by this government in its last two budgets. For instance, $750 million, or 25 per cent, of that amount is for veterans' hospital care. All that is is a transfer of the responsibility. There is no actual increase in funding through Medicare to the states or the territories. It is a shift from the Commonwealth to the states for that responsibility.Furthermore, $479 million of the Commonwealth offer is already existing money that is in the estimates for palliative care and mental health care. It is not new money. It is not an increase in money over and above what has already been budgeted for.When you put that beside the fact that this government in its first two budgets took $800 million out of the funding for public hospitals and saved a further $400 million by the abolition of the dental health program which was, of course, available for the most needy, particularly the aged and health cardholders, then a large proportion—almost all—of this supposed generous offer that the government says it is making is the return of money that was already in the system at the time they came into government. That is why the premiers are complaining. That is why Richard Court says that this is a dud deal.I notice that Senator Eggleston is in the chamber; I would be interested to hear his remarks because the Premier of his own state says that this is a dud, and Senator Lightfoot has actually agreed with that. Jeff Kennett has, of course, attacked the proposal of the government and he, along with all the other premiers, walked out of the Premiers Conference last Friday—an action that the Prime Minister described as kindergarten tactics but which, in reality, was the demonstration of absolute frustration that the states have had with this government because of the amount of time that has been spent on negotiating this agreement and the failure of this government to come up with a responsible offer.The Leader of the Government referred to the private health insurance incentive scheme which they put into place to try to increase private health insurance coverage. As my colleague Senator Bishop interjected, it has not done that. So far, $650-odd million has been outlaid and a projected $1.7 billion over three years is to be paid as a rebate to encourage people to take out private health insurance. That is what this government has put on the table; that is what it is implementing.But the level of private health insurance has dropped. It has dropped down now to its lowest level ever of about 31.6 per cent. People are not taking out private health insurance. People are leaving private health insurance. They are doing it because they recognise that, at the moment, given the huge gap that they usually have to pay for medical services in a hospital, it is not worth their while. That is the reality of it. That is why there is a growing crisis in public hospitals and waiting lists in this country.New South Wales was in a position about a year and a half ago where it had its waiting lists down to some of their lowest levels ever, to manageable levels, after the Carr government came into office. But that problem has now increased again directly as a result of the blow-out in terms of people wanting access to public hospitals and the failure of this government to provide adequate funding.So there is no doubt that this is a matter of urgency. This is an issue about which all Australians, all state governments and the Northern Territory government are saying to this government, `You have to get off your ideological horse; get down and understand that there is a need for a significant increase in the offer to the states to fund the public hospital systems.' Stop trying to fudge the figures; stop trying to pretend that you are actually increasing the amount available when in fact you are not, when all you are doing is returning back into the equation money that you took out over the first two years. If you have any commitment to Medicare—and I doubt it, but if you have any—as your Prime Minister said at the last election, then you will listen to your own party colleagues in those states and to the New South Wales Premier; you will sit down and renegotiate this and come up with a better offer than is on the table at the moment. (Time expired).16:27:001296Eggleston, Sen AlanSenator EGGLESTON4L6WALP10—The whole issue of the need for extra funding for the public hospital system relates to the current situation of overcrowding in our public hospitals. I think we really have to ask: who is responsible for that overcrowding in our public hospitals? The answer is very clear: the previous ALP government.With the introduction of Medicare, Australia's private health insurance system has all but collapsed. In June 1982, 68 per cent of Australians had private health insurance. If one compares this with December 1997, one will see that the figure was only 32 per cent, and it is now down to just over 31 per cent. Over the past 15 years, private health insurance membership has declined by around 30 per cent. The greatest decline occurred during the years of the Hawke and Keating governments—2M6COONANSenator Coonan—And under Carmen Lawrence.4L6Eggleston, Sen AlanSenator EGGLESTON—And under Carmen Lawrence, sadly, a Western Australian, let me say. That is when the great move to public hospitals occurred, resulting in the current situation where we have overcrowded public hospital outpatient departments and enormous waiting lists in public hospitals, something we never used to see in Australia. But we now have waiting lists of 18 months for hip surgery and two years for many other things like cataracts. That is a legacy of the Labor government.Today, Australia's private hospital system treats about 30 per cent of Australia's patients, which means that something like 70 per cent now use the public hospital system. As I said, that explains why we have overcrowded public hospitals while the private hospital resources alongside them are underutilised. I have to say that that is a disgrace and a very poor use of existing resources in this community.Another impact of the drop in private health insurance is going to be on the concept of community rating. Community rating is the unique feature of the Australian private health insurance system and has meant that Australian health insurance companies have operated as mutual funds rather than discriminating against people in premium terms on the basis of their medical history, as is the case in the United States.What the decline in private health insurance membership and the increase in public hospital utilisation mean is that the concept of community rating is now under great risk. Australians face a situation where health funds will become like the American model. It will no longer be possible for us all to pay the same premium and get covered for whatever is wrong with us. Instead, we will have to pay loaded premiums according to our histories and perhaps some people will be declined private health insurance because of their medical history, as happens in the United States. The blame for the overcrowding and the funding crisis in Australia's public hospitals rests entirely with the ALP.I turn to the federal government's offer to the states. In the last five years the Commonwealth-state health care agreements have been worth $27.3 billion. The present total offer over and above forward estimates is of an additional $2.5 billion, which is very generous. Within this total, the government is offering $1.5 billion in base funding increased over the next five years; $750 million for veterans' affairs patients; $500 million for efficiency and effectiveness in hospitals, particularly in the area of information technology; and $120 million to address the long waiting lists which, as I have said, are a legacy of the previous government's policies. This 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.One of the major aims of the new agreement is increased flexibility in the provision of health services. Funding will be able to follow the patient so that care can be provid ed in the most appropriate setting. This will lead to better results for patients because they will be receiving the right treatment in the right place. The Commonwealth is also offering funding of $500 million for projects to improve the health care system in general, particularly integrating care across all sectors. Continued funding of around $500 million will also be offered for mental health care reform and palliative care service delivery. Funding of almost $700 million will be offered to reward quality service providers, all on top, as I have said, of the additional $120 million which is being offered to reduce those long waiting lists which are a result of Labor policies in public hospitals.Let us look at the achievements of the coalition government versus the failures of the ALP government in the health area. First of all, the Howard government is committed to retaining Medicare. We have increased funding by $2.9 billion in real terms and offered to increase it in this next agreement. We are addressing the shortfalls in private health insurance and cutting waiting lists. By contrast, private health insurance dramatically dropped under Labor.Australians should realise that, when it comes to health policy, one thing is clear: Kim Beazley wants to abolish the private health insurance rebate which gives families $450 a year to encourage them to go back into private health insurance. Labor will abolish that rebate. I remind the Senate that Labor had 13 years to fix Australia's public hospital system and failed to do so. Why should Australians believe anything the ALP has to say about health when they presided over the biggest fall in private health insurance and caused the current problems? (Time expired)16:34:001297Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEALB36NSWALP00—I must say it is really a bit much to hear members of the government bemoaning what might happen to the private health insurance rebate when we see what this government is doing to the public health system in Australia and when we see that this very expensive gamble, a gamble that has cost Australians $1.7 billion for a rescue package for large featherbedded health insurance companies, has been an absolute and utter failure.You might recall that there was a debate at the time that this budget initiative for private health insurance was first announced. Initially, the Minister for Health and Family Services (Dr Wooldridge) assured us that this initiative, the private health insurance rebate, would not only stem the flow in private health insurance but also bring people back to the fold in that more people would be insured with private health insurance. It did not take very long. I think it was a matter of a week when the minister started back-pedalling and saying, `No. I never actually said that people would take up insurance again. What I said was that fewer people would leave health insurance and that in fact the number of people who were in private health insurance would remain steady.'But that really has not happened, has it? Not only has the flight from private health insurance continued but in fact it has accelerated. So as a country we have been spending $1.7 billion over four years to achieve absolutely zero. If this government thinks that that is good value for money, then I really believe that this government should think again. I do not believe that most of the community thinks that spending $1.7 billion on achieving nothing is very good value for money. But that is not where this government's incompetence ends, but I suppose that is what the debate is about this afternoon.This Prime Minister, John Howard, and the minister for health have been incapable, through their lack of leadership, of concluding a Medicare agreement with the states. You would have thought that reaching agreement about what is a reasonable amount of money to fund our public hospitals would not be so extraordinarily difficult. You would have thought that someone like Mr John Howard, with his experience in government and the many years that he was able to practise negotiation when he was in opposition, would have some idea of how to make an agreement about what sort of money should be spent on our public hospitals. But last weekend, after an incredibly short period—90 minutes, in fact—the premiers walked out of their meeting with John Howard.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Ferguson)—Order! Senator Neal, use his correct title please.B36Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEAL—Mr Howard.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—The Prime Minister.B36Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEAL—Our esteemed Prime Minister. It is very difficult.BE4NEWMANSenator Newman—It really sticks in the craw.B36Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEAL—It really sticks in the craw. You are quite right. You would think that the difficulty might stem from some sort of ideological difference, that in fact the premiers were opposed to concluding the agreement with Mr Howard, our Prime Minister—4L6EGGLESTONSenator Eggleston—Our esteemed Prime Minister.B36Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEAL—I do not know whether I would go quite that far—because they are of a different ideological bent, because they were members of the Labor Party; but that is not the case. In every state, except New South Wales, there is either a Liberal or a coalition government in power. Even his party brethren and colleagues would not put up with the sort of shenanigans that Mr Howard has been involved in. They will not accept that the amount of money being provided by this government is sufficient to run a reasonable public health system.In fact, the premiers, no matter what party they belong to, are in agreement about one thing in relation to the Medicare agreement; that is, to run a reasonable and adequate public health system they require an additional $5.5 billion over five years. That is not a small amount of money. The premiers, as a group, had some fairly scathing things to say and expressed a great deal of concern that the level of funding that was being offered by this government would not allow them to properly meet the demands for health treatment within their hospitals. I find a comment made by Mr Kennett—a Liberal premier—quite fascinating. He said:If you want an illustration of that, particularly those that are elderly will be the first hurt because most of the expenditure on health services goes towards people in the latter days, weeks, months of their lives.These sentiments were echoed by Mr Carr, Premier of New South Wales, when he said:People will be hurt, very largely older Australians.And the Premier of Tasmania, Tony Rundle, said:The state health systems need an infusion of money. The Australian hospital system is suffering from financial anaemia. It needs an infusion of funds.You really have to start to believe, where you have a cross-party agreement on funding of health, that maybe the premiers are right and that our Prime Minister and his health minister are wrong. I have noticed that the government is now saying, `There's no problem. We're incapable of concluding an agreement in terms of health funding but we will just forget about all that. Rather than trying to reach a real agreement on a reasonable level of funding for health, we will just send off a cheque. When the agreement expires on 1 June, we'll just put a cheque in the mail and the states can do the best they can with the level of funding that we decide we will provide them with. Whether it is adequate or not, we don't really care.'What concerns me is the consequences that will flow from a failure to have a Medicare agreement and just to have the funds sent off in the mail. There are a number of very important things that Medicare agreements do to protect the public and to ensure that they are treated fairly and properly in public hospitals. One of the things that the Medicare agreement does is to prevent the states from requiring patients to provide a co-payment when they go into a public hospital. I believe one of the great things about our public hospital system is that, if you are a person in need of treatment, you can go in there and be treated for sometimes quite extensive periods of time and not receive a bill when you leave.Do you realise, without the signature on a Medicare agreement, that public hospitals are free to require patients to make any contribution that they choose? If you genuinely believe that Mr Kennett, the Victorian Premier, will not feel tempted to say, `Anyone who goes into a public hospital will pay us an extra $100 a day,' or whatever figure he might choose, then I think you do not have the realistic view of Mr Kennett which most of the community have, particularly those who are ill and elderly in the State of Victoria. This Prime Minister is quite happy to see a situation exist where public hospitals in the states may require the sick to contribute when they are being treated in a hospital.There is another very important provision that, to date, has been contained in the Medicare agreements. (Time expired)16:44:001299Coonan, Sen HelenSenator COONAN2M6NSWLP10—Part of the health funding equation that has not received very much attention—and certainly no rigorous scrutiny—is the mismanagement of the vast health budget by the states. Nowhere is this more obvious than in New South Wales. The Commonwealth has made a firm and highly appropriate offer to New South Wales. Under the proposed agreement, New South Wales would get an extra $154.9 million in funding next year. The Commonwealth health minister, Dr Wooldridge, also offered Mr Carr $3.8 million next week if New South Wales agreed to the new agreements. That $3.8 million would have moved 1,425 people off the waiting lists right now; 1,425 people would have had their long and sometimes painful medical conditions attended to. What hypocrisy not to have accepted that.The offer to New South Wales included a rise of $55.4 million, or 3.76 per cent in base funding, for hospitals to bring it up to the $1.53 billion. Mr Carr was also offered $58.2 million in new funding for veterans health services and $41.3 million to reduce waiting lists, but Mr Carr stomped his feet and said that all this was not enough. In light of the fact that the federal government has stated clearly and on many occasions that the offers are not negotiable, Mr Carr's behaviour can be regarded not only as self-serving, but as selfish and in total disregard of the welfare of the people of New South Wales.Even with Mr Carr's disregard for the people of New South Wales, the Common wealth government will still be lifting funding for health in New South Wales. Under the 1993-94 to 1997-98 Medicare agreements, funding to all states and territories rose by approximately 5.5 per cent in real terms. In 1997-98, total funding is currently estimated at just under $5 billion, of which New South Wales will receive $1.6 billion. Despite the chorus from Mr Carr and Dr Refshauge that the problems in New South Wales are all due to Commonwealth funding cuts, that represents a real increase of 1.3 per cent. Why don't we hear any of this?Under the 1993-94 Medicare agreements, funding to New South Wales has increased by about 8.7 per cent. The recent revelation that Mr Carr had managed to get the waiting lists for elective surgery above the 50,000 mark saw him again turn around to the whipping horse of the Commonwealth government, yet again claiming that funds for hospitals had been cut. I wish some electronics company would give a calculator to the New South Wales health minister, Dr Refshauge, and the Premier, Mr Carr, so that they can work out the difference between a rise and a cut. The way it is going, it must be the kindest cut of all—that is all I can say.The Medicare agreements offer can only be described as generous. It represents a 15 per cent increase in real terms over five years, plus new funds for veterans and to reduce waiting lists. For the first time, the agreement contains an adjustment factor relating to people who may drop out of private health insurance. Are you listening over there? This provides for reimbursement of $83 million a year to the states for any one per cent further reduction in the number of people covered by health insurance.Senator Forshaw and Senator Neal, who also come from New South Wales, talked about how difficult it is going to be because of problems with private health insurance. We have just fixed it. We have made you an offer of $83 million a year for any one per cent further reduction, and you are still not happy. Dr Refshauge does not seem to be aware of this either. In today's Sydney Morning Herald, he said that the demand on hospitals was caused by falling numbers in private health insurance. He does not seem to realise that he has just been offered $83 million a year to fix that very problem.The inference is irresistible that the mismanagement of the Carr government is destroying the health system in New South Wales. A clear indication of this is that, according to research released by the Minister for Health and Family Services, Dr Wooldridge, the New South Wales hospital system is 20 to 30 per cent more expensive per episode than the national average. The available funds are being used on an inefficient and very expensive system which is successfully limiting the services and facilities available to the people of New South Wales, the most populous state. You do not have to be an actuarial genius to see where the health budget blows out.Mr Carr should examine some of the problems in the health system that his government has caused and which it is therefore incumbent upon him to fix. Trying to pass the blame constantly just does not wash. The list of breakdowns in the health system under Mr Carr is truly frightening. A record number of people are waiting for elective surgery in New South Wales public hospitals. By January this year, the figure had reached 50,778, up from 44,707 in March 1995. More people are waiting longer for surgery. The average waiting time has blown out to 1½ months, from 27 days in 1995. The Carr government has denied any knowledge of an across-the-board 12.5 per cent increase in hospital user charges. Mr Carr has simply blamed this shift on the Director of Health, washed his hands and walked away from it.The New South Wales health minister, Dr Refshauge, has thrown the Sydney metropolitan health system into such chaos that it hardly bears thinking about. His plan in 1996 was to close a number of established hospitals, including St Vincent's in Darlinghurst, and it was only the outcry of New South Wales residents that saved it. You have to hand it to the Carr government: with its cuts and reductions to the health budget in New South Wales, it has not only hit the patients; it has even hit the people who park in the hospital car parks when they go to visit their relatives.As a senator for New South Wales, the treatment of people in the state which I represent concerns me greatly. What is most upsetting is that it appears that the Carr government is playing politics. A breakdown of figures for people waiting 12 months or more for elective surgery is a matter of great concern. Of the top six hospitals where the numbers waiting for surgery have risen most, guess what? Four are in areas held by the coalition. I wonder how that happened? The lack of commitment to the health system by the New South Wales Labor government has resulted in the deterioration of services, which is affecting the lives of many people. While Mr Carr and Dr Refshauge indulge in the politics of blame, the system will continue to fall apart.16:52:001300Lees, Sen MegSenator LEES8U4SAAD00—I am very pleased to see we have cross-party, all party, support for this motion today. However, I am not pleased with the direction of the debate. Indeed, I think we have heard, particularly from this side, a very good reason why we should listen to the Productivity Commission and have an inquiry into Australia's health system.Can I take issue with a couple of things, particularly with what Senator Eggleston has said. Senator, on the one hand you claim this government is very keen on Medicare, it supports Medicare and it is a system that you believe in, but on the other hand you are saying we want people to go off into private health insurance. Basically, the inconsistency of that is: Medicare is a universal system and private health insurance is an option that people may like to take if they want a choice of doctor, or they want immediate treatment—in other words, to bypass the waiting lists—and they want a private room. It