1998-03-263816SENATE134701998-03-26The PRESIDENT(Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid) took the chair at 9.30 a.m., and read prayers.134710001CLERK ASSISTANTThe Clerk—Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows:1347352TW4Bourne Sen VickiTo the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled.The Petition of the undersigned draws to the attention of the Senate Indonesia's continued denial of human rights to the people of East Timor.Your Petitioners ask the Senate to call on the Australian Government to:1. actively support all United Nations resolutions and initiatives on East Timor;2. actively support the right to self-determination of the people of East Timor;3. work for the immediate release of all Timorese political prisoners;4. repeal the Timor Gap Treaty; and5. stop all military cooperation and commercial military activity with Indonesia.Senator BourneTW4Senator Bourne(from 352 citizens)1347383TW4Bourne Sen VickiTo the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled.The petition of the undersigned strongly opposes any attempts by the Australian government to mine uranium at the Jabiluka and Koongara sites in the World Heritage Listed Area of the Kakadu National Park or any other proposed or current operating site.Your Petitioners ask that the Senate oppose any intentions by the Australian Government to support the nuclear industry via any mining, enrichment and sale of uranium.Senator BourneTW4Senator Bourne(from 383 citizens)1347494TW4Bourne Sen VickiTo the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled.The petition of the undersigned recognises the vital role of a strong and comprehensive Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) and asks that:1. Coalition Senators honour their 1996 election promise, namely that "The Coalition will maintain existing levels of Commonwealth funding to the ABC".2. The Senate votes to maintain the existing role of the ABC as a fully independent, publicly funded and publicly owned organisation.3. The Senate oppose any weakening of the Charter of the ABC.Senator BourneTW4Senator Bourne(from 494 citizens)1347252TW4Bourne Sen VickiTo the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled.The petition of the undersigned shows:(a) a proposal has been made by the Department of Transport to build a major no-curfew international airport in Sydney's western suburbs;(b) airports and attendant infrastructure are a major source of air and noise pollution;(c) Western Sydney already suffers from the worst air pollution in Australia;(d) an additional airport in the Sydney airshed will only serve to greatly increase such pollution; and(e) an airport in Sydney's west will harm the lifestyle and wellbeing of citizens living and working within the Sydney airshed.Your petitioners therefore request that the Senate not pass any bill which would lead to the construction of any new airport within the Sydney airshed.Senator BourneTW4Senator Bourne(from 252 citizens)1347565TW4Bourne Sen VickiTo the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled.The Petition of the undersigned draws to the attention of the Senate, the deleterious effects of the Multilateral Agreement on Investment.Your petitioners ask the Senate to call on the Australian Government to:1. Make available the draft text of the Agreement2. Make a public statement about its intentions with regard to the signing of the MAI, detailing the beneficiaries of the Agreement, and accountability measures for all corporations3. Not sign the MAI unless substantial amendment is made, including the observance of international agreements including environment, labour, health and safety and human rights standards4. Extend the deadline for signing the MAI to enable full and proper public consultations to be heldSenator BourneTW4Senator Bourne(from 565 citizens)1348771X4West Sen SueTo the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate assembled in Parliament:This petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the Senate decisions by the Howard Government affecting the price and availability of medicines.The decision to remove (delist) a number of drugs from the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and also the decision to pressure people to switch to cheaper, older and less effective drugs, will disadvantage the less well off in our community who will not be able to afford the best most suitable drugs, the drugs their doctors have prescribed for them.Your petitioners therefore pray that the Senate recognises that these changes are unfair. We call on the Government to reverse these decisions immediately.Senator West1X4Senator West(from 77 citizens)13481166EU4O'Chee Sen BillTo the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate assembed in Parliament.This petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House support of the undersigned for the establishment of radiotherapy services at Wagga Wagga and Albury/Wodonga.Your petitioners therefore pray that the House will commend the establishment of radiotherapy services at Wagga Wagga and Albury/Wodonga to treat cancer patients residing in the southwest region of New South Wales and north eastern Victoria.The House is advised that the Minister for Health, Dr Andrew Refshauge, MP has given `in principle' support to the proposed country-located "sister" clinics at Wagga Wagga and Albury/Wodonga.We, therefore, respectfully request the House to call on the Federal Minister for Health, Dr Michael Wooldridge MP, to urgently approve the provision of these vital radiotherapy services for country cancer patients who are now disadvantaged by being forced to attend metropolitan