should not be seen as a core part of the health system.People have left private health insurance in droves. They have voted with their feet. They do not think it is a good idea. But what does this government do? It puts $1.7 billion back into private health insurance. Ninety per cent of that money at least went to people who already have insurance. It did not encourage any new members. That money stuck to the private health insurance system. It will not find its way out into the public health system.Imagine what our public hospitals would be like today if when you came into office you put $1.7 billion extra into the public hospitals, into the dental health programs and actually had a real universal system in this country, which is what people want. They want a system where we all pay on the basis of how much we earn—that goes in through the tax system to Medicare—and then we use it on the basis of our need, we know that there is a good public hospital and we do not have to check again to see how much a person earns when they turn up at the public hospital: we are treated on the basis of need.I do have to take issue, too, with Senator Hill and I think with Senator Coonan when they talk about this new process of linking the Medicare agreement to a drop in private health insurance. That was done in 1992 and I moved those amendments. The problem is that the government chose not to then make up the money. That trigger has been there and it has triggered two reviews—in 1995 and 1996. I want to see when we get to the legislation in 1998 that it is actually tied in so that drops in private health insurance, if there are further drops, will actually get some money into the system—that it is not just going to be a system where there is a trigger, there is a review and then virtually nothing happens.Minister Newman, the past government took no notice. Senator Hill has now left the chamber, unfortunately. We are going to make sure that, when that agreement appears before the Senate, that trigger is actually going to mean something this time and it is not going to mean just more buck-passing and more words, which is really all we have had today.Question resolved in the affirmative.Committees13011301130116:56:001301O'Chee, Sen BillSenator O'CHEEEU4QLDNP10—On behalf of Senator Calvert and the Joint Committee on Public Works, I present the following reports: the 61st General Report and and the first report of 1998 on the HMAS Albatross Stage 1 Redevelopment, Nowra, NSW.EU4O'Chee, Sen BillSenator O'CHEE—I move:That the Senate take note of the reports.I seek leave to incorporate Senator Calvert's tabling statement in HansardLeave granted.The statement read as follows—SIXTY-FIRST GENERAL REPORTMadam President, the first of the two reports which I have tabled is the committee's sixty-first General Report, covering the period 1 January 1997 to 31 December 1997.During the year, the committee tabled 13 reports on public works estimated to cost more than $761 million dollars.Public works examined by the committee ranged from extensions to the International Terminal at Sydney Airport to the further development of facilities at HMAS Stirling in Western Australia.Two other proposals examined demonstrate the Commonwealth's commitment to the preservation and display of our maritime and film and sound heritage.I am speaking of course about the extensions to the National Film and Sound Archive and the National Maritime Museum. Together, these will cost the Commonwealth more than $34 million dollars.Last year saw the finalisation of a protracted examination of the proposed decontamination of land occupied by the former Albion explosives factory in Melbourne. The proposed decontamination was first examined by the previous committee, chaired by the Honourable Member for Throsby, Mr Hollis.When initially referred to the committee in 1994, the Department of Defence estimated that the decontamination would cost more than $57 million dollars. The final decontamination project examined by the committee last year involved considerably less expense to the Commonwealth. I am told that the Parliament and all Australian taxpayers have the committee, especially the former chairman, to thank for saving the Commonwealth more than $30 million dollars. It was largely due to the persistence of the Honourable Member for Throsby that the Department of Defence felt compelled to come back to the committee with a proposal which resulted in substantially less cost to the Commonwealth. The General Report canvasses a number of other matters raised in the committee's reports during the year, details medium works proposals submitted by Departments, Commonwealth fire safety policy and proposed amendments to the Public Works Committee Act.Of particular and long standing concern is the restriction on the ability of the committee to undertake inspections and to hold discussions on public works proposals overseas. This has been raised in previous general reports and I raise it again now because of the imminent referral of the Berlin Chancery.As part of its responsibilities the committee is required to examine public works constructed outside Australia and the external Territories as referred. Such works include embassies and accommodation for Australian embassy staff.The Act, however, stipulates that the committee has no power to conduct formal investigations outside Australia and must rely on plans, models and evidence taken at public hearings in Australia, although statements may be received from persons who are in or outside Australia.The committee considers the restriction on its activities to be a serious impediment to its ability to undertake effective scrutiny of overseas works as part of its investigatory functions.Since 1991, the committee has expressed concern about its inability to inspect locations and sites of proposed overseas facilities and to have informal discussions with local staff and authorities. In many cases, local embassy staff and design and construction personnel have been required to travel to Canberra to appear at the committee's public hearings.The committee has consistently suggested that it may be more cost effective for a sectional committee to be permitted to travel to countries where new projects are proposed and this concern has been expressed in letters from successive committee Chairmen to the appropriate Minister.The year under review saw the resignation from the committee of the former Chairman—the Honourable Member for Wakefield upon his elevation to the position of Chief Government Whip. I have to say that the Honourable Member served the Parliament through the committee with dedication and distinction and upheld the long tradition of bipartisanship which has been the hallmark of committee's operations.I would like to place on the record the committee's appreciation for this. HMAS ALBATROSS STAGE 1 REDEVELOPMENT, NOWRA, NSWThe second report which I have tabled concerns the proposed HMAS Albatross Stage 1 redevelopment, Nowra, NSW.Let me begin by noting that the Public Works Committee has been involved in the development of HMAS Albatross over three decades, and since the Second World War, has approved works costing $112.4 million (at 1997 prices).The proposal for Stage 1 of the redevelopment of HMAS Albatross was aimed to provide modern, functional facilities that will improve operational reliability and organisational functionality.The proposal involves the provision of:. maintenance and storage hangars for Seasprite and Seahawk helicopters;. shelters for fixed-wing fleet and support aircraft;. air traffic control facilities;. explosive ordnance storage facilities;. replacement of airfield lighting;. a new photographic centre;. a training complex; and. engineering services and civil works.When referred to the committee, the estimated out turn cost of the proposed work was $69.3 million.The committee concluded that Seahawk and Seasprite helicopters represent substantial capital equipment investments for the Defence Force and are planned to remain in service for the next decade or longer.The proposed new facilities will therefore provide substantially improved maintenance and storage facilities for these valuable assets and will make substantial contributions towards ensuring that the life of type of both helicopter models is maximised.The committee agreed that the proposed new air traffic control facility and its location will overcome problems affecting the existing tower and provide improved visibility of aircraft operating areas and approaches to the airfield.The existing airfield lighting system, which is costly to operate and inefficient will be replaced with a modern system as proposed, and improved flight line shelters for six Skyhawk aircraft will provide environmental protection.The committee considered buildings currently used for the storage and handling of explosives to be substandard, restricting the ability of HMAS Albatross to support operations and training activities. These buildings will be replaced with the proposed explosive ordnance storage and handling facilities which will provide enhanced capabilities and reflect current NATO storage and handling standards.The committee also concluded that facilities used for the training of aviation aircrew, technical and flight deck personnel are currently dispersed, functionally inadequate and have insufficient space to support modern training techniques.The proposed aviation systems training centre will provide a considerably enhanced capability to support the continuing in-house training requirement of personnel involved in the operation and maintenance of high cost and sophisticated ship-borne helicopters.Similarly, the new photographic centre will provide an enhanced photographic capability and its location is convenient to a major client.I commend the reports to the Senate.1303130316:56:001303Denman, Sen KaySenator DENMANFY5TASALP00—On behalf of Senator Cooney, I present the third report of 1998 of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills. I also lay on the table Scrutiny of Bills Alert Digest No. 3 1998 , dated 25 March 1998.Ordered that the report be printed.Business13031303Motion (by Senator Newman)—by leave—agreed to:That consideration of business continue from 6.50 p.m. to 7.20 p.m. today.Committees13031303130316:57:001303Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—I present the government's response to the report of the Joint Committee on the National Capital and External Territories on the right to protest and I seek leave to incorporate the document in Hansard .Leave granted.The document read as follows—GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO THE REPORT OF THE JOINT STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE NATIONAL CAPITAL AND THE EXTERNAL TERRITORIESTHE RIGHT TO PROTESTNOVEMBER 1997Committee RecommendationGovernment Response1.A permit not be required in order to protest on national land, subject to recommendation 3 dealing with protest structuresThe Government supports this recommendation.2.A broad legislative scheme for non-compulsory prior notification of protests, based on the Queensland Peaceful Assembly Act 1992 , not be introduced, but instead a cooperative approach to protest management be encouraged by:The Government supports this recommendation. a)identifying in a community liaison section of the Australian Federal Police a contact officer for the coordination of protests on national land who would provide a contact and information point for protest organisers and who would be responsible for liaising with other relevant authorities when a protest is planned for national land: and(a) The Australian Federal Police have indicated that the ACT Region Planning Team could be the coordination point.b)producing and making available a public information booklet on protesting in the national capital which would encourage prior notification of protests to a protest coordination officer of the Australian Federal Police and which would provide relevant information and advice on the conduct of protests in the national capital, focussing on national land.(b) The National Capital Authority will have carriage of the production of the public information booklet.3.A permit system be introduced for the management of protest structures on national land so that a permit is required from the National Capital Authority for a structure placed on national land as part of or in association with a protest but a permit not be required where the structure: a)is of a size which would have minimal impact on the land and is used to facilitate the protest, such as sound systems and small stages: and b)is erected and removed on the same day during daylight hours.The Government supports this recommendation with the additional proviso that the permit system include vehicles and machinery as well as structures. It is also noted that the Guidelines for Protests, Demonstrations and Public Assemblies within the Parliamentary Precincts issued by the Presiding Officers cover the use of sound equipment in the Parliamentary Precincts. Proposed amendments to the Australian Capital Territory (Planning and Land Management) Act 1988 will facilitate the permit system.4.Relevant legislative amendments be introduced to recognise protests as an appropriate use of national land and to enable the National Capital Authority to issue permits for the erection of protest structures.The Government supports this recommendation. Relevant amendments will be considered as part of the review of legislation recommended by the Committee.5.The term "structure" be defined broadly to ensure that the myriad fixtures, edifices, constructions, vehicles, machinery and fixed display materials which could be used in association with a protests, including tents used for camping, come within the terms of the permit system.The Government supports a broad definition of structure, provided it is not inconsistent with other legislation e.g. planning or traffic laws. In supporting this recommendation the Government does not wish to imply that camping would normally be permissible. 6.In determining an application for a permit to erect a protest structure on national land, including the duration of a permit, the National Capital Authority be required to give due consideration to: a)the public's right to peaceful assembly on national land: b)issues regarding equality of access to national land: c)public interest considerations which may require certain limitations to be placed on the erection of structures, including public order, public health and safety, national security, the rights of other persons, and the proper functioning of the Parliament and other national institutions, including their ceremonial functions; and d)any specific requirements relating to the parliamentary precincts as determined by the Parliament's Presiding Officers, including existing requirements set down in their guidelines for protests in the parliamentary precincts.The Government supports this recommendation, but would further add that the National Capital Authority, when determining an application to erect a protest structure on national land, give consideration to: the requirements of the Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities Act 1972 and other legislation which relates, among other matters, to Australia's obligations under Article 22 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations to prevent any disturbance; heritage values of any Register of the National Estate place affected, in line with s30 of the Australian Heritage Commission Act 1975 ; and human rights referred to in the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 19867.Guidelines on the erection of protest structures on national land covering issues such as location, duration and public health and safety considerations, be developed by the National Capital Authority and be included in the information booklet proposed at recommendation 2.The Government supports this recommendation8.On the basis of advice from the National Capital Authority or the Presiding Officers in relation to the Parliamentary Precincts, the Australian Federal Police be empowered to remove any protest structure on national land for which a permit is required under the system proposed at recommendation 3 but for which a permit has not been issued.The Government supports the principle that the Australian Federal Police be empowered to remove any protest structures on national land for which a permit is required, but has not been obtained. However the legislation for the permit system should provide for them to act of their own motion, to remove a structure which has been illegally erected.9.The Unlawful Assemblies Ordinance 1937 be repealed.The Government supports this recommendation. 10.The Commonwealth Attorney-General's Department, in consultation with the Australian Capital Territory Attorney-General's Department, review the existing laws which apply to protests on national land to ensure that they are written in plain English and define clearly the powers which are available to relevant authorities in dealing with protests.The Government supports a review of the legislation and will consult with the ACT Government in determining the best approach.11.Building on the memorandum of understanding established between the Australian Federal Police and the Australian Protective Service, clearly documented procedures for coordination of protests be developed between all relevant authorities involved with the management of protests on national land.The Government supports this recommendation. The Presiding Officers of the Senate and the House of Representatives have pointed out that the Parliament already has clear procedures in place in relation to the coordination and management of demonstrations in the Parliamentary Precincts. In addition agreed guidelines are being developed between the Minister for the National Capital Authority and the Presiding Officers to ensure consistency of approach in dealing with protest activity in the precincts and in those areas in the Parliamentary Zone adjacent to the Precincts.An Addendum by Mr Steve Dargavel, MP, makes the statement that the report does not recommend the removal of the Aboriginal Tent Embassy, and that the National Capital Authority should not interpret the recommendations of the committee as encouraging the removal of the Tent Embassy.The Government notes this addendum. Documents13061306130610000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Ferguson)—In accordance with the provisions of the Audit Act 1901, I present the following report of the Auditor-General: Report No. 34 of 1997-98—Performance Audit—New submarine project—Department of Defence .130610000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—I present responses from the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory and the Prime Minister to the resolution of the Senate of 4 March 1998 concerning the Northern Territory floods.Committees1306130610000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—The President has received letters from party leaders seeking variations to the membership of committees.Motion (by Senator Newman)—by leave—agreed to: That senators be appointed to committees as follows:Employment, Education and Training References Committee— Senator Carr to replace Senator Denman for the committee's inquiry into regional employment levels at meetings on 28 April to 30 April, 7 May, 29 May and 17 and 18 June.Environment, Recreation, Communications and the Arts Legislation and References Committees— Senator Bartlett as a participating member. Miscellaneous130717:00:001307Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—I move:That the Workplace Relations Regulations (Amendment), as contained in Statutory Rules 1997 No. 314 and made under the Workplace Relations Act 1996, be disallowed.Before I begin, I acknowledge the advice that the minister's office has given to me on these regulations and the cooperation of the officers in the advisers box. This is a welcome change from the way in which we get responses from this government, and I thank the minister for that assistance. I am not altogether certain that he will thank me for my understanding of that assistance.The Workplace Relations Act 1996 provided for the education ministers to make regulations in regard to approving authorities for apprenticeships and traineeships. They provided that any state or territory training authority and industry training advisory body, or any other body which meets the requirements set out in those regulations, could make orders in regard to those matters relating to the approving authority. The regulations that we have before us also go to allowing state and territory training authorities to delegate their powers and their functions as approving authorities to other bodies.The government has sought to provide criteria under which such bodies should make determinations in regard to traineeships and apprenticeships. This went to the questions of whether there was adequate industry support, knowledge of the industry, knowledge of the competency approach to training, whether there was a capacity to have a protection against conflict of interest and a capacity to comply with the law. None of that is particularly surprising.My concern, however, is with the detail and the way in which these measures work in practice. My concern is where this government is moving in terms of the operations of the vocational education and training system in this country. I am particularly concerned about the impact of these regulations on the issues arising from the conflict of interest that exists and the government's proposed strat egies to manage those conflicts of interest where they do exist. The contention that I put to the Senate is that the strategies are not adequate to protect the interests of workers undertaking training and apprenticeship arrangements under these regulations.We have to appreciate that the government's actions in this regard have to be seen in the broader context of the massive changes that are occurring to the vocational education and training system. We have a system of vocational education and training in this country which the government's own preferred and favourite consultant, KPMG, has indicated is totally under funded. You have a situation where the government is introducing a massive revamp of the apprenticeship system. They are introducing their so-called new apprenticeship scheme, which suggests, in regard to the massive advertising campaign they are running to support this program, massive growth in traineeships at the expense of traditional apprenticeship models of training. You have a government that talks increasingly of flexibility. But we have had a series of regulations before us today which would open the door to lower quality training and lower wages than currently exist.We are witnessing dramatic changes to the form and method of delivery of vocational education. I am concerned about the way in which that form and that method of delivery actually impact on individual workers. I am concerned about the proliferation of private providers and the adequacy of existing measures, let alone measures proposed under this arrangement, to ensure that there is effective policing of the quality of training that is undertaken.I have deep concerns about the loss of quality of training measures as a result of this government's changes to the vocational education system. It is a concern that not only I have; it is a concern that I believe is widely felt within industry. We are concerned about the levels of deskilling and the narrowing of training options for workers that are arising as a result of this government's actions, and which are now being replicated by various backward looking conservative state governments. We have seen in the states of Victoria and Queensland moves to remove declaration of trades and vocations and replace them with so-called accredited courses. We have seen the undermining of the apprenticeship system and a proliferation of narrow enterprise based apprenticeships, limitations on portability and, in my opinion, a widespread exploitation which arises from the growth in what I call cheap and nasty training packages.What you will see is a government that is pushing growth without proper funding in regard to the vocational education system. I have a fear that, as a consequence of that increase in levels of activity by various providers without funding, there must be a reduction in the level of quality. I am concerned that the government is launching an attack upon the apprenticeship system. We have seen their attempt to remove apprenticeship designations from federal awards, even where you have employers such as the MTIA and the ACM in agreement. We have seen actions by the government before various courts in this country to remove those longstanding provisions in awards reached by agreement. This is part of a general approach by this government to promote individual contracts for apprentices and trainees. It is a much easier vehicle to force young workers in particular to accept lower wages and lower levels of training.The Senate ought not regard this as just an academic exercise. It ought to be seen in the context of what workers have to put up with in terms of the deskilling which arises from these actions. Deskilling for workers means fewer job opportunities, not more. It means lower wages, not higher wages. It means lower standards of living. These are regulations which, in my mind, will open the door to these actions by unscrupulous employers—ruthless employers who have no real interest in the long-term viability of training within industry.These regulations have significant implications for workers—mostly young workers—in regard to their career paths, their pay, and of course the portability of qualifications and the integrity of the Australian qualification framework. They allow for an inconsistent use of the qualification levels.These regulations, in my view, are a device to provide for a more flexible interpretation of the various commitments that this government has already given to the Australian Democrats when the original debate occurred on the workplace relations regulations. They are commitments which we said at the time were totally inadequate and which are being demonstrated to be so by these regulations. They provide a vehicle to circumvent the national training award. They allow for variations in awards under the so-called disadvantage test and they will provide a vehicle for various employers who seek to use them to reduce trainee and apprenticeship wages.These regulations should be opposed because the approving authority acts within guidelines which fail to prevent a number of quite serious problems. These guidelines are fundamentally flawed. There are a number of inadequacies which are highlighted by the fact that existing employees who are under awards get their full rate when training but under these arrangements they could have their pay reduced. A further inadequacy is that an apprenticeship could be retitled as a traineeship and there would be a subsequent reduction in wages as a result.Further inadequacies are the fact that national training wage award traineeships could be renamed in order to provide so-called new flexible traineeships. That new designation is a device by which unscrupulous employers can use the determinations of these so-called approving authorities to seek variations to awards under the no disadvantage test—in so doing, the rates of pay of workers engaged in training are reduced. The regulations also have transitional arrangements in them which in themselves highlight the inadequacies of the government's approach. The transitional arrangements are so vague that we could end up seeing arrangements that fit either the old or the new models—whichever suits the employer. That is all very well if you have a good employer or an employer who is committed to long-term training in an industry, but that is sadly not the case all too often. Section 8 of these regulations says:. . . The Australian vocational education and training system is currently undergoing a number of substantial reforms. These reforms may take some time to finalise at the national level and to be implemented by industry.It continues at 8.1:A training agreement may not be available at the time at which approval of a traineeship or apprenticeship for the purposes of the Act is sought from the approving authority. In these circumstances, it will be necessary for the approving authority to consider the traineeship or apprenticeship for approval under sections 170XC or 170XD of the Act without these agreements. In deciding whether to approve an apprenticeship or a traineeship and in making determinations for those which are approved the approving authority may take into account information such as the following about the training arrangements for the traineeship or apprenticeship:This is quite clearly far too vague an arrangement, far too serious a matter to be left in the hands of approving authorities under these circumstances. The whole truth of the matter is quite simple. What this government is seeking to do under these regulations is to get around section 170X of the Workplace Relations Act. This section excludes the approving authority from being able to make any determination under 170XC with regard to the national training wage traineeships. Under the Workplace Relations Act, if an AWA or a CA is entered into by a trainee then the award, for the purpose of the no disadvantage test, can be either, firstly, a national training award for the national training wage traineeship; or, secondly, if it is not a national training award traineeship, the junior wage rate in the parent award is adjusted where necessary by an approving authority determination of training hours.The Commonwealth is trying to say under these measures that a traineeship that uses exactly the same materials, goes for the same period of time, has the same working hours and provides an identical qualification under the national training award traineeships could have a new designation as a so-called flexible traineeship and hence is no longer eligible for the rates of pay as set down in the Workplace Relations Act.For many industries that will mean large pay cuts for individual workers. For example, a young person in the metal industry could have their pay cut from $170 a week to $104.40 a week. This is before any determination is made about hours spent in training. Under these regulations there are a whole series of measures which seem reasonable on the surface but, when you look at the detail, they could quite seriously disadvantage the wages and conditions of workers engaged in training or an apprenticeship.If the approving authority makes such a determination, the young person will have their pay reduced even further than I have already indicated. So there is a double attack on wages and conditions under these regulations—an approach that can produce lower hourly rates of pay and a potential drop in the number of hours they actually get paid for. With most awards, the more time that is spent in training, the less money is actually paid.There are other problems with the guidelines. The answer to those problems is not in having more approving authorities. I believe that the regulations fail to meet the criteria which have already been agreed to by the government and Australian Democrats at the time of the workplace relations debate. As I understand it, that agreement involved a proposed regulation which would `contain guidelines on who else may qualify as an approving authority. They would deal with issues such as necessary expertise, the need to avoid conflict of interest, the necessity for training courses to comply with national competency standards etc. They could also allow state training authorities to delegate their function as an approving authority to other bodies, but only if strict criteria are met.' These strict crieria are not being met.These regulations are part of the government's attempt to decrease apprentices' pay and conditions and reduce the quality of training that they receive. In recent estimates hearings we heard of an increasing tendency for a proliferation of these so-called private providers, including industry training advisory bodies. It is clear that, under these regulations, they would automatically get approval, yet there quite clearly is a conflict of interest for an advisory body to act as an employing body. For the individual worker, that can mean nothing but trouble. These regulations need to be seen in the broader context of what is happening to the vocational education and training system in this country.This government has reduced employer subsidies for taking on apprentices by some 40 per cent. There has been a sharp decline in apprenticeship numbers. This government's policies mean that apprenticeships are being replaced by short-term—often very short-term—traineeships. We have seen a narrowing of the training base and a deskilling of workers. We have seen the growth in apprenticeship commitments drop by 25 per cent in the last two years. This government is projecting a growth of some 12,000 new traineeships, compared to a growth of only 2,667 apprenticeships. We are seeing a shift away from apprenticeships to traineeships, but we are not seeing adequate protection for workers under these new arrangements. We are seeing a move to short-term quick fix training, which increasingly is being encouraged by private providers. TAFE directors tell me that these matters are increasingly of concern in so far as they involve persons who will not necessarily have a commitment to the long-term interests of training in any particular industry.This government is overseeing a period of great confusion, a period of great uncertainty. Many employers now believe that apprenticeships do not exist at all; that only traineeships are operating. There is a lack of promotion and an absence of any real commitment by this government to quality vocational education and training. We are seeing privatisation of public institutions and privatisation of our TAFE colleges. We are seeing massive job shedding in the public sector in that regard, which has, of course, impacted on the number of apprenticeships being offered by the public sector. All these things have combined to produce a culture which is, I think, highly negative for the advancement of training for young people in this country.There is also a move by some agencies within government to use the training regime introduced by this government to exploit workers. One example was brought to my attention recently. A 50-year-old fully trained printer was placed in a printing industry traineeship. In his first five weeks in the traineeship he was working unsupervised and was not being paid for overtime. There was no training involved in his placement. He was, of course, being used as nothing more than cheap labour by the company concerned, rather than being provided with adequate training.This government talks about devolution of these authorities to state governments, but we have to look at the records of those state governments. They have been sacking very large numbers of workers in the public sector and they are reducing their commitment to training. Some six per cent of training undertaken by the private sector is in apprenticeships; a figure considerably less than has traditionally been the case. The Victorian government has abolished declared trades. Allowances are now being made for the dismissal of apprentices despite various arrangements which normally protect apprentices from unfair dismissal.We are seeing the removal of the right to continue in an apprenticeship upon the transmission of any particular business. We are seeing the removal of scrutiny by the state board of young people undertaking apprenticeships in various trades. We are seeing an open-ended probation period for apprentices. A general decline in the level of protection is now being experienced by apprentices and trainees. These regulations will do nothing more than increase the vulnerability of young workers. But it will not be just young workers who are affected; older workers who are obliged to undertake training programs—so-called traineeships which are, of course, nothing more than cheap labour schemes—will also be affected.Most employers, from my dealings with them, have a long-term commitment to training and apprenticeships—most big employers, that is. The problem is that smaller employers often do not have that commitment. The fly-by-night operators, the unscrupulous operators, are undermining the commitment to training of the more scrupulous and those who actually are interested in the long-term future of their industry. This measure will only exacerbate the pressure upon the reasonable employers who are committed to ensuring there is adequate protection and quality of provision. (Time expired)17:20:001311Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEYO15NSWLP10—I rise to speak on the motion moved by Senator Carr. He has moved:That the Workplace Relations Regulations (Amendment), as contained in Statutory Rules 1997 No. 314 and made under the Workplace Relations Act 1996, be disallowed.Senator Carr has presented one of his usual diatribes here today. We have had continuing slagging of the business sector and what the business sector might do; fly-by-night operators; unscrupulous people. This is the usual old union rhetoric that we hear when the Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate tries to denigrate what is happening out there in the workplace.The reality of what is happening in the workplace is that, as we move into a very rapidly changing industrial structure, we need a much more flexible approach to training. What we have put forward here is a series of regulations, after careful consultation with a wide group of people, that very carefully set up this new system. There have been negotiations across parties. There have been negotiations with industry.Senator Carr has to realise that we are moving into this new world. The old type of approach that we had previously, particularly the standard type of apprenticeship that might have run for four years, is just not appropriate anymore in the current industrial environment. That is why, when we brought in the new system, we called it a new apprenticeship system to reflect those changes.It took the Labor Party a very long time to wake up to the need for changing the way in which we handle training in this country. That is shown, Senator Carr, by the absolutely dismal record of your government over 13 years in the apprenticeship area. You should hang your heads in shame that you, the Labor Party, the party that claims to represent the workers, did so little for people in basic training in the apprenticeship system.One of the reasons why it failed, apart from the ineptitude of your government, was the very rapidly changing nature of industry and the globalisation of our economy. The way in which that led to less security in business meant that the old approach where you might require an employer to put someone on for about four years just was not going to work anymore. This government has come up with a much better and more carefully crafted approach, a much more flexible approach, so that you can get a range of different types of training systems that work that are more targeted to what is needed on the job front.I know this goes against Labor's broad view, Senator Carr. I know it goes against your own inclinations on the way things should be structured. I know from your speeches in this place over many years that you like this big, centralised, top-down type system with a lot of central controls. Those days are now passed. That is not the appropriate way to run things. We have delegated this to a broader range of providers in a far more flexible approach to its control.Regulation 30ZR states the criteria to be met to be declared an approving authority and says that the proposed authority must have experience and expertise in vocational education and training. The minister must be satisfied that the proposed authority will act fairly. Regulation 30ZS enables the delegation of approving authority functions by state or territory training authorities which are declared. I do not understand why Senator Carr actually opposes that. The explanatory statement of the regulations makes it clear that its purpose is to allow the powers and the functions of approving authorities to be more widely devolved and assist in making the vocational education and training system more responsive to the needs of business and industry. Why should there be any argument with that?AW5CARRSenator Carr—Because it doesn't protect workers; that's why. It doesn't protect the trainee or the apprenticeship.O15Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEY—Senator Carr, you have come in here today and made a lot of assertions. You have said that businesses are dodgy, they are fly-by-night, they are unscru pulous, workers will not be protected and there will be a great drop in wages. Where is your evidence of any of this, Senator Carr? Where is the raw evidence? Today, you have provided us with no evidence at all on these matters. You have just come out with a whole lot of pejorative statements saying that our approach will not work. We do know, of course, that your approach—the one you had when you were in government—did not work at all.You have come up with claims that there will be massive changes which will lower the quality of training. Again, where is the evidence of that? You are criticising private providers. If we have a look at the way in which it was operating in the last few years under you, there were quite a lot of private providers. The whole system was moving to private providers. Are you saying that was wrong at that time? What is happening is just a normal evolution of that process.AW5CARRSenator Carr—Tell us about user choice.O15Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEY—Where is the evidence of deskilling? Are you talking here about the possibility that, say, in some apprenticeships they might take a shorter time to do the initial apprenticeship? Is that the deskilling you are talking about?Let us take bricklayers as an example. There are certain core skills you need as a bricklayer, and probably about 95 per cent of the time that is all you do in bricklaying. On top of that, of course, there is some very fancy work that you can do in bricklaying—the way you do semicircles, the way you put in very special types of brickwork. It might take you the full apprenticeship to develop that but, initially, at the entry level, you do not need that. Would it not be far better to spend less time on some of those skills and then, by some post approach to the initial training, develop those skills further on?That is the sort of flexibility that we feel we need in the workplace. That is not the flexibility that I assume you are advocating. What are you advocating, Senator Carr? We have not really heard. You have been very negative, very critical, about what the government is proposing, but what are you suggesting, Senator Carr? Are you suggesting that perhaps we go back to four-year apprenticeships? How did you go under that? Didn't you end up with 60,000? What a disgraceful record at the end of 13 years. Under our proposal, we are moving to 200,000 apprenticeships, traineeships. Under what we are proposing is a move that more reflects what is going on in the economy of this nation. So you stand up here with very little credibility, given what happened under the previous government.We are making the vocational education and training system much more responsive to the needs of business and industry. The regulations that we formed, the ones that are here being considered today, have been formed after a wide range of consultation with all parties. Those consultations fulfilled and went beyond the strict requirement of the agreement that was made with the Australian Democrats on the passage of the Workplace Relations Bill. With this government's policy, apprenticeships and traineeships will be more attractive to business and industry, Senator Carr. Let me emphasise the reason: they are more flexible, they are often not as long and businesses are more likely to take people on.These regulations are part of the government's effort to create more entry level training opportunity, particularly for young people. Senator Carr, it seems, and the Labor Party, which he represents, want to hinder that. These regulations should not be disallowed. Senator Carr said he is concerned about the approving authority. Again, I think this is part of his centralist approach. He is missing several very important points in terms of approving authorities.There are now three approving authorities. They are already declared under the act's existing provisions, and these authorities are actively making determinations. Let me clear this up for Senator Carr. He has left the chamber and that is a pity, as I was just going to clear up this point for him. The approving authorities make determinations about the effect of training on work time and progressions through wage levels. Let me repeat that—and I hope Senator Carr is listening to this somewhere—they make determinations on the effect on work time and progressions through wage levels. When Senator Carr was standing there slagging what we were doing, and what he is proposing in disallowing the regulations, he was trying to claim that this was going to lead to a drop in wage levels, but these authorities do not set wages.These regulations contain strict criteria that have to be met to be declared an approving authority. Proposed authorities must have experience and expertise in vocational education and training. The minister must be totally satisfied that the proposed authority will act fairly. These criteria will ensure that approving authorities are aboveboard, and this should relieve the concerns that Senator Carr raised earlier.These safeguards show that the opposition is not correct in claiming that these regulations will dilute the quality of training received by apprentices and trainees. Approving authorities will only make determinations on apprenticeships and traineeships which sit within the national training framework and lead to nationally recognised qualifications. This government has ensured that these regulations will not result in the exploitation of apprentices or trainees. Why is the opposition pretending to be concerned about apprentices and trainees when the apprenticeship system collapsed totally under the ALP's 13 years of mismanagement in this area?17:32:001313Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—The Australian Democrats will be supporting the disallowance motion moved today by the opposition. We are well aware of the changing nature of not only the workplace but the education environment and, in particular, the training environment. We are very conscious of the need for flexibility, and indeed some reform, within that training environment. However, this does not mean that we are willing to accept a lack of quality or a reduction in quality in that environment, nor are we prepared to throw out accountability mechanisms or channels through which we can ensure there is quality accreditation, especially when it comes to providers of training. So we share the concerns articulated by Senator Carr on behalf of the opposition today in relation to accreditation and quality in the training environment. It is those concerns that motivate us to support the disallowance motion before us.I should also add that we are acutely aware of the need for greater education and training opportunities for people in the Australian community—in particular, for young Australians. We have expressed many times in this place our concern with both sides of the chamber but, in particular, with the current government, which has compounded the high levels of youth unemployment by scaling back funding for education and training opportunities for young Australians. We are acutely aware of the need for an injection of funds to ensure that young Australians, in particular, have access to skills development and the acquisition of knowledge. We all know—and certainly, Senator Tierney, this is a sentiment I got from your speech—that education, training and skills acquisition are the keys to a successful and competitive workplace.I only have to draw the Senate's attention to the Dusseldorp Skills Forum report that was released on Friday to demonstrate that there is a lack of education, training and employment opportunities for young people in Australia today. I wish to place on record, for the second time today, my disappointment at the failure of the government and the opposition to respond in any meaningful detail to the Dusseldorp Skills Forum report. I think that report raises some devastating concerns for this government and for previous governments. So the Democrats are very concerned about the nature of the training environment.We note that the Workplace Relations Act 1996 established a framework, if you like, for more flexible apprenticeships and traineeships. The act actually provides for individual Australian workplace agreements for apprenticeships and