based services for long periods of treatment.Senator O'CheeEU4Senator O'Chee(from 1,166 citizens)Petitions received.Notices134813481348Hogg, Sen JohnSenator HOGG7L6QLDALP00—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the following matters be referred to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee for inquiry and report by the end of the second sitting week in 1999:(1) Examination of developments in contemporary Japan, with particular reference to: (a) contemporary economic conditions, including: (i) the impact of low and expected continuing low growth, (ii) the effect of the Asian currency crisis, (iii) blockages to economic efficiency and areas of reform in the domestic economy, and (iv) trading patterns and the significance of Japan's growing trade surplus in its relations with its leading trading partners; (b) contemporary political changes, including: (i) the changes in the major political parties, the emergence of new parties and the electoral and structural changes that are occurring, (ii) the political significance and power of land-holders and farmers in influencing social and economic progress, and (iii) Japan's view of itself in the world and its role in the Asian region; and (c) significant contemporary changes in Japanese society.(2) Examination of the implications of the above matter for Australia.13481348McKiernan, Sen JamesSenator McKIERNAN1I4WAALP00—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the Senate—(a) notes that the Government has, after 80 years of public service, privatised the court reporting agency, Auscript;(b) notes that, as a result of the decision, hundreds of loyal employees of Auscript, all of them women, have lost their jobs;(c) deplores the fact that the Government, through the Attorney-General's Department, had refused to grant or pay to casual employees of Auscript any form of redundancy, severance, or pro-rata long service leave payment, despite the fact that some court reporting staff had held their positions for an average of 10 years and some had served the agency for more than 20 years;(d) commends the Australian Services Union for taking forthright action to defend the rights of those working people, firstly through abortive and unsuccessful negotiations with an intransigent Attorney-General's Department and later through an action in the Australian Industrial Relations Commission;(e) notes that the Government continued to oppose the workers' claims in their actions before the commission, a further breach of its election commitment to the `battlers';(f) notes with satisfaction that the full bench of the commission, in a decision handed down in March 1998, found in favour of the workers and their union and ordered the Government, through the Attorney-General's Department, to pay the workers an estimated $2 million in severance pay, and that the commission also gave them the opportunity to access pro-rata long service leave and lump sum superannuation benefits; and(g) condemns the Government for its callous and heartless disregard for loyal, dedicated and long-serving employees of the Commonwealth.13491349Ray, 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 19 days since the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) defied his own guidelines.13491349Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, Senator Bourne and I shall move:That the Senate—(a) notes the growing international concern about the operation and content of the Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI), including a resolution by the European Parliament critical of significant aspects of the MAI;(b) recognises the need for Australia to continue to regulate foreign investment according to internationally-accepted human rights obli gations, environmental and labour protection and principles of corporate responsibilities, consistent with the national interest and democratic principles;(c) believes the Australian Government should not become a signatory to any agreement which seeks to sacrifice Australia's ability to develop any policy or law designed to: (i) protect the economy, the environment or human rights, (ii) enforce mechanisms for corporate responsibilities, (iii) regulate specific foreign investments and the take over and control of Australian businesses, and (iv) develop effective industry policy and regulation, or policies or laws which generally protect Australia's national interest and democratic principles; and(d) calls on the Government to discontinue negotiations on the MAI until such time as the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development agrees to include in the MAI: (i) binding international labour, environmental and human rights standards, (ii) a binding charter of corporate responsibilities, and (iii) dispute resolution processes, equivalent to those proposed for investors, by which such standards and responsibilities are enforceable.13491349Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEYHX5QLDAD00—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the Senate—(a) notes: (i) the Government's relentless pursuit, when in Opposition, of former Prime Minister, Mr Keating, for his interest in the part ownership of a piggery, (ii) that the same piggery is to be re-established as a super piggery, under the name Danpork, near Warwick in Queensland, and (iii) that this super piggery will be an environmental disaster for the Murray-Darling river system; and(b) urges the Government to fulfil its responsibility to the Murray-Darling river system. Business13501350Motion (by Senator Murray) agreed to:That general business notice of motion No. 1035 standing in the name of Senator Murray for today, relating to ethical principles for senators and members, be postponed till the next day of sitting.1350Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell) agreed to:That the following government business orders of the day be considered from 12.45 p.m. till not later than 2.00 p.m. this day:No. 5— Ballast Water Research and Development Funding Levy Bill 1997Ballast Water Research and Development Funding Levy Collection Bill 1997No. 6— Customs and Excise Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1998No. 7— Chemical Weapons (Prohibition) Amendment Bill 19971350Motion (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.1350Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell) agreed to:That the order of general business for consideration today be as follows:(1) general business notice of motion No. 1025 standing in the name of Senator Forshaw relating to the government's health policies.(2) consideration of government documents.1350Motion (by Senator Woodley, at the request of 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.1350Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell) agreed to:That the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 6) 1997 and the Medicare Levy Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1997 be listed on the Notice Paper as separate orders of the day.1350Motion (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.1350Motion (by Senator Chris Evans, at the request of Senator Gibbs) agreed to:That general business notices of motion No. 1027 (relating to the Federation Fund) and No. 1029 (electricity blackouts in Queensland) standing in the name of Senator Gibbs for today, be postponed till the next day of sitting.Miscellaneous1350Motion (by Senator Margetts) agreed to:That the Senate—(a) notes, with grave concern: (i) the recent attacks on the Karen refugee camps in Thailand by the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC)-sponsored Democratic Karen Buddhist Organisation at Hway Kalok, Mae La and Maw Ker, on 23 March 1998, and (ii) the failure of the SPDC to implement any meaningful socio-economic and political reforms in Burma and its continued refusal to hand over power to elected representatives of the May 1990 general election,(b) welcomes: (i) the allocation by Ausaid of $1 000 000 for humanitarian relief for refugees on the Thailand Burma border, and (ii) the Australian Government's position that bilateral non-humanitarian aid should be provided only if there is measurable progress towards political reform and respect for human rights by the SPDC;(c) notes: (i) that selective purchasing legislation has been introduced by Marrickville city council in line with 23 city councils in the United States of America (US) and economic sanctions by the US, and (ii) that the Government of Japan has decided to resume overseas development assistance to Burma; and(d) calls on the Australian Government to: (i) use its good offices to ensure that the forthcoming United Nations Commission on Human Rights (UNCHR) Resolution on Burma is as tough as possible while maintaining consensus, is representative of the situation in Burma today and includes reference to the vicious attacks that have taken place on refugees from Burma in Thailand, (ii) continue to make representations to Thailand and Burma to ensure a role for UNCHR on the Thailand-Burma border which will, in turn, provide protection for refugees from Burma, and (iii) continue to encourage ASEAN members to ensure that they take an active and supportive role in bringing about the restoration of democracy and human rights in Burma.Miscellaneous1351Motion (by Senator Margetts) agreed to:That the Senate—(a) recalls its motion of 18 November 1997 concerning the United Nations (UN) Commission on Human Rights Resolution 1997/63 on East Timor;(b) notes the Commission will sit from 16 March to 24 April 1998 in Geneva and will give further consideration to the situation of human rights in East Timor;(c) welcomes the continuing efforts of the Indonesian National Human Rights Commission to investigate human rights violations including establishment of an office in Dili, East Timor;(d) notes the recommendations contained in paragraph 3 of Resolution 1997/63 including measures to ensure full respect for the human rights and fundamental freedoms of the people of East Timor, early release of East Timorese detained or convicted for political reasons, clarification of the circumstances surrounding the 1991 Dili massacre, cooperation between the Indonesian Government and the UN Commission on Human Rights and its rapporteurs including resumption of negotiations regarding the establishment of a human rights office in Jakarta, and access to East Timor for human rights organisations;(e) calls on the Australian Government to: (i) express support for further consideration of the human rights situation in East Timor at the 54th session of the UN Commission on Human Rights; and (ii) urge the Indonesian Government to take measures such as those recommended in paragraph 3 of Resolution 1997/63 and cooperate wholeheartedly with the UN Commission on Human Rights to ensure respect for human rights in East Timor.Miscellaneous1351Motion (by Senator Margetts) agreed to:That the Senate—(a) notes that: (i) the peaceful community blockade of the proposed Jabiluka uranium mine commenced on 23 March 1998, (ii) the evaluation by Environment Australia of the proposed Jabiluka uranium mine project has confirmed concerns relating to impacts on wilderness and world heritage values, (iii) the Mirrar, the Aboriginal traditional owners of the area, are opposed to the project, and. (iv) according