traineeships, allowing for part-time training or modification of other award provisions subject to the overall no disadvantage test. However, these agreements require that the actual apprenticeships or traineeships be approved by an approving authority as being within the national training framework and of course fair to the trainees involved. Under the act, the minister can declare as approving authorities state training authorities—for example, TAFE departments, industry training advisory boards or such other bodies that meet the requirements.I should at this point acknowledge Senator Tierney's point that there was consultation in the lead-up to the formulation of the provisions in the act, but I must put on record that he was wrong when he claimed that the agreement organised between the government and the Democrats on this particular section of the act has been met and that the strict criteria have been fulfilled, because that has not happened. If that had happened, the Democrats may have been partial to support the government on this, but we will not support the government because we are very angry that the strict criteria that were laid down as part of those negotiations and consultations have not been met. So I place on the record very strongly the fact that Senator Tierney was wrong in his statement in the chamber earlier in relation to meeting the guidelines and the criteria developed between the Democrats and the government.We made it clear in our 1996 agreement with the government that the regulations must contain clear guidelines on the types of bodies to become approving authorities, including the necessary expertise, the need to avoid conflicts of interests and the necessity for training courses to comply with national competency standards. The regulations presented by the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs, Dr Kemp, fall short of these conditions simply through their use of such general terms. We know that this could allow the minister to designate many unqualified or perhaps biased organisations as training authorities, opening up the prospect of substandard training programs being approved with the wages of trainees and apprentices cut as a result.The ACTU agrees and concurs with us on this point—that is, the strict criteria laid down by the Democrats has not been met. I quote from a letter from the ACTU Assistant Secretary, Tim Palace. He writes that the regula tions do not meet the strict criteria. The correspondence states:The regulations fail to meet the criteria agreed with the Australian Democrats.This is completely contrary to the assertions we have just had from Senator Tierney in this place. It goes on to read:The agreement between the Commonwealth Government and the Australian Democrats provided that:a) The Minister may declare as an approving authority a State or Territory Training authority, an Industry Training Advisory Body (ITAB) or any other body which meets the requirements set out in a Regulation (4.7 and 170x). b) The regulation would contain guidelines on who may qualify as an approving authority based on strict criteria to avoid conflict of interest, ensure necessary expertise and ensure training complies with national competency standards etc (4.8).c) The guidelines would be developed in conjunction with governments, employers and unions through the ANTA process (4.9).d) There will also be guidelines concerning the way an approving authority is to carry out its functions (4.10).The criteria have not been satisfied. For that reason, the Democrats today will be supporting the repeal of the regulation on training authorities. We are not ruling out a redrafted regulation. As I said in my speech during the second reading debate in this place on the Workplace Relations Bill in 1996:We are of the firm view that training arrangements should not be approved unless they are in the best interests of trainees. It is their interests, not the interests of employers, that must be paramount. From that point of view, we oppose the suggestion that training arrangements in AWAs could be approved by people who are not competent to do so, by local employment councils synonymous with local chambers of commerce as I believe has been suggested by some. Training arrangements must be consistent with the national training framework and regional training standards as enforced by state training authorities, industry training bodies and other such bodies.They were the comments made in the chamber at that time of the bill's passage. But the government has failed to date to establish the need for this particular regulation that has been presented by the minister—that is, the government has failed to show exactly what sort of additional approving authorities are needed. So far under the act the only bodies to be declared approving authorities have been the state TAFE authorities. Assuming that the industry training boards follow, it is a little difficult to see why additional bodies would be needed. I ask the minister perhaps when he comments on the disallowance motion before us to explain why we need additional bodies because I am starting to wonder why indeed we do.The tendering out of employment services to private providers and the compulsion of young people to work for their meagre unemployment benefits through the work for the dole scheme highlights the need for close examination of this particular regulation. In this context, the quality of training must not be compromised and it is essential that there remains a clear and firm gatekeeper on the quality of training and, through that, the operation of the no disadvantage test on AWAs under the Workplace Relations Act.In voting to disallow this regulation, the Democrats are saying to the government, to the minister, if you insist you can bring it back later, but bring it back when and if you have a clearer idea of exactly who the additional approving authorities will be and what criteria will be applied to ensure that such authorities will act in the best interests of trainees and apprentices.I wish to turn very briefly to another example of this government's failure to ensure adequate opportunities, employment wise and training wise, for young people just to highlight another area where the government should be assisting traineeships and apprenticeships. Perhaps the minister would like to address this in his comments: the decision by the government to make massive cuts and changes to the CRAFT scheme, the Commonwealth rebate for apprentice full-time training scheme. I understand the government seeks to make a saving of $133 million by the changes and the cuts to this scheme.In conjunction with the regulations we have before us, it really suggests that the government's agenda for training and training reform in this country is a sorry one indeed. I ask the minister whether or not this is simply a penny-pinching, revenue raising exercise on behalf of the government because I cannot see how they will be assisting young people or indeed their trainers or employers by making cuts to the CRAFT scheme. We know currently employers receive around $2,500 tax free if they take on new full-time apprentices under the CRAFT scheme. Yet the budget last year announced that this incentive will be made taxable with a further payment of $1,500 made available upon completion of the apprenticeship roughly three years later.For an unincorporated small business, the effect of these measures is to reduce the commencement and progression incentives by around $1,200 after tax. Even after receiving the final payment a small business would be still around $440 worse off. Incorporated business will lose $900 after tax on the commencement and progression incentives with the difference only being made up with the final payment when the apprenticeship is completed.So the result of these changes may be a substantial budget saving of around $133 million over four years but these changes inevitably make taking on apprentices less attractive for employers, particularly employers in small businesses. This is a particular concern given that the number of apprentices is estimated to have fallen dramatically in recent years from around $49,742 commencements in 1994-95 to $43,930 in 1995-96 to just $40,495 in 1996-97. So clearly now is not the time to be cutting apprenticeships, let alone incentives to employers to take on apprentices.The Democrats remain committed to fostering an environment where perhaps the training environment can be more flexible but we will not do so at the expense of quality or at the expense of accountability and certainly when it comes to the regulation of and approval of those various industry and training approval authorities. We will be supporting the disallowance motion before the chamber today.17:44:001315Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEYSF4VICALP00—Senator Carr and Senator Stott Despoja have made quite convincing arguments as to why these workplace relations regulations should be disallowed. The other speaker so far has been Senator Tierney. In my view, what he had to say showed, again, why these regulations should be disallowed. He painted a very rosy picture but he based it on suppositions, or facts, if you like, which may or may not be accepted but which are not prescribed in these regulations. In other words, he painted a picture which may or may not be borne out in fact but which, in any event, is not provided for in these regulations. That is the problem with these regulations. As Senator Stott Despoja said, there may be a basis upon which a further set of regulations can be approved but certainly not these ones.I will explain that in a little more detail. These regulations are proposed to make effective part VIE of the Workplace Relations Act. Part VIA talks about the minimum entitlements of employees; part VIB talks about certified agreements; part VID talks about Australian workplace agreements and part VIE, which I shall refer to, talks about the no disadvantage test in respect of which these regulations are to operate.Those parts deal with conditions and the remuneration which are to be received by employees employed by different people. These regulations talk about an approving authority. An approving authority has the function, as has been stated by Senator Carr, of putting into operation a plan whereby apprentices or apprentice-like employees can be remunerated. These approving authorities have considerable influence on what wages people will receive. That can be ascertained from section 170XC of the workplace relations legislation. Subsection 2 states:For the purposes of subsection (1)—that is, working out a proportion of the wages that a person is to lose by undertaking training—the appropriate percentage of the benchmark rate is such percentage of that rate as is determined in writing by the approving authority having regard to the reduction in the productive time of an employee undertaking the approved traineeship due to time spent in training. So the approving authority has to make a decision as to how much time is productive time when a person is in training. The employee cannot determine how much time is productive, nor can the employer. It is up to the approving authority, and it is up to the approving authority to ascertain whether a particular traineeship is a worthy one or not.The approving authority has a very important part to play in the scheme of training. It is for that reason that the definition of approving authority in the act says that the approving authority means any person or unincorporated body that—. . . is a state or territory training authority that exercises approval powers in relation to traineeships or apprenticeships—and it says that if the state has a system whereby these approving authorities are set up, those approving authorities are worthy approving authorities for the purposes of the Commonwealth act, and that seems to be reasonable—or is an Industry Training Advisory Body—again that seems reasonable—or meets the criteria prescribed for the purposes of this definition; and is declared in writing to be an approving authority for the purposes of this Part. . . Given the seriousness of this matter, the criteria prescribed, one would have thought, should be very precise and defined. This part of the act is dedicated to the training of people and it is likely that it is going to be young people who will be affected and it is young people that need protection. If they have any disputes with a training authority and an approving authority they should be able to judge against very precise criteria whether or not the proposed authority is a proper one and is doing the work that it should do. It is important to find out what the criteria are. It is at that point that these regulations come into serious question because it is stated:The prescribed criteria in relation to a person or unincorporated body (`the proposed authority' ) for the purposes of paragraph (c)—that is the one I have been speaking about—of the definition of `approving authority' in section 170X of the Act are that the Minister is satisfied that the proposed authority has:. . . skills and experience of a high order in the field of vocational education and training . . . What does that mean? Where are there any prescriptions about what skills and experiences of a high order involve? It is simply up to the minister to be satisfied of that. The second criterion states that the approving authority has:. . . the capacity to act fairly in discharging the functions of an approving authority.What is meant by `fairly' in this context? Fair to whom? Does it mean fair in terms of the economic soundness of the business? Does it mean fair in terms of whether or not the person is getting proper training? What does it mean by saying that all that the minister has to be satisfied of is the approving authority's capacity to act fairly? Why should the criterion not be that the minister is satisfied that the approving authority will act fairly. Any of us have a capacity to act fairly, but the real question is will we act fairly. To define an approving authority as one that has the capacity to act fairly seems to me to be too vague and too unsafe to allow through. The regulations go on to state:For the purposes of paragraph 1(b), the Minister must consider whether the proposed authority, if declared to be an approving authority, will be likely to balance the interests of trainees or apprentices with those of employees in:(a) approving traineeships and apprenticeships; and(b) making determinations under section 170XC and 170XD of the Act.Again, this is a standard which is hard to judge. I would ask the minister, who is very knowledgeable and skilled in this area, whether it would not be better to have a lot more precise criteria so that a young person could judge whether he or she is being properly treated.The regulations, as they stand at the moment, are very vague. They are not the sort of regulations against which a person who might be interested can test whether or not the conditions have been met. How do you test whether an approving authority is likely to balance the interests of trainees or apprentices with those of the employers? What are the interests of trainees and apprentices? What are the interests of the employers?The other problem with these regulations is delegation. The regulations go on to state:An approving authority that is a State or Territory training authority may delegate its powers . . . and functions to:(a) a State or Territory training authority of the same State . . .It seems reasonable that if states have approved authorities then that, hopefully, should be some protection. Part (c) states in relation to an approving authority delegating its powers that it can delegate its powers to:(c) a person or unincorporated body that, in the opinion of the approving authority, has: (i) skills and experience of a high order in the field of vocational education and training; and (ii) the capacity to act fairly in discharging the functions of an approved authority.We can have an approving authority that can delegate its functions to another approving authority which it judges will act fairly. Again, what does that mean? The approving authority that is going to give the approval does not have to be satisfied that its delegate will act fairly but just that it has the capacity to do so. It is quite vague and quite at large and should not be passed in its present form.There should be a set of regulations that prescribes in considerable detail what fairness means when talking about the interests of the employer and the interests of the apprentice. Does it mean that they should be given fair hours? Does it mean that they should be given proper training? What does proper training mean? Does it mean that you should have so many hours theoretical training, so many hours practical training or so many hours experience? The problem with these regulations is that they cannot be effectively tested by the people who might want to test them.An employer might want to test a decision that is made by an approving authority. An employer might want to test the results of a decision of an approving authority. A young apprentice or a union that represents that young apprentice might want to do that. I ask the minister when he is replying to this matter to give us some idea of how a person who is unskilled in the law and might not be experienced in the way these things work can go to these regulations and work out whether they have been applied or not.It is going to be very difficult for such a person to judge that because the way regulation 314 of 1997 is written it is so vague that it cannot be tested. It is bad to have regulations which cannot be tested. It is bad to have, in effect, a mission statement containing a set of aspirations rather than what regulations ought to be—that is, a prescription that people can use to measure whether or not they have been properly treated under the act or under the regulations themselves.These regulations are very much like the preamble to an act. They are not in any way an exercise of what ought to be the power to make regulations—that is, to make specific and precise statements about what is going to happen under a particular act. Until they are tightened, until they are made more specific and until they are put in a state where an apprentice, a trainee or an employer can ascertain whether or not what is done under them is within the regulations or not, they should not be allowed to continue.I congratulate Senator Carr in bringing forward this motion and congratulate the Democrats in picking up the lead that has been given in seeing that these regulations are in a satisfactory state. Indeed, any regulations put forward in this form would be unsatisfactory. I invite the Senate to reject them.18:01:001318Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSchools, Vocational Education and Training10—At the outset, I thank senators for their contributions in this debate. It may be of some assistance to the Senate if we look to section 170X of the Workplace Relations and Other Legislation Amendment Act which deals with the no disadvantage test but more particularly the definition of an approving authority. The act states:approving authority means any person or unincorporated body that: (a) is a State or Territory training authority that exercises approval powers in relation to traineeships or apprenticeships; or (b) is an Industry Training Advisory Body; or (c) meets the criteria prescribed for the purposes of this definition.Within the act itself we have coverage of the state training authorities and the industry training advisory bodies. The main complaint seems to be in relation to the criteria prescribed for the purposes of this definition in so far as it relates to other bodies. What we have before us are regulations which are made pursuant to this very section.Regulation 30ZR deals with the criteria that the minister has to have regard to when looking at an approving authority. That criterion, which was touched on by Senator Cooney, states:. . . that the Minister has to be satisfied that the proposed authority—which of course will make determinations about the structured training that someone needs to do in relation to a traineeship or apprenticeship—has:(a) skills and experience of a high order in the field of vocational education and training.In the first instance, there is a requirement of satisfaction which is of a high degree. Not only that, but the minister also has to be satisfied that this body has a capacity to act fairly in discharging the functions of an approving authority.Senator Cooney touched on what it means to act fairly. If you read on, you see that, for the purposes of this subparagraph which deals with acting fairly, subregulation (2) says:. . . the Minister must consider whether the proposed authority, if declared to be an approving authority, will be likely to balance the interests of trainees or apprentices with those of employers.That is a weighty consideration indeed. As far as discretions go, I would submit that this criterion is definitive because it requires the minister to address his or her mind to the fact of balance, balancing the interests of trainees or apprentices with those of employers. That is what then leads the minister to conclude whether this body would have the capacity to act fairly. We need to remember that state and territory training authorities have already been provided for in the act.During the debate, Senator Stott Despoja queried why we should have the delegation power contained in the second regulation, 30ZS. Senator Stott Despoja misunderstood the reason for that delegation. It is essential for the state training authorities to have the ability to delegate. Senator Stott Despoja mentioned the question of TAFEs. TAFEs are not state training authorities. It may well be desirable that a TAFE might be necessarily categorised as such, but in order to achieve that status it would need the state training authority to have the power of delegation.If TAFEs were to be included, as Senator Stott Despoja was alluding to, you would have to have this power of delegation for state training authorities. It is already the case that in Queensland, Victoria and Western Australia there are existing authorities which have been approved. In relation to other states where the state training authority wants to delegate, it is essential that they have the power to do so under this regulation.With respect to the no disadvantage test, that is one which is applied in a compendious manner in part 6E of the act. It is translated in a more definitive way into these regulations. In fact, I think Senator Carr said that there was a danger that trainees or apprentices could suffer a reduction in wages by these approving authorities making determinations which would have the effect of reducing wages.The government has announced its minimum training wage top up scheme. That is a scheme which will guarantee a training wage for people involved as trainees or apprentices, and I can give you the figures. For a 16-year-old, it is $134 per week; for a 17-year-old, it is $165 per week; and for an 18-year-old or over, it is $206. Any training above AQF 3 or higher is $231 a week. That is the national training wage. If, by inadvertence, a wage is reduced to below that, then it will be topped up to that minimum training wage level. So there you have the safety net, as it were, in a wage sense.The other point raised by Senator Carr was that there might be some dilution of training, that there might be a deleterious effect on the training levels. It is part of this whole structure that an approving authority can only operate within the national training framework; that is, the state, Commonwealth and territory governments have come to agree on a national training framework, which applies across Australia. Contained in that is the Australian recognition framework, which I will come to shortly. That in itself has standards within which the approving authorities have to act.The other point which was raised by Senator Carr was the portability of skills. The portability of skills is ensured by the Australian recognition framework, which puts in place the very aspect of national recognition of training; that is, you can qualify in one part of the country and be recognised in another. That is most important and is something which is not affected in any deleterious sense by these regulations.In relation to the question of the Dusseldorp report which was referred to by Senator Stott Despoja, that was mentioned in the context of scaling back funding. I think the point which Senator Stott Despoja was making was that the Commonwealth government had scaled back funding and that the Dusseldorp report was in some way critical of the government's approach in this regard.I remind the Senate that the Dusseldorp report related to the years 1985 to 1996, 10 years of which were under the previous Labor government, most of them under the member for Brand, Mr Kim Beazley, who was then the minister for employment and training. What the Dusseldorp report said was that young people between the ages of 15 and 19 had not progressed during that period. There had been a decline in apprenticeships, there had been a fall in retention rates—in fact, from 1992 to 1996 there had been a slip from 77 per cent to 71 per cent—and there had been, overall, a poor state of affairs indeed for young people in education and training. This is a conclusion by an independent report dealing with a period where 10 years out of 11 were under the previous Labor government. I remind Senator Stott Despoja that this government has committed $187 million over four years for vocational education and training in schools. This is an essential starting point for vocational training for young people. What we are looking at is not just leaving it until the young person leaves school and then look at training them; we are looking at picking them up during the school system and funding programs which will pick up these young people who need to build a bridge from school into vocational training. In fact, what we are looking at are school based apprenticeships and traineeships, which are very much a thing for the future.The Commonwealth has funding there for that. This is more than what the Labor government spent in its previous term in office which spanned some 13 years. I remind both the opposition and Senator Stott Despoja of that. But it does not stop there.When you look back to June last year, the figure for apprentices and trainees, which would largely be younger people, was up 11 per cent from 1996, and that is pointing towards the government and its good policies. It is a positive step forward that this government has taken in relation to young apprentices and trainees. In fact, we will be introducing from 1 May new apprenticeship centres which are a one stop shop, streamlined application of how you go about becoming a trainee or apprentice. It does not only help the young person or older person who wants to go into training; it also helps those employers who, up until now, have thought the system too rigid and too hidebound in red tape.The Commonwealth will also be allocating some $265 million in the 1997-98 financial year which will be devoted to the creation of more than 100,000 apprenticeships. Indigenous trainees for the financial year 1996-97 figured some 5,000, which compares greatly to 817 indigenous trainees in the financial year of 1994-95, the last complete year under the previous Labor rule.When people say that there is a cutback in funding, they really are barking up the wrong tree in relation to this government. When they cite the Dusseldorp report as being in some way critical of the present government, it relates to a period in which for 10 years this government was not the government of the day.Getting back to these regulations, these regulations provide safeguards in the exercise of ministerial discretion. They provide for delegation for the state training authorities, which is necessary if this is to operate smoothly around the country for those states who wish to delegate. It is a situation where the no disadvantage test has been translated from the act itself to apply to these approving authorities. For those who say, `Why should you have this flexibility?', I say that the whole regime of this new training approach is to have flexibility.Senator Stott Despoja conceded in her address to the Senate that we are embarking on a new age of training—investing for the future and investing in our young people—which will take us into the next millennium. We need to be more flexible and we need to adapt to the times. That requires a training regime which is flexible and responsive to the needs of industry and the community. Therefore, we need the sort of flexibility where a ministerial discretion can be applied, but applied in a strict sense and with strict criteria.The situation I pointed to at the outset—and that brings me back to that very first point—is that, if a state training authority were to delegate to a TAFE, it would need the power to do so under that second regulation 30ZS, because TAFEs are not by their nature state training authorities and do not come within the definition of section 170X of the act.These regulations provide the security. We have a national training wage which provides a safety net—and I have mentioned the figures. These regulations provide the flexibility which is needed in the new training regime and, most importantly, these regulations translate the no disadvantage test into effect. Question put: That the motion (Senator Carr's ) be agreed to.18:16:00The Senate divided. (The President—Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid)34Allison, L. Bartlett, A. J. J.Bishop, M. Bolkus, N.Bourne, V. Brown, B.Carr, K. Collins, J. M. A.Colston, M. A. Conroy, S.Cook, P. F. S. Cooney, B.Crowley, R. A. Denman, K. J.Evans, C. V. *Faulkner, J. P.Forshaw, M. G. Gibbs, B.Harradine, B. Hogg, J.Lees, M. H. Mackay, S.Margetts, D. McKiernan, J. P.Murphy, S. M. Murray, A.O'Brien, K. W. K. Quirke, J. A.Ray, R. F. Schacht, C. C.Sherry, N. Stott Despoja, N.West, S. M. Woodley, J.32Abetz, E. Brownhill, D. G. C.Calvert, P. H. Campbell, I. G.Chapman, H. G. P. Coonan, H.Eggleston, A. Ellison, C.Ferguson, A. B. Ferris, J.Gibson, B. F. Heffernan, W. *Herron, J. Hill, R. M.Kemp, R. Knowles, S. C.Lightfoot, P. R. Macdonald, S.MacGibbon, D. J. McGauran, J. J. J.Minchin, N. H. O'Chee, W. G.Parer, W. R. Patterson, K. C. L.Payne, M. A.Reid, M. E.Synon, K. M. Tambling, G. E. J.Tierney, J. Troeth, J.Vanstone, A. E. Watson, J. O. W.Campbell, G. Crane, W.Collins, R. L. Macdonald, I.Lundy, K. Alston, R. K. R.Neal, B. J. Newman, J. M.Reynolds, M. Boswell, R. L. D.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.Committees1321132113211321Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT5F4TASLP10—I present the third report of 1998 of the Selection of Bills Committee.Ordered that the report be adopted.5F4Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT—I seek leave to have the report incorporated in Hansard .Leave granted.The report read as follows—REPORT NO. 3 OF 19981. The Committee met on 24 and 25 March 1998.2. The committee resolved: (a) That the following bill be referred to a committee:Bill titleStage at which referredCommitteeReporting dateGenetic Privacy and Non-discrimination Bill 1998 (see Appendix 1 for a statement of reasons for referral)immediatelyLegal and Constitutional11 August 1998 (b) That the provisions of the following bills be referred to committees:Bill titleStage at which referredCommitteeReporting datePrimary Industries and Energy Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1997 (see Appendix 2 for a statement of reasons for referral)immediatelyRural and Regional Affairs and Transport13 May 1998 Social Security and Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Retirement Assistance for Farmers) Bill 1998(see Appendix 3 for a statement of reasons for referral)immediatelyCommunity Affairs13 May 1998Workplace Relations Amendment (Superannuation) Bill 1997 (see Appendix 4 for a statement of reasons for referral)immediatelySuperannuation Select Committee8 April 19983. The Committee resolved to recommend—That the following bills not be referred to committees: Health Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1997 Native Title Amendment Bill 1997 [No. 2] Parliamentary Service Bill 1997 [No. 2] Social Security Legislation Amendment (Youth Allowance Consequential and Related Measures) Bill 1998The Committee recommends accordingly.4. The committee deferred consideration of the following bills to the next meeting:(deferred from meetings of 24 and 25 March 1998) Child Support Legislation Amendment Bill 1998 Health Legislation Amendment (Health Care Agreements) Bill 1998 International Monetary Agreements Amendment Bill 19985. The committee considered a proposal to refer the provisions of the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 7) 1997, but did not make a decision in respect of that proposal.Paul CalvertChair25 March 1998Appendix 1Name of bill:Genetic Privacy and Non-discrimination Bill 1998(Private bill)Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:Provisions of this bill set out a legislative scheme for the collection, storage and disclosure of genetic information and outlaws discrimination on the basis of genetic make-up, except in limited employment and insurance situations. This bill deals with issues of considerable concern to the community and to medical and research groups.The bill is being referred to enable further investigation of the employment and insurance components of this bill with respect to discrimination and the broader policy issues.Possible submissions or evidence from:Human Rights and Equal Opportunities CommissionerPrivacy CommissionerHuman Genetics Society of AustraliaCommittee to which bill is to be referred:Legal and Constitutional Legislation CommitteePossible reporting date:As soon as possible(signed)V. BourneWhip/Selection of Bills Committee memberAppendix 2Name of bill:Primary Industries and Energy Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1997Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:1. $3.6m taken from FRDC is voluntary money from industry and state governments etc. The Commonwealth has no right to pilfer such funds.2. Fisheries are in dire need of more research dollars not less.3. The FRDC does NOT have reserve funds and will not be able to meet its research commitments. Possible submissions or evidence from:Fishing industry bodiesThe offices of State Agricultural MinistersCommittee to which bill is to be referred:Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation CommitteePossible reporting date:Whenever available.(signed)S. ConroyWhip/Selection of Bills Committee memberAppendix 3Name of bill:Social Security and Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Retirement Assistance for Farmers) Bill 1998Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:This bill allows, under certain circumstances, a low-income farmer wishing to retire to pass ownership of the family farm on to the next generation without affecting his/her eligibility for the Age Pension. Consideration needs to be given to the eligibility requirements for the scheme and the implications of the scheme for Australia's family farmers.Possible submissions or evidence from:National Farmers Federation (Ph 02 6273 3855)Australian Pensioners and Superannuants Federation (Ph 02 9282 4566)Tony Parker, Accountant, Yass NSW (Ph 02 6226 1133)W J Thompson, Solicitor, Coolamon NSW (Ph 069 273 106)Jan Sneyd, Rural Counsellor, Booleroo Centre SA (Ph 08 8667 2012)Cecily Brockhurst, Rural Support Worker, Miles Qld (Ph 07 4627 2027)Rev. Noel Parke, Lifeline, Toowoomba Qld (Ph 07 4632 9299)Committee to which bill is to be referred:Community Affairs Legislation Committee.Possible reporting date:As soon as practicable(signed)V BourneWhip/Selection of Bills Committee memberAppendix 4Name of bill:Workplace Relations Amendment (Superannuation) Bill 1997Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:Major change to superannuation regulations (separation from award system). Should be investigated by Superannuation Committee for impact on workers—particularly part-time and casual workers who will be disadvantaged by this measure.Possible submissions or evidence from:ASFA, ACTU AND OTHER UNIONS. Jacques Martin, MTAA, DWRSB, ISC, (and others who made submissions on this issue to the `Choice' Hearings.)Committee to which bill is to be referred:Senate Select Committee on Superannuation.Possible hearing date:AprilPossible reporting date:23.4.98(signed)S ConroyWhip/Selection of Bills Committee memberNotices132313231323Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—by leave—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the provisions of the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 7) 1997 be referred to the Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 2 April 1998.Privilege13231323The PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT10000PON/A10—Senator Brown by a letter dated 23 March 1998 has raised a matter of privilege under standing order 81 and asked that I give precedence to a motion to refer the matter to the Privileges Committee. The matter he raises is the alleged failure of Senator Parer to register and declare relevant interests in accordance with the resolutions of the Senate relating to senator's interests of 17 March 1994.Resolution four of the Senate's privileges resolutions require me to have regard to certain criteria in determining whether a motion should have precedence. Those criteria are designed to ensure that only sufficiently serious matters are referred to the Privileges Committee. Those criteria, however, are, in effect, pre-empted by the resolutions relating to senator's interests which include a provision that a senator who knowingly fails to register interests correctly in accordance with the resolution shall be guilty of a serious contempt of the Senate and shall be dealt with by the Senate accordingly, but the question whether any senator has committed such a serious contempt shall first be referred to the Privileges Committee for inquiry and report and may not be considered by any other committee.The Senate having declared by that resolution that knowingly failing to register interests is a serious contempt, such a matter meets the criteria I am required to consider. The resolution relating to the declaration of interests does not contain a similar declaration that a failure to declare interests is a serious contempt, but it would be open to the Senate to treat such a failure to declare interest as with any other order of the Senate. I, therefore, give precedence to a motion to refer the matter to the Privileges Committee.If the reference is made, it will be then for the Privileges Committee to inquire and determine whether Senator Parer has knowingly failed to register or declare relevant interests. It is not for me to make such a determination at this time. I table the letter from Senator Brown. Senator Brown may now give a notice of motion in accordance with standing order 81.1324Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—Madam President, I thank you for that response to my letter. I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the following matters be referred to the Committee of Privileges for inquiry and report:(1) Whether Senator Parer failed to declare a relevant interest before a division in the course of proceedings on the Native Title Amendment Bill 1997 on 4 December 1997, the Customs and Excise Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1996 (No. 2) on 28 May 1997, or on a motion to disallow the Customs (Prohibited Exports) Regulations (Amendment) on 23 May 1996, or on any other relevant debate or division.(2) Whether Senator Parer committed a contempt in regard to these debates or divisions. (3) Whether Senator Parer knowingly failed to provide details of registrable interests to the Registrar of Senators' Interests and whether any contempt was committed in that regard.Notices132413241324Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT5F4TASLP10—by leave—At the request of Senator Abetz, I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, he will move:That the time for the presentation of the report of the Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee on the provisions of the Copyright Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1997 be extended to 1 April 1998.Miscellaneous132418:28:001324Lees, Sen MegSenator LEES8U4SAAD00—I move:That the Energy Research and Development Corporation Regulations (Repeal), as contained in Statutory Rules 1998 No. 6 and made under the Primary Industries and Energy Research and Development Act 1989 , be disallowed.I will speak very briefly to this. I realise that we could take half an hour or so, but I certainly won't. I believe that it really speaks for itself. The Energy Research and Development Corporation was set up to manage the federal government's direct investment in energy innovation and research in energy supply and use. The way this works is that it invests in energy projects right from concept through to commercialisation, focusing on traditional energy supply, alternative and renewable energy sources and systems, and sustainable energy use. It covers a range of things, including gas and liquid fuels, electricity generation, distribution and application of energy use in Australian industry, manufacturing, transport, the built environment, appliances, processing and agriculture—in other words, the full gamut.The ERDC selects projects and then funds them to meet these priorities. Therefore, it supplies support to the private research sector. It is a big injector of funds in research and development—indeed, the major injector of funds—and was about ensuring that Australia had a leg-up in the new technology field, that we actually got into the sunrise industries and really made a contribution to the future of energy trends and use.It has in its short time developed a very good reputation, a good name in the industry and research institutions, and it was helping to create a lot of jobs, not just jobs directly in the specific research areas but, as processes and procedures came on stream and as products were developed, further jobs down the line. As an Australian it was very good to see the Australian stamp on much of this marketed technology.This highly successful organisation was to find its funding cut in the first Liberal budget, and its funding has since been abolished. It is Senator Parer who is moving this regulation to abolish the corporation itself, and this is what is before the Senate at the moment.In the annual report of the Energy Research and Development Corporation, the chair and executive of BHP said that the decision for the abolition of the Energy Research and Development Corporation was unexpected. It created major problems and was inconsistent with indications of future support that even this government had given at the time of the election and also when it initially came into office. One can question the motives, and one can go on doing that, but I will not go into all that today. Whatever the motives, they have got rid of a premier organisation. This is very puzzling in light of the government's much trumpeted potential budget surplus that it is going to have this year. While to many it is obviously a huge amount of money, in terms of research and development we are, after all, talking about only $12½ million.We are moving this motion today to disallow the regulation that actually abolishes the organisation in the hope that we can at least hang on to that. We will then take up the cudgels of asking, arguing and pushing for the government to actually fund it again. We have had approaches from a number of sectors about this organisation, and we have yet to find anyone who does not speak very highly of it. We believe that if the organisation is still at least in existence, although wound down, we would have a better chance of winding it up again than we would have if we abolish it altogether.We have a problem in particular with an undertaking that was given that those organisations that were actually undertaking work at the moment would be maintained. It seems that this has not happened. Contractors who had spent quite large sums on the capital technology required for their projects were under the impression, and indeed were given an undertaking, that projects would continue. They have apparently had the rug pulled out from under them.Whilst the initial annual report of the ERDC last year had a statement from the chair promising commitments would be met, that report was withdrawn and later a statement was made in the House on 4 March indicating that contracts would be renegotiated with a view to savings. I would be very interested to hear from the minister exactly where that is up to now.Another very positive thing about this organisation is that for every dollar spent by the ERDC, $3 was committed by industry and others. So it provided a multiplier effect as far as the amount of money actually going into research and development is concerned.I will close by saying that there are a large number of projects that should be developed and continued. The ERDC was only part way into what it could have achieved, and it has been stopped well short of reaching its full potential. Surely the investment already made and the contributions that are very well recognised as to what it has already done are very worth while. What it could have done, I believe, was very worth while, and I look forward to support in the chamber for at least maintaining the organisation.18:33:001325Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT4J4SAALP00—On behalf of the opposition, I rise to support the motion moved by Senator Lees to disallow the regulation. In doing so, we point out that this is not the first time, unfortunately, this government has acted in a crass way towards the research and development community in this country.I remember when I was a minister in the industry area we were roundly set upon by the likes of Senator Parer, now the minister, saying that we were not doing enough to promote Australian industry. Yet when the new government took office, it went almost with deliberate glee about reducing Australia's research and development capacity.The most infamous decision was to reduce the 150 per cent tax deduction to 125 per cent. That was roundly condemned by every sensible industry person and every sensible person involved in R&D in this country. People who condemned it were not normally noted as being supporters of the Labor Party by any means. We had industry organisations and well-known and public supporters of the election of the coalition government expressing their strong disquiet at a number of these decisions of the government to reduce the funding.I can almost anticipate now what Senator Parer is going to stand up and say. It will be, `Ah, yes, but we had inherited a budget deficit when we were elected; this was a horrifying figure.' The figure which will be used will be $10 billion. I have to point out that, in relation to the 1996 figure, when we came into office in 1983, John Howard, as Treasurer, left us with an equivalent deficit of $23 billion at today's figures. So I do not think there is any comparison. But that was used as an excuse to cut the expenditure in the industry portfolio for research and development in various forms.I have to say that I suspect Senator Parer, who has an industry background, was conscripted to this cause of slashing and burning in industry and R&D, because I think he has some understanding of the need to have R&D and to have the appropriate structures for Australian industry in place. But I also suspect that Senator Parer was outvoted by the Treasury and the finance ministers under the guise of reducing the deficit—that this was a terrible deficit and had to be tackled immediately, even though subsequent adjustments and estimations by Treasury have often proved to be wrong and, in this case, have proved wrong again, about the size of the deficit and about the fact that we are going to end up within a year of a surplus greater because of growth in the economy, as we have already pointed out.But I think Senator Parer was probably disappointed that his view and knowledge of industry was overwhelmed by the Treasury view. Treasury have always had it in particularly for those programs in the industry portfolios that promote the development of Australian industry. I think the phrase that Treasury uses is, `This is industry welfare.' I do not think I am talking out of turn when I say that, when we were in government, I remember going to a briefing by Treasury for Labor ministers discussing industry policy, and the Treasury brief was to describe the proposals we were putting forward to develop Australian industry as `industry welfare'.In the lead-up to the first budget in 1996, guess what term Treasurer Costello was using. We had to cut these expenditures because they were `industry welfare'. Governments come and go, it seems, and Treasurers come and go, but the Treasury view is always the same. They hated giving the 150 per cent when that was agreed to by the Labor government in the mid-1980s to boost R&D. They despised it and fought against it. In every budget in the rest of the Labor term of office Treasury fought at every opportunity to remove the 150 per cent tax concession. They always fought to remove various programs to assist in the development of Australian industry.Ironically, when a new government comes in they get the chance to trick and bamboozle the new Treasurer—in this case, the famous Mr Costello, who often prides himself on being a tough person—and to say, `These are the programs that should be cut.' And of course they were. In the long term it is against Australia's economic interest to have R&D cut, because the only way we will deal with our foreign debt—in both the private and the public sector but particularly in the private sector—and our current account trade deficit is to boost the value of Australia's exports. The only way to do that is to prove the value adding of them by having decent R&D looking at ways in which those products can be improved in their value.We always argued in government that the reason we supported investment programs, R&D programs—whether they were direct funding in a properly transparent process of application and grants or whether they were a tax deduction like the 150 per cent—was that these would lead to an increase in value in Australia's economy by increasing our exports and increasing jobs. That is not a view that the Australian Treasury accept in any way. They have a flat-earth view that, if you just get the deficit down, get into surplus, get low interest rates and low inflation, everything else will look after itself. That may happen in an economy the size of America with 260 million people, an economy running into many trillions of dollars. With an economy of our size—18 million people on a large continent—you need discrete, proper, balanced government intervention and support for Australian industry.So today we have an outcome of the mad decisions of this government from when it came in in 1996 and from the follow-up budget in 1997 in putting in a regulation to abolish the Energy Research and Development Corporation of Australia. It is extraordinary that the minister who prides himself on coming from the coal industry, the mineral industry of Australia, has to come in here to defend the winding up of the Energy Research and Development Corporation. One would have thought that this would be something this minister would go to the wall to fight to keep. But we have heard nothing from the minister, despite the fact that his own industry and the broader Australian industry do not want these sorts of programs wound up.In the budget of last year we saw just how mean spirited this government is. The government abolished the Energy Research Development Corporation, slashed a further $11 million from the national energy efficiency program on top of $3 million cuts in the 1996 budget. All of these decisions are clear breaches of the 1996 federal coalition promises. The then shadow minister, Senator Parer, personally promised that the coalition would:maintain current support for the Energy Research and Development Corporation and continue the 150 per cent tax concession for research and development. That was in the coalition resources and energy policy document at page 14.KI4PARERSenator Parer—I wasn't the shadow minister.4J4Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT—You weren't the shadow minister? I apologise, Senator Parer. But in view of your interest in the mining industry I suspect you would have supported that being in the coalition document for the last election.What do we have instead of maintaining that support for the R&D? Senator Parer and the government have abolished it. And last year they reduced the R&D tax concession to 125 per cent. On 16 August 1996, Senator Parer claimed in a press release that:the government recognises the important role renewable energy plays in protecting the environment, reducing greenhouse gas emissions and laying the foundation for long-term, sustainable development.The press release goes on to say:Government support for renewable energy in Australia includes the funding for the Energy Research and Development Corporation and the Cooperative Research Centre for Renewable Energy and Related Greenhouse Gas Reduction Technologies.Those are the words of Senator Parer on 16 August 1996. That is almost what the Democrats would say, Senator. I was going to give you a big tick. This is a quote that would not be amiss in a Democrat document about renewable energy, which is an issue they campaign quite strongly on.In August 1996 we had this glowing statement from the minister in favour of the Energy Research and Development Corporation and funding for the CRCs in the same area—the cooperative research centres—and yet a year later this minister has to come in here with an enormous amount of egg on his face and move the regulation that the Energy Research and Development Corporation of which he had spoken so glowingly should be abolished. It is a Greg Louganis job as a diver, Senator Parer: a double somersault with backflips all over the place from your position in August 1996 to your position in August 1997 and again to your position here in the Senate in March 1998 in putting up this proposal to abolish the Energy Research and Development Corporation. We believe that in the long run this government's policies, if they are allowed to continue, will damage Australia's industrial development capacity, its R&D capacity and its technological development capacity in a most grievous way.This government still has not come to grips with having a decent industry and science research and development policy. As a former minister in the area of industry and science, I agree with Senator Parer that it is not possible to satisfy everybody in the science community and the research and development community. There is always a long list of people demanding access to government funding for various research programs. But this government has not made any attempt to meet those demands; it has cut them all back and ignored them. What I find rather strange, if not sad, is that the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (Mr Anderson) is on the record as saying on a number of occasions, `We should not concentrate on doing value adding to our minerals in Australia. We should concentrate on just sending them overseas as raw tonnage.' We all know that, no matter how much is dug out of the ground in raw tonnage, the full value is never realised. That is why we have a consistent current account deficit, this year running to $20 billion plus.The countries that run the biggest trade surpluses in the world are those that have good value adding, manufacturing industries, et cetera. Unless we get some of that in Australia, we will always be on the wrong side of the ledger with our current account deficit. This is something this government is incapable of coming to terms with in its industry policy. Here we see the saddest example of all. I would have thought that, at the very least, Minister, if you were not going to fund the Energy Research and Development Corporation, you would have quietly crept off in the night, left the shell there and given it no money. I would not have thought you would have the gall to come into this place and move a regulation to abolish it when, only 18 months ago, in 1996, you were quoting what a wonderful organisation the Energy Research and Development Corporation was.I find that really odd. I think it is a sad commentary on this government's industry policy. Therefore, the opposition has no hesitation in supporting the motion of the Democrats to disallow the winding up of this organisation. I think the government should be heartily condemned by the Senate for this cheeky regulation here today. I conclude on this point to Senator Parer: we look forward to the coming election campaign on the issues of industry policy, science policy and research and development.KI4PARERSenator Parer—You haven't got any.KI4Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT—You are just wiping them out, Senator Parer. You do not have an industry policy. You have no idea. The only ideas on industry you have taken up are the ones that we have announced. You took our policies for the manufacturing industry and the car industry. You took the policy that we announced for clothing and textiles. Those are the ones that we announced, and then you belatedly came to the table and said, `This is what we're going to adopt.' They are the industry policies that you have adopted. You closed down so many of our policies and then you discovered, `Gee, they weren't too bad.' You are now reintroducing some of them in a rebadged way, but only at a lot lower level.We look forward to the next election campaign—whenever it is in the next few months—to chase this government all over Australia and down every burrow to expose them as having no industry policy. This regulation today is a living example of their having no policy.18:48:001328Parer, Sen WarwickSenator PARERKI4QLDLPResources and Energy10—The regulation before parliament envisages the ERDC ceasing operations on 1 July 1998, with the Department of Primary Industries and Energy taking over responsibility for managing the remaining ERDC portfolio from 1 July 1998.Since its establishment, the ERDC has played a significant role in advancing energy supply and using technologies. The government considered ERDC had established a good foundation for industry to take on a greater role in funding its research in conjunction with other government assistance.The government's decision to wind up the ERDC was taken in the context of severe fiscal difficulties left to the government by the previous Labor administration. Because of the need for tight fiscal discipline, the government has had to make the difficult decision to cease funding new investments in energy R&D through the ERDC. The government also needed to ensure the most efficient delivery for support of energy research and development, and it was clear that energy research and development was being supported by a number of programs between which there was significant duplication of effort. In addition to ERDC, the Commonwealth government was funding energy R&D through the CSIRO, which had an energy R&D budget of $44.4 million in 1995-96, programs such as the cooperative research centre program, the R&D start program and the renewable energy industry program.Following the winding up of the ERDC, there will be substantial support for energy research and development through government programs and market based incentives. The R&D start program, which was announced in the August 1996 budget, provides funding for R&D, including energy R&D. The program provides a mixture of support measures, including grants and loans for R&D in small and medium enterprises. Total expenditure on the R&D start program over the next four years will be $739 million. The R&D start program is a potential source of government support for energy R&D projects. The program has already granted funding for energy R&D projects, including in new and renewable energy. As senators will be aware, this is within the portfolio of the Department of Industry, Science and Tourism.Specific support for energy R&D is also provided by the government through the Australian Cooperative Research Centre's program, which includes the Australian Cooperative Research Centre for Renewable Energy, ACRE. ACRE has a Commonwealth contribution from the CRC program of over $10 million over seven years and focuses on a number of sources of renewable energy, including solar, thermal, photovoltaics and wind. There has been further incentive for industry to undertake R&D from the 125 per cent tax deduction and the existence of significantly more robust and competitive energy markets in Australia flowing from gas and electricity market reforms accelerated under this government.A process that had lost momentum under Labor, energy market reform, has created the impetus for innovative products and services and facilitated wider use of low emission energy supplies, such as co-generation, gas-fired generators and renewable energy systems. As a result of Australia's electricity grids being opened up to the private generators, the opportunity for generators using renewable energy technologies has increased. This in turn provides a major incentive for energy research and development. Significant developments have included a supply of over 50 megawatts to the grid using sugar cane waste, or bagasse, the establishment of over 70 megawatts of power plant capacity using gas in municipal landfills and over 125 megawatts of new capacity from small hydro plants.New support for energy research and development has been announced as part of the government's response to the greenhouse issue. In November 1997, as part of the $180 million five-year program, the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) announced a major new package of measures to encourage innovation in the renewable energy sector. These include $21 million for a renewable energy innovation investment fund on a two for one funding basis with industry and $30 million of concessional loans and grants for development and commercialisation of strategically important renewable energy technologies. This represents a huge increase on the $4.8 million over four years spent by Labor on the renewable energy industry program. There is $10 million for a showcase fund—and I am sure you will support this, Senator—to support leading edge renewable energy projects in areas such as tidal power, solar thermal power and photovoltaics.Other measures in this package will stimulate support for energy research and development. These include programs for the mandatory targets for uptake of renewable energy and power supplies; efficiency standards for power generation; an environmental strategy for the automotive industry; industry efficiency benchmarking and best practice; energy performance codes and standards for commercial buildings, domestic appliances and industrial equipment; and energy efficiency improvements in Commonwealth operation.There has been much bleating by the Australian Democrats alleging that the wind-up of the ERDC will impair Australia's efforts in alternative or renewable energy research developments. These claims, which were repeated in Senator Lees's media release of 22 March 1998, serve only to highlight the Democrats' failure to comprehend energy policy issues and to acknowledge the extensive support for renewable energy put in place by the Howard government. Far from decreasing support for renewable energy, initiatives taken by the Howard government provide a boost for investments specifically targeted at renewable energy.While the ERDC provided funds for all energy research, the program announced by the Prime Minister has a deliberate renewable energy focus. As a result of these measures, the level of support provided by the government for renewables is considerably greater than that provided by any previous government. As part of the wind-up of ERDC, the government will not fund any new investments by ERDC but will meet existing commitments. I think Senator Lees talked about these negotiations in her speech. These negotiations are not compulsory but, where it is to the advantage of both sides, they will occur. In the absence of those, the commitments will be fulfilled.The opposition to this motion is really a futile piece of grandstanding which will do nothing to promote its claimed objective of supporting alternative energy R&D. All that the Democrats will achieve, presumably with the support of Labor, is the maintenance of a minimal ERDC board without funding for new projects and no role whatsoever, the effective role residing mainly with the Australian greenhouse office and agencies within the industry, science and tourism portfolio.18:56:001330Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I totally support Senator Lees's motion. I do so for the reasons she gave, and I want to reiterate those in my way. Firstly, we have here the $71 million that was allocated over five years to ERDC, which has a prodigious record for stimulating research and development, particularly in the fields of alternative energy, and drawing in many millions more from business and industry in that pursuit being denied. Under Minister Parer, $87 million is specifically allocated over the same period for research and development, into what? Into wind energy? Into solar energy? Into energy alternatives which people concerned about greenhouse gases and so on might be concerned about? No, none of those. The $87 million is going for research and development into the coal industry.So there we have it—$71 million being taken from the ERDC and $87 million going into the coal industry. If there is ever a benighted misdirection of policy, that is it. How could this minister, this government, under the glare of public interest in energy alternatives with the globe warming up, with the enormous fear there is from the threats of global warming, be proceeding in the reverse direction to that which the Australian people would expect? It is unconscionable.At some stage down the line, the government needs to be stopped in its tracks and made to think about what it is doing. I know that Senator Parer has a favourable eye on the coal industry. One has only to read the newspapers to know that. But there is much more at stake here than the interests of the coal industry. There is the direction this nation is going as a potential leader in research and development in the renewable energy field—solar power, wind power and energy efficiency, not least.So Senator Lees is quite right to make this move to try to put a shot across the bows of this delinquent policy direction that Senator Parer and the government are taking. We have in this country some of the best scientific and research and development expertise—not the least of whom are in universities—in energy renewables anywhere in the world. Some have already been forced to go overseas with their inventions. More are feeling the squeeze.In the meantime, we have Senator Parer and the government allocating $87 million to the coal industry—and, by the way, another $24 million to other fossil fuel research and development, making a total of $111 million—but they cannot fund the $71 million the ERDC was getting because Senator Parer says we are facing tight fiscal conditions. What bunkum! What nonsense! As I said, what a delinquent policy direction.One only has to look at the government's policy reversal on the diesel fuel rebate—which involves over $1 billion a year, most of it handed to the mining corporations—to see how much easier it would be for the government to reverse its decision on the abolition of the ERDC and the emphasis that needs to be given to research and development in energy renewables. I am aghast and so are many people in the business field, I can tell you, at the direction this government has gone. It is not only a loss now for small business and research and development in this country; it is cutting across the interests of this country as a whole because energy renewables are a sunrise industry. They are one of the identified king-hit industries of the next century. The whole world is going to be looking for the expertise and the investment coming out of this research and development.Instead of fostering that, instead of looking ahead, what Senator Parer is doing is looking backwards. He is looking at the now. He is no doubt, because of his long association with the coal industry, being impressed by the arguments and the understanding he has there, while ignoring a more balanced, progressive and forward looking understanding which comes from the recognition that this country can lead the world, reap profits and create hundreds of thousands of jobs—but if only government are prepared to get behind the industries that are making such terrific advances for Australia in this field.Instead of getting behind the industry, Senator Parer is simply getting behind. He is going backwards. It is a delinquent policy. The ERDC, instead of being abolished, should be enhanced. Senator Lees is to be congratulated for this attempt to stop the government in its tracks and make it think again in the interests of this country of ours. Question put: That the motion (Senator Lees's ) be agreed to.19:08:00The Senate divided. (The President—Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid)32Allison, L. Bartlett, A. J. J.Bishop, M. Bolkus, N.Bourne, V. Brown, B.Carr, K. Collins, J. M. A.Conroy, S. Cook, P. F. S.Cooney, B. Crowley, R. A.Denman, K. J.* Evans, C. V.Forshaw, M. G. Gibbs, B.Harradine, B. Hogg, J.Lees, M. H. Mackay, S.Margetts, D. McKiernan, J. P.Murphy, S. M. Murray, A.O'Brien, K. W. K. Quirke, J. A.Ray, R. F. Schacht, C. C.Sherry, N. Stott Despoja, N.West, S. M. Woodley, J.31Abetz, E. Boswell, R. L. D.Brownhill, D. G. C. Calvert, P. H.Chapman, H. G. P. Colston, M. A.Coonan, H. Eggleston, A.Ellison, C. Ferguson, A. B.Ferris, J. Gibson, B. F.Heffernan, W.* Herron, J.Kemp, R. Knowles, S. C.Lightfoot, P. R. MacGibbon, D. J.McGauran, J. J. J. Minchin, N. H.O'Chee, W. G. Parer, W. R.Patterson, K. C. L. Payne, M. A.Reid, M. E. Synon, K. M.Tambling, G. E. J. Tierney, J.Troeth, J. Vanstone, A. E.Watson, J. O. W.Campbell, G. Crane, W.Collins, R. L. Macdonald, I.Faulkner, J. P. Hill, R. M.Lundy, K. Newman, J. M.Neal, B. J. Macdonald, S.Reynolds, M. Alston, R. K. R.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.Notices133213321332Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the Senate—(1) That the Senate not sit from Tuesday, 2 June 1998 to Thursday, 4 June 1998.(2) That estimates hearings for the remainder of 1998 be scheduled as follows:1998-99 budget estimates: Tuesday, 2 June to Friday, 5 June (initial hearings—Group A ) Tuesday, 9 June to Friday, 12 June (initial hearings—Group B ) Monday, 3 August and Tuesday, 4 August (supplementary hearings—Group A ) Wednesday, 5 August and Thursday, 6 August (supplementary hearings—Group B ).1998-99 additional estimates: Monday, 16 November and Tuesday, 17 November (initial hearings—Group A ) Wednesday, 18 November and Thursday, 19 November (initial hearings—Group B ).(3) That legislation committees consider proposed expenditure and expenditure under the Advance to the Minister for Finance in accordance with the allocation of departments to committees agreed to on 1 May 1996, as amended.(4) That committees meet in the following groups: Group A: Community Affairs Economics Employment, Education and Training (August and November ) Finance and Public Administration Legal and Constitutional (June only). Group B: Employment, Education and Training (June only) Environment, Recreation, Communications and the Arts Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legal and Constitutional (August and November ) Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport.(5) That the committees report to the Senate on or before the following dates: 23 June 1998 in respect of the 1998-99 budget estimates 1 December 1998 in respect of the 1998-99 additional estimates.Bills1332r425Consideration resumed.1332Bill passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.Adjournment133210000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Hogg)—Order! There being no further consideration of government business, I propose the question:That the Senate do now adjourn.133219:12:001332Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4NTCLP10—I would like to take this opportunity to discuss the Prime Minister's recent visit to the Northern Territory. John Howard commenced his visit with a very successful day in Darwin on 26 February. He visited the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly. He viewed the East Arm Port Development, which will be a vital part of the Darwin to Alice Springs railway link, with Chief Minister, Shane Stone, and the Northern Territory transport minister, Barry Coulter. He also attended a dinner for 350, hosted by my colleague the federal member for the Northern Territory, the Hon. Nick Dondas.He then had the honour on Friday, 27 February of visiting several communities in Arnhem Land at the invitation of Mr Gatjil Djerrkura, the Chairman of ATSIC. The Prime Minister visited Galiwinku, Marthakal and Dhambala on Elcho Island and Nhulunbuy and Yirrkala on the Gove Peninsula. At Galiwinku the Prime Minister was briefed on a $1.8 million joint army/ATSIC project. This project involves the building of 10 new homes plus the upgrading of existing power and water supplies. It is expected the project will prove as successful as a similar one at Bulla near the township of Timber Creek where army personnel are a very good example of the different sections of the Australian community establishing personal connections with Aborigines and working on a deeper understanding of each other's culture.The Prime Minister was similarly accorded the opportunity of enhancing his own understanding of Aboriginal culture at Dhambala on Elcho Island where he, the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs, Senator John Herron, my colleague Nick Dondas and I were given the very great honour and privilege of participating in a secret men's ceremony with Garrawurra elders. I understand the honour and accept the trust placed in us by the Garrawurra men and realise that it is a privilege extended to very few white Australians. Let me say that the importance and significance of the ceremony and its symbolism and insignia used was not unlike that of a freemason's lodge. The Prime Minister was obviously moved by the ceremony and shortly after said:I deeply appreciated the honour that was paid to me and I certainly gained from that ceremony an understanding of how much that ritual and that culture and those thousands of years of practice and history mean to the indigenous community.After visiting another public function with hundreds of elders, women and children from Galiwinku, the Prime Minister and our party left for the town of Nhulunbuy where his first duties were at the Miwatj Aboriginal health centre. It was here that the Prime Minister announced a $4.8 million innovative health package to help combat trachoma in Aboriginal communities.After addressing a business leaders luncheon celebrating the 25th anniversary of the Nabalco bauxite mine, the Prime Minister visited the home of his host, Gatjil Djerrkura, at the lovely community of Yirrkala. A traditional ceremony of welcome by members of the Djapu clan in full ceremonial dress saw the Prime Minister escorted to the Yirrkala arts centre. This was a spectacular and impressive display particularly by many spear wielding men, women and children singing and dancing in a moving ceremony.At the Yirrkala arts centre details of sacred Aboriginal paintings were explained to the Prime Minister and he was presented with a special bark painting of cultural significance. We also on that occasion met with senior traditional leaders for another private meeting on important cultural values.The visit by Mr Howard highlighted for me the fact that there are so many aspects to Aboriginal life and culture that are not given the important publicity they deserve. Some life or death issues, particularly when talking about the maintenance of a culture, deserve much more consideration. A common thread running through the discussions on the day was the need for Aboriginal culture to cross generations, in fact for traditional culture to be handed down from generation to generation and not lost forever.We must ask the question: are the views of Aboriginal people in the far-flung settlements of outback Australia being listened to, canvassed and voiced by some of the radical Aboriginal leaders that we have in Australia today? I am not convinced that they are. Too many Aboriginal spokesmen in the non-ceremonial or traditional areas have lost the focus and lost the plot.In my electorate, the Northern Territory, a vast area of 1.3 million square kilometres, with Aborigines making up 25 per cent of the population—a higher percentage than in any other state or territory—there are hundreds of Aboriginal communities, all with many diverse needs and aspirations. As I have travelled the Territory during the past 25 years of my political career, I have heard many concerned voices, particularly by Aboriginal people, on those isolated communities that follow a number of common themes—themes and issues that are not getting much recognition or voice from the Aboriginal leaders living on the east coast of Australia who seem preoccupied with the concept of land ownership and a continuation of welfare support and government dependency. There is very little mention being made of the wonderful art and the ancient living Aboriginal culture that is practised still in so many Aboriginal communities and the need to ensure its protection and survival. I seriously ask: where is the discussion, the action and the acceptance from southern Aboriginal leaders of the many other aspects of Aboriginal life and culture that are so important and many other issues that need to be canvassed at a national level, other than native title or land rights?Where is the recognition that for many Aboriginal people land rights and native title are not major issues? They know their site and their place in the world with far more spirituality than most of us. A unique and splendid way of life is on the brink of extinction. The major issue for many people in remote communities is the loss of culture, the loss of their traditional way of life, the loss for many of their very being, their sense of identity. The preservation of what is unique about themselves and their lives is what is important to so many of my constituents.The preservation of the hundreds of Aboriginal languages and dialects spoken around Australia is a first step in helping to maintain this identity. Action is being taken in the Northern Territory schools to ensure the survival of Aboriginal languages, but why is there not more of an outcry elsewhere? Surely language is vital to a culture's survival. Our focus on literacy must allow Aborigines to communicate in the two societies in which they must live.Aboriginal health and nutrition is deplorable. Why not promote the use of bush tucker before the knowledge is lost and a healthy food source lost with it? Again, in the Territory this has been recognised, but why are Aboriginal leaders in other states not promoting it much more strongly and loudly? Closely related to the skills used to find bush tucker are the skills gained over thousands of years, generations living and learning in the most trying conditions to acquire the unique hunting and tracking abilities needed for survival itself. Action must be taken before these skills are lost totally.The importance of ceremony to Aboriginal people as a part of their culture must also be recognised and steps taken to ensure that its continuation is enshrined. Aboriginal art is finally getting the recognition it deserves but there are still many challenges to be met in this area, particularly in recognising copyright and preservation issues.The Reverend Djiniyini Gondara spoke recently to the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation and made several very important points relating to the native title process and the cultural issues I have described that must be addressed. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the recent speech by Djiniyini Gondara.Leave granted.The speech read as follows—Address by Rev. DHINIYINI GONDARA to the RECONCILIATION COUNCIL. 11/3/98Thank you for your welcome Mr. Chairman.Today we are talking about the Commonwealth Constitution and looking at how it might be changed in the future. I think the best way I can add to this debate is by speaking about my traditional Law—the Madayin of the Yolnu people of North East Arnhem Land. Then we might be able to see how this can help our discussion.Before I start, it would be good to say that Yolnu are only one group of Aboriginal Clan/Nations within the Northern Territory. However my knowledge of other Aboriginal Clan/Nations across the country is that we each have very similar foundational principles of law.To me there are three main elements in any good law and this is how it is with Yolnu traditional law.These three elements come from the djalkiri or the foundational source of our law. These three main elements that must be found in all law are;1. The law must create Magaya . That is, the law must create a state of peace, harmony, and tranquillity, with true justice for all the citizens.2. The law must be Dhapirrk That is, the law must be perfectly consistent with all the different levels of law from the source down to the lowest acts of law.3. The third element of good law is that it must be Wana Lupthun . That is the law must be assented to by the citizens in a ceremony that shows that they are all under the discipline, responsibility and protection of the law.No law and no constitution would be recognised as real law without these foundational principles being included. This is how it is with Yolnu traditional law—the Madayin. I have learnt this from my traditional law.I have just used the term—Madayin. Madayin is the terns Yolnu use to talk about our law. So you can understand what I am talking about here, I would like to look at what Madayin means.But before I do, I would like to point out what Justice Blackburn said in 1971. In his judgement and summing up of the Gove Land Rights case he said that he "could see that a `rule of lava and not a `rule of marl' operated in Yolnu society."The Madayin is based on a rule of law not because Justice Blackburn said so but because it is and we have known that for thousands of years.Lets look at the Madayin, our traditional law.Madayin is the name for a complete system of law for the Yolnu (Aboriginal people) of North East Arnhem Land.It embodies the rights of the owners of the law, or citizens, (rom-watanu walal ) who have the rights and responsibilities for this particular embodiment of law.This Madayin includes: all the peoples' law (rom ), the instruments and objects that encode and symbolise the law (Madayin girri ), oral dictates, names and song cycles and the holy, restricted places (dhuyu nungat wana ) that are used in the maintenance, education and development of law.This law covers the ownership of land and waters, the resources on or within these lands and waters, it regulates and controls; production and trade, the moral, social and religious law including laws for the conservation of, and the farming of, fauna, flora and aquatic life.The Yolnu of Worth East Arnhem Land believe that if they live out their life according to the Madayin it is a right and civilised way to live.The Madayin creates the state of magaya. Magaya is a state of peace, free from hostilities, true justice for all.Some of the political structures which are established by the Madayin are:Bapurru —is the name given to the paternal estate owning clan/nation—who have ownership of the surface of the land and waters of the estate. This includes all the resources on the land and in the water.Yirralka —the estate of the Bapurru, which is divided into distinct areas for natural forming. Ringitj— an alliance of clan/nations with a common constitutional base (as seen in the Dhulmu-mulka bathi ), song cycles, common army, and common practice of law- this alliance has the sub-surface ownership for their estates of land and water. See ARDS Information Paper No. 5The political representatives of the clan/nation are called Dalkarra and Djirrikay .Narra is a chamber of law and jurisdiction where the leaders are called together by the clap sticks. Secrecy provisions apply creating a type of parliamentary privilege so that the only information to leave the chamber is the publicly viewed objects that encode the law (like the sacred Dilly Bag). The citizens are outside the chamber or the ceremonial place and the law is taken to them.Wana Lupthun— after a draft law is discussed and by consensus is agreed to by the representatives in the chamber, the objects (like the Dhulmu-mulka bathi— sacred dilly bag) are brought out for the citizens to assent to. In this Ceremony the objects representing the law are held by the political leader of that clan/nation and he, together with all the people of that clan, go under the water to indicate that they are under the discipline, responsibility and protection of the law. No one is above the law!The principle-"separation of powers "—is embodied within the concept of Yothu/Yindi. For Yolnu this is much more than the name of a rock band. The members of the government are from one clan/nation and are called Yindi. The public servants, including the police and officers of the court are from separate clan/nations and are called Yothu .If someone breaks our traditional law, we have a process to deal with this at law. Some people who do not know our traditional law have called this "payback ", but we know it as bayarra . To Yolnu it means to be reconciled at law.These sanctions are carried out by our ceremonial leaders, who are the authorised officers, according to the dictates of the law.Bayarra, reconciliation at law, then occurs."Payback", or an action of revenge without a due legal process, is against Yolnu traditional law.So you can see, just as Justice Blackburn did, that Yolnu live under a rule of law not a rule of man. We have had this law, our Madayin , since time immemorial and each generation has tried to maintain the three foundational elements that I mentioned at the start of any speech. It is these three elements that all of us must seek to maintain within our Australian Constitution.Mr. Chairman I thank you for the opportunity to have addressed this Convention. Key Terms In Understanding Yolnu Traditional LawYolnu 1. The indigenous people of North East Arnhem Land. 2. Person. human being.Balanda non-Aboriginal persons of European origin.Madayin the name for the traditional laws of the Yolnu people of North East Arnhem Land. Madayin is a complete system of law encompassing all aspects of law found in the Westminster system of government.Djalkiri foundational source of the lawMagaya peace, freedom from hostilities true justice for all.Dhapirrk consistency of law.Wana-lupthun the name of a ceremony where the political leaders and citizens assent to the acts of law that come from the legislature/traditional chambers of law.Bapurru the patrilineal clan who find and express their corporate identity in the ownership of the clan estate (yirralka) and other aspects of law.Yirralka the estate of land and waters owned by the patrilineal clan.Ringitj an alliance of clans.Dhulmu-mulka Bathi (sacred dilly bag) the Title Deeds which establish the legal tenuro for cash clan estate.Dalkarra/Djirrikay the political leaders and representatives of Ouch clan.Narra traditional legislature/chamber of lawRom-watanu walal refers to those persons who, as a corporate body, are the owners of the particular embodiment of law being referred to. They have "citizenship rights" that are enshrined in and protected by the madayin .Yothu-Yindi the link or alliance established between members of different clans according to their `mother and child' relationship. In law, the yothu (children) are expected to manage and care for the interests of their mother's people (`yindi ' or `yindipulu ').Bayarra due process of reconciliation at law 6E4Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING—I thank the Senate. The Prime Minister, Senator Herron, Nick Dondas and I were certainly accorded a unique and special experience with Aboriginal elders on 27 February and hopefully, one day soon, we will be able to reciprocate by inviting them on a visit to Canberra and Parliament House.133619:21:001336Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—Tonight I rise to speak about conservation groups. As the Senate will be aware, there are many conservation groups of all shapes and sizes in Australia. Tonight I wish to pay tribute to the work that they do and the way in which they make our community and our way of life much more valuable. I pay tribute to the individuals in those conservation groups for the considerable work they do. The reason for my comments tonight is that, in the context of this year's budget, I would like the government to recognise and acknowledge the enormity of the debt that we owe to conservation groups in this country.Some $1.7 million has been the amount provided for a number of years to be divided amongst a very large number of groups. Since the Howard government came to power they have added more groups to that list, but, unfortunately, that money has remained at the same level. Unfortunately, too, they have used that money as a stick to beat certain groups like the North Queensland Conservation Council, the Cairns and Far North Environment Centre, the Australian Conservation Foundation, the Environmental Defenders Offices and Friends of the Earth. All of these groups had their funding cut last year, no doubt as punishment for the kind of brutal honesty which did not fit with the government's notion of a relaxed and comfortable society.I want tonight to compare their meagre funding with that of the mining industry which received $117 million in 1996-97. Next year it will receive around $90 million. Over five years the mining industry is expected to receive $333 million from government. We compare this with just $8 million going to conservation groups. Obviously, there is a very significant difference between those two amounts of money.The government will argue that it gets back lots of revenue from helping the mining industry, but its economic model will only include the positive side of that ledger. It will not talk about the massive cost of mining leaving behind polluted land. It will not talk about job losses from mine closures and technology changes. It will not talk about polluted waterways and the cost of having that land locked up.Let us not forget about the enormous sums of money involved in tourism to our unique and precious areas. I remind the Senate that if it was not for conservation groups the Great Barrier Reef would probably by now be polluted by oil drilling and, no doubt, be overfished. Kakadu would be mined. Fraser Island would have had its magnificent forest logged and its stunning sand dunes destroyed by mineral sand operations. South-west Tasmania would have suffered the fates of mining and logging and been flooded by an unnecessary dam.The wet tropics rainforests, home to so much biodiversity and the only developed world tropical rainforests, would no doubt also be gone. We would have seen Daintree forests replaced by suburb blocks and cement. I could go on, but the point I want to make is that these areas are now recognised as unique in the world and they bring in billions of dollars of tourism. Their intrinsic worth is countless and their spiritual worth to who we are as a nation, is extraordinary.These places, along with hundreds of national parks and reserve areas, exist because of the selfless and solid work of community environment groups. It is not just the natural environment that these groups protect. They are our security against land, air and water pollution. They research and identify potential problems with chemicals or toxic overload. They intelligently scrutinise decisions made by those who have a profit-only motive and by governments who help those organisations.They point out the fast-tracking and inadequate decision making. They draw attention to the other side of the science. They find the loopholes and help inform the rest of the community. They negotiate to make projects and developers take softer paths on the environment, very often saving those developers money in the process. When enough is enough they stand firm on their principles and, in so doing, annoy governments because they cannot be bought and sometimes they just will not budge. They work nights, days and weekends and very often do this whilst holding down full-time jobs and having families. They still donate their time doing what they believe and what we know and recognise is the right thing to do.Many governments and developers do not understand this sort of behaviour. Governments think that if they ignore them they will go away. They tend to shoot the messenger for what they have to say. But, of course, they are not going to go away. They are the voice of reason and I think they are very important to the future of this country.In the government's rush to help out their big business mates—and it does not seem to matter whether it is a Liberal or Labor government in this respect—I want to warn the Senate tonight that community groups like the one I came from some years back and the ones I know, will not give up. They will simply become more insistent. I urge the government to take the opportunity this year to fund them in a respectful manner, to recognise the work they do and to recognise what they contribute to the quality of life for all Australians.They are the ones who stand up for two very important groups who have no voice and yet should be listened to carefully before decisions are made. I refer to all of the species that we are privileged to share our fragile piece of planet with and all of those children who are not yet born but who will have to suffer the impact of the decisions which we make every day in their lives.133719:28:001337Payne, Sen MariseSenator PAYNEM56NSWLP10—This evening I rise to address what I and the coalition regard as a very important issue for all people, particularly in greater western Sydney—that is, the issue of small business reform. My New South Wales coali tion colleagues are undoubtedly aware of the significance of the greater western Sydney area in terms of its population growth and its growth in industry—in particular, in the manufacturing, building and construction, transport and storage, engineering and retail sectors. I am pleased to have the opportunity on almost a daily basis to work closely with my colleagues the member for Parramatta (Mr Ross Cameron) and the member for Lindsay (Miss Jackie Kelly) in this part of Sydney, listening to and working with business.On a national level, though, small business confidence has firmed over the last three months to February of this year and is now at its highest level since the post-election peak of May 1996. The informative February 1998 Yellow Pages Small Business Index shows that business confidence is up this quarter in manufacturing, building construction and building services, with the transport and storage sector—essential parts of the western Sydney business community—seeing a boost in confidence of eight per cent—from 45 to 62 per cent since the November quarter.The index tellingly goes on to say that, with the exception of the election induced euphoria in the May 1996 survey, small business's assessment of the economy is now at its strongest level since February 1995. Proprietors in all states and territories are strongly positive about the current state of the economy. In New South Wales, our small business proprietors have the strongest perception of economic growth and a strong sales and profit growth. The coalition's approach to small business reform is undeniably paying off right across the nation. This means that important areas such as Sydney's greater west have the opportunity to expand in business and to contribute in a far greater capacity to the nation's economy. The greater west generates 20 per cent of the New South Wales work force and some 24 per cent of the New South Wales economy. The coalition acknowledges the contribution of the businesses of greater western Sydney and has fostered an open and accessible approach to receiving feedback from business proprietors at a grassroots level by providing opportunities to discuss the issues confronting businesses through seminars, forums and the like. Just last Thursday I had the pleasure of chairing such a forum in Penrith. The event was organised by my colleague the member for Lindsay, Jackie Kelly, and the President of the Penrith and Districts Chamber of Commerce, Mr Ian Palmer. About 70 representatives of small business in both western Sydney and the Blue Mountains area were able to attend. A range of guest speakers was able to join us including my New South Wales state parliamentary colleagues the Hon. John Hannaford MLC, the opposition's spokesperson on small business in New South Wales; the Hon. Chris Hartcher MP, the opposition's spokesperson on industrial relations; the Hon. Mike Gallacher MLC, who spoke on workers compensation; and particularly my federal colleague the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business, the Hon. Alan Cadman, the member for Mitchell. The seminar's great success was a reflection of the work of one of the many strong organisations that stand behind small business in the greater western Sydney area—that is, in this case, the Penrith and Districts Chamber of Commerce. As with all of the various chambers of commerce in our area, they are actively involved in ensuring that small business is aware of the changes that are occurring at the federal level and the options that are available to all small business as a result of the reforms that this government has introduced.But the chambers do not only represent small businesses as a cohesive whole; they work with the community. They work through the local print media to ensure that people are informed about the issues that are confronting their own small businesses and the options that are available to them. One of the most interesting things to come out of the seminar, and very timely, might I say, in relation to today's activities in the chamber, was strong, unanimous and steadfast support for the government's proposed changes to unfair dismissal laws in the Workplace Relations Act, which was today rejected in the chamber. The opposition's job-destroying unfair dismissal laws left over from their period in government have been amended since the coalition's victory in March 1996. But the message from small business is that more changes are necessary for the continued viability of their sector. It is a message that has gone unheeded by those on the other side. It is clear that the rejection of the government's amendments means a more difficult road ahead for any prospects of expansion for this vital sector. What those on the other side must now do is stand accountable before their small business communities in their electorates across the nation and explain to all proprietors the obscure agenda behind their rejection of these amendments. The proposed changes set out to achieve one thing: very simply, to provide a better future for small business in this country, to provide certainty for small business.The opposition and the Democrats have made a conscious decision to place obstacles in the way of those things and in the way of Australia's economic prosperity. The coalition by contrast sees its role as providing business with the opportunity to move forward. The reforms that we have introduced and the commitment we have shown to small business is evident in the mood of the small business proprietors I spoke to in Penrith last week and all across western Sydney in fact. It is comforting to them at least to know that as yet we are only part way through our program of reform. There is more to be done and they, the people on the ground, the people in the workplaces, support our aims. I find it difficult to understand the obstructionist activities of those opposite when the call from the electorate for reform in this area is absolutely unequivocal. What the government has done is to provide a positive atmosphere for business to get on with the job. For example, interest rates are at their lowest in 30 years. This is an atmosphere that is conducive to confidence in investment for a small business that looks to a bigger and brighter future. If businesses are to make decisions to expand, they need to know where they are going and where they are going to be in a couple of years time. The low interest rates and low inflation achievements of this government provide small business with the stability and certainty they need to make their decisions for the future. I was particularly encouraged at the small business seminar in Penrith to also witness the support for the coalition's proposed tax reform. There was a clear message—that compliance costs to do with taxation and administration are hurting Australian business. The coalition's tax reform will create world's best practice to ensure that Australian business is competitive not only within our region but also with business around the world. It is ridiculous that Australian businesses can spend more hours per week working out complicated compliance issues than in any other country in our region. This government is about creating a framework for a successful and competitive future for small business. The representatives of the Penrith and Districts Chamber of Commerce present last week gave me and my colleagues a clear indication that they consider the coalition is in fact on track to achieve these aims.But tax reform and the need for changes to the unfair dismissal laws were only two of the major issues raised at the seminar. A number of the government's other reforms in areas such as access for small business to the Commonwealth banking ombudsman, cutting tax on savings, cutting fringe benefits and capital gains tax, cutting red tape and giving retail tenants a fair go were all equally applauded.It would be remiss of me not to point out that overwhelmingly the most important achievement of this government for small business was our efforts to repay Labor's debt. We have in fact come a long way under the guidance of the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business (Mr Reith) and the federal Treasurer (Mr Costello). We acknowledge that there are areas that still need to be addressed. We are working towards rectifying the unacceptable situation that was left over from 13 years of Labor Party administration.If we want to ensure a successful small business community not only nationwide but also for greater western Sydney we have to listen. That is what we are all about—identifying the problem areas at a grassroots level and responding to them. There are encouraging signs of growth. People in Sydney's west are expanding whether in industries like real estate, construction or retail. Let us hope that the actions of those opposite today will not affect that trend.I would on this occasion also like to bring to the attention of the Senate not only the success of the government's reforms in greater western Sydney but also acknowledge the strong organisational support that exists for business in the area. In addition to the chambers of commerce, I am also in contact with the Greater Western Sydney Business Connection, known to those familiar with it in the west as `The Connection'. Both the member for Parramatta, Mr Cameron, and I work with The Connection to take the message of western Sydney businesses to the government. It was established over 10 years ago in 1985 to promote the Parramatta CBD—which, after all, is the geographical heart of Sydney—and to enhance its business potential. After a decade of doing that, The Connection's focus is now directed across greater western Sydney. That wider focus has seen an expansion in business development opportunities which The Connection has championed since its inception. And growing out of the organisational structure of The Connection came the birth of the Asia Business Connection.Western Sydney is a strong region for business. It is a rewarding job to bring back to this place words of encouragement and support for the framework that is being built from the coalition's small business policies—policies which go a long way to ensuring that business is not held back in western Sydney, but that it is in a strong position to move forward to the next millennium with sound business confidence.19:38:001340Senate adjourned at 7.38 p.m.Documents13401340The following documents were tabled by the Clerk:Civil Aviation Act—Civil Aviation Regulations—Civil Aviation Orders—Exemptions— CASA 09/1998 and CASA 10/1998.Radiocommunications Act—Spectrum Re-allocation Declaration No. 1 of 1998.Sydney Airport Demand Management Act—Determination of Slot Management Scheme 1998.1340The 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: Department of Defence. Industry, Science and Tourism portfolio— Australian Customs Service. Australian Institute of Marine Science. Australian Nuclear and Technology Organisation. Australian Sports Commission. Australian Sports Drug Agency. Australian Tourist Commission. Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. Department of Industry, Science and Tourism: Central Office. National Standards Commission.Answers to Questions on Notice1341The following answers to questions were circulated:1341(Question No. 680)6801341Collins, Sen BobSenator Bob CollinsOF4NTALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, upon notice on, 2 July 1997:What was the level of gross farm debt and net farm debt in the 1993-94, 1994-95, 1995-96 and 1996-97 financial years.1341Parer, Sen WarwickSenator ParerKI4QLDLPResources and Energy10—The Minister for Primary Industries and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(a) ABARE's estimate of total farm indebtedness to financial institutions, as at 30 June, in each of the three years are as follows:1994—$17.13 billion; 1995—$17.98 billion; 1996—$19.02 billion.(b) ABARE will publish a June 1997 estimate in the next issue of Australian Commodities, to be released 24 March 1998. This estimate will be based on Reserve Bank data which indicates a 6 per cent increase in total bank lending to agriculture, fishing and forestry for the year to June 1997.(c) Farmers have both borrowings and deposits with financial institutions. Levels of both total farm indebtedness and farm businesses' deposits with financial institutions are recorded in ABARE surveys of farms in the broadacre and dairy sectors of agriculture. The sectors include around 72 per cent of Australian farms. The levels of total farm business debt, farm business liquid assets (mostly bank deposits) and the net borrowings (debt) for the broadacre and dairy sector were:Farm debtLiquid assetsNet debt1993-94$12.29 billion$3.68 billion$8.61 billion1994-95$12.41 billion$4.32 billion$8.09 billion1995-96$12.48 billion$4.67 billion$7.81 billion1341(Question No. 904)9041341Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy:(1) What qualitative or quantitative research has been undertaken by the Department and its agencies since 3 March 1996.(2) What was the nature of the research undertaken (sample, sizes, questionnaire length, evaluation) and to whom were the results of the research available.(3) In each instance, which firm or firms have been engaged to undertake this work.(4) In each instance, what has been the cost of the work undertaken.1341Parer, Sen WarwickSenator ParerKI4QLDLPResources and Energy10—The Minister for Primary Industries and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:After clarification with your office on the nature of research, the following tables provide information on research work, ie. polling, customer survey or market research, carried out externally for the Department of Primary Industries and Energy (DPIE). Many areas of the department have undertaken other types of research projects and information on these projects is listed in the Supplementary Information of the DPIE Annual Reports.Also, during 1996-97 the rural research and development (R&D) corporations invested approximately $270 million in R&D on behalf of the rural industries and the Australian public. This investment was spread across approximately 4300 individual projects, details of which are available in the annual report of each Corporation.Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics (ABARE)(1) Research(2) Nature of ResearchAvailability(3) Firm(4) Cost Non-market valuation case study—To apply non-market valuation technique(s) in a case study of the upper south-east of South Australia catchmentQualitative and quantitative, survey included as part of project Survey questions 24 Sample size 4120Available to the public as a published reportEnvironmental & Resource Economics$98,840 Participate in the joint research project `Quantification of the full Range of Costs of Dryland Salinity'Qualitative and quantitative, survey included as part of project Survey questions 68 Sample size 711Available to the public as a published reportDepartment of Conservation & Natural Resources$25,000 Participate in the joint research project `Structural Adjustment & Irrigated Broadacre Farming in the Southern Murray-Darling Basin'Quantitative, survey included as part of project AAGIS Survey questions 178 Sample size 1385Available to the public as a published reportNSW Agriculture$80,00 Participate in the joint research project `Structural Adjustment & Irrigated Broadacre Farming in the Southern Murray-Darling Basin'Quantitative, survey included as part of project AAGIS Survey questions 178 Sample size 1385Available to the public as a published reportVictorian Dept of Natural Resources and Environment$80,000 Contribute to a paper on social and rural community aspects of the future of the Australia farm sectorQuantitativePublicly available as an ABARE paperRichard Stayner$3,000 Undertake data collection and provide research assistance on project no 1350 `Evaluation of factors influencing prices of domestic seafoods'13 month period from September 1995 to October 1996. This resulted in the quality assessment of 10 000 lots sold in the Market, representing 16 per cent of all sales for the species assessedAvailable to ABARE and FRDCRuello and Associates$49,600 Data collection and analyses of industry options for Regional Forest Agreement (RFA) for TasmaniaConsultants interviewed around 25 key people from the Tasmanian government, Tasmanian forest agency, Tasmanian forest industry, and private log suppliers. There was no formal questionnaire, as the relevant data to be collected varied widely from individual to individual. Available to general publicMargules Groome & Poyry$80,671 Data collection and analyses of industry options for Regional Forest Agreement (RFA) for VictoriaAs above. The Consultants interviewed an estimated 30 peopleAvailable to ABARE, DPIE and general public with DPIE permissionMargules Groome & Poyry$35,800 Data collection and analyses of industry options for Regional Forest Agreement (RFA) for Southern Region of NSWAs above. The Consultants interviewed an estimated 30 people Available to ABARE, DPIE and general public with DPIE permissionMargules Groome & Poyry$44,600 Participate in the joint research project `Determinants of off-farm employment research'AAGIS survey questions 161 Sample size 1767Available to Rural Development Centre and ABARERural Development Centre$6,801 Data collection and analyses of industry options for Regional Forest Agreement (RFA) for Western AustraliaAs above. The Consultants interviewed an estimated 50 people, including attendees at two workshopsAvailable to ABARE, DPIE and general public with DPIE permissionBIS Shrapnel Forestry Group Pty Ltd$36,800Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service (AQIS)It should be noted that in 1996/97 funding of $1 million for the Strategic Ballast Water Research Program was provided by the shipping industry with `top up' funding of $285,065 from the Australian Maritime Safety Authority. AQIS administers the Strategic Ballast Water Research Program on behalf of the Australian Ballast Water Management Advisory Council (ABWMAC).(1) Research(2) Nature of ResearchAvailability(3) Firm(4) CostPort Baseline StudiesProvide port baseline studies to determine the distribution and relative abundance of ABWMAC target species and other potentially high risk introduced species in Australia ports, for incorporation into the Decision Support System—28/02/97—30/11/97 ABWMAC, relevant research organisations, general publicCSIRO Division of Marine Research Hobart$80,000Decision Support System (Review) (DSS)Determine the requirements of the DSS in terms of communication links, information needs, information transfers and timing responsibilities; review and evaluate existing communication and information sources & systems; provide recommendations for the establishment of appropriate communication lines, information sources and computer systems for the DSS.—14/04/97—04/07/97ABWMAC, relevant research organisations, general publicHyder Environmental Pty Ltd Sydney$60,000Ballast Water Management Awareness Strategy for the Maritime IndustryDevelop an education package and communication strategy aimed at Australian shippers for use by operators and masters of ships of all nationalities on the impact of contaminated ballast water discharge and providing Australian and international ballast water requirements.—30/09/96—30/03/97ABWMAC, relevant research organisations, general publicThompson Clarke Shipping Pty Ltd Port Melbourne$70,000Ballast Water Port Contingency Plan Develop a generic ballast water port contingency plan to be part of the Ballast Water Management Strategy.—30/09/96—28/02/97ABWMAC, relevant research organisations, general publicThompson Clarke Shipping Pty Ltd Port Melbourne$58,000Community Monitoring for Marine PestsTo establish on a trial (one year) basis a community monitoring program for early detection of introduced marine pest species. 28/02/97—31/01/98ABWMAC, relevant research organisations, general publicA collaborative Environment Australia, ABWMAC and CRIMP Project.$25,000 Client satisfaction with AQIS servicesAQIS has commissioned AC Nielsen McNair to conduct an ongoing research program to measure client satisfaction to assist AQIS in optimal targeting of resources to improve client satisfaction. Questionnaire sample sizes are apportioned over the respective groups to ensure a quantifiable result is achieved. The average time for the questionnaire is 8-10 minutes. The survey will enable AQIS to focus on its flexibility and responsiveness attributes and reflect an understanding of the client needs.Released to Minister Primary Industries & Energy and AQIS program areas.AC Nielsen McNair$80,000Quarantine Awareness research with specific target groupBenchmark research for quarantine awareness communications strategy. Interviews consisted 20 to 30 questions depending on responses: 1,446 random phone interviews of Australian residents. 808 face to face interviews of overseas visitors at international airports. 282 phone interview of recipients of scientific or research related material. 31 phone interviews of recipients of overseas packages. 82 phone interviews of cargo community.Public relations consultants, Minister Primary Industries & Energy and Ministerial Committee for Government Communications. Extracts will be released during the Quarantine Awareness week.AC Nielsen McNair$97,145EnergyAustralian Energy News (AEN)—Readership SurveyA four (4) page Self-Completion Survey was inserted with the June issue of AEN, and distributed to its 9,500 subscribers. A telephone follow-up survey, using a more comprehensive questionnaire among a sample of subscribers and readers (639), was also undertaken. The aims of the survey were to determine the profile of the current AEN readership and the appropriateness/ usefulness of AEN. The questionnaire was of a quantitative nature. The result of this survey is available to AEN's program managers and advertising agent.Artcraft Research$24,200Determine publicity requirements of Greenhouse Challenge participantsMarket research. Conducted 110 interviews. 26 questions were askedThe results were made available to the Greenhouse Challenge Office.Research International Australia (Sydney)$20,308ForestsTelephone Survey including both quantitative and qualitative questions on the East Gippsland, Central Highlands, Tasmania and Western Australian RFA regions.Random quota sample of approx. 1100 households in each RFA region.Questionnaire length—approx 3 pages. Questionnaire addressing attitudes towards forest use.Information publicly released through Comprehensive Regional Assessment reportsEnvironment & Behaviour Consultants$25-30,000 per RFA regionIndustry Assessment Project of the East Gippsland, Central Highlands, Tasmania and Western Australian RFA regions.Mailout survey. Sample size varies according to size of industry and number of employees responding within each region. Average response rate of 30-40%. Questionnaire length—approx 3 pages Questionnaire addresses industry profile, employment and expenditure patterns.Information publicly released through Comprehensive Regional Assessment reportsEnvironment & Behaviour Consultants$25-30,000 per RFA region Post impact studies analysis for the South West Forest region, WALiterature review addressing social impacts arising from previous land use decisions within the region..Information publicly released through Comprehensive Regional Assessment reportsChambers and Galloway Consultants $20,000Modelling and spatial analysis of social data for the East Gippsland RFA regionDevelopment of a quantitative data base and the development of relevant social maps.Information publicly released through Comprehensive Regional Assessment reports.James Cook University—Jim Monaghan$15,000Modelling and spatial analysis of social data for Tasmania and Central Highlands RFA regionsSpatial modelling of social data and the preparation of impact flow diagrams/social analysis reports and social maps..Information publicly released through Comprehensive Regional Assessment reportsEnvironment and Behaviour ConsultantsTasmania: $20,000 Central Highlands: $12,500Survey of Community Attitudes towards ForestsA random telephone survey (3000 phone numbers) covering all of New South Wales but which allows data to be identified for particular Regional Forest Agreement regions, which addresses community attitudes and perceptions in regard to the uses of forested land.Information publicly released through Comprehensive Regional Assessment reports.Department of Geography, University of Sydney$45,811Collation of Demographic Census data for communities in the Eden (NSW) Regional Forest Agreement region.The collation of statistical demographic data based on the 1991 ABS Census and any available 1996 Census updates.Information publicly released through Comprehensive Regional Assessment reports.Australian Bureau of Statistics$15,000Land and Water Resources DivisionMarket research to guide the development of an overall communication strategy for the Natural Heritage Trust.Qualitative assessment of community awareness and understanding of aims and objectives of the Natural Heritage Trust to establish a sound basis for the development of a communications strategy for the Trust. 6 focus groups, 12 in-depth interviews and 4 extended telephone interviews (for more remote areas) involving a wide range of stakeholders (farmers, key industry groups, conservation groups, indigenous people and state agencies) were used to obtain and assessment of views and information requirements.Results will be made available to all relevant Government Departments.AMR: Quantum Harris$30,400National Registration AuthorityViews of National Registration Authority's service provisionSurveyed 100 companies who were clients of the NRA to see what they thought about the NRA's service provision. There were 26 questions asked. Also, 15 companies were interviewed face-to-face.Results have only gone to the NRA.Cox Inall Communications, in conjunction with Axiom Research$24,000Petroleum and Fisheries DivisionPlebiscite of prawn export promotion levy payersMail survey of prawn exporters. There were 479 operators contacted. 320 responded. There was a single question on the ballot paper, and the supporting documentation included a `yes' and `no' case.Results were released to public.Coopers & Lybrand$8,500 Petroleum EvaluationSurvey of industry views on Petroleum regime and Government performance. The survey was interview based with 67 questions on the schedule. Sixty-three people were interviewed ranging from petroleum companies, petroleum industry service companies and state/territory governments.Initially the results were provided to DPIE, the Evaluation Steering Committee and survey participants. The results are available on request.ACIL Economics Pty Ltd$89,594RuralStress on FarmsRural Development—Large scale survey of farm families and stress. Survey details are being developed.Results will be publicly availableThe Rural Development RDC, University of New England, Armidale$15,000Missed OpportunitiesResearch into harnessing the skills of rural women for economic, environmental and social development Results publicly availableCooperative research with: Community Solutions; Lateral Concepts; Jackie Ohlin and Center for International Economics$23,423 Additional funding from the RIRDCA market research study of primary producers, and key people in rural communities to provide guidance regarding the approach which should be used to advance the objectives of the Agriculture- Advancing AustraliaQualitative. Analysis of research from secondary data sources; development of communication models, and testing of them in 6 focus groups and through 20 executive interviews. Development of a baseline, and training needs.The results of the research are being used by DPIE, and made available to the States, ALGA and industry—to be used in developing cooperative and complementary communications strategies.Solutions Marketing and Research Group$31,500Assess the awareness of contemporary health issues amongst rural men and women throughout SA, Vic, Qld and NSWQuestionnaire (30 point, 10 minute completion, 2100 responses. Evaluation—based on analysis of responses to the questions.Results publicly availableSouth East Psychological Services Pty Ltd, Mount Gambier$19,950