to recent surveys approximately 80 per cent of the Australian electorate does not support mining in national parks; and(b) calls on the Australian Government to reverse its decision and proceed no further with the Jabiluka uranium mine proposal.Bills1351r4211351Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell) agreed to: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.Committees135113511351Motion (by Senator Watson) agreed to: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.Miscellaneous135213521352Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell) agreed to: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.Committees135213521352Motion (by Senator Calvert, at the request of Senator Abetz) agreed to:That the time for the presentation of the report of the Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee on the provisions of the Copyright Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1997 be extended to 1 April 1998.135213521352Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT5F4TASLP10—On behalf of Senator Patterson, I present the report of the Environment, Recreation, Communications and the Arts Legislation Committee on the review of the 1996-97 annual reports tabled in the Senate to 31 October 1997.Ordered that the report be printed.Miscellaneous135210000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—A message has been received from the House of Representatives agreeing to the following bill without amendment:Criminal Code Amendment Bill 1997 [1998].Bills1352r4351352Bill received from the House of Representatives.Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell) agreed to:That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.Bill read a first time.135309:47:001353Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I move:That this bill be now read a second time.I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard .Leave granted.The speech read as follows—The commencement of the Aged Care Act 1997 in October of last year saw the implementation of legislation that guarantees an aged care system that maintains the comfort and dignity of older Australians in a way that is viable and sustainable. However, as with any reform of major significance, it has become apparent that there are some issues that require finetuning and others that relate to the administration of the act that need addressing.In November 1997 the Government announced a number of measures that will promote our vision of a secure future for older Australians. These measures maintain the integrity of the Government's structural reforms while addressing issues raised by some older Australians. I am very pleased to introduce today the Aged Care Amendment Bill 1998 which will see the implementation of these measures.The Government remains committed to bringing real improvement to nursing homes, too many of which are simply in no fit state to be a safe, comfortable and dignified home for older Australians. The accommodation bond arrangements for residential care were designed to provide a source of much needed capital to be used for the upgrading of nursing home buildings.However, it became apparent that some older Australians believed that they may not be able to afford the bond or would have to sell their homes to pay it. The Government has listened and responded by introducing an accommodation charge, instead of a bond, for nursing home level residents. The accommodation charge maintains the principle of people making a contribution to improving the quality of their accommodation, where they can afford to do so. But it also takes account of the special circumstances of nursing home level residents and gives certainty in what can be a difficult time.The accommodation charge has been capped as a daily rate of up to $12 a day, or $6 a day for assisted residents, for a maximum of five years. Concessional residents, or those who qualify under hardship provisions, will not be required to pay any charge. The bill extends many of the consumer protections that currently apply in relation to accommodation bonds and requires aged care providers to meet a range of responsibilities in relation to the charge.These new arrangements will provide flexibility and choice for residents in how they pay the charge. For example, residents may choose to rent their family home and to use this income to pay the charge. This bill amends the Social Security Act and the Veterans' Entitlement Act to exclude this rental income and the value of the property from the pension income and assets test.The Government also remains committed to those who devote themselves to caring for older people in their own homes. The bill alters from five to two years the period during which a resident's home must have been occupied by a carer in order for the resident to qualify as a concessional or assisted resident. This change will make it easier for residents to qualify and attract a higher level of Government subsidy. It will also mean that carers will be able to remain in the family home—further recognising the vital role that carers play.The bill also changes the current requirement for concessional or assisted resident status to be rolled over where a person moves between services. Concessional or assisted resident status will now be assessed whenever a resident enters a new service. This will enable a change in status with any change in circumstances. This is a more equitable arrangement that matches the level of Government support with a resident's ability to contribute towards the costs of their care.The bill also addresses anomalies in the new aged care legislation in relation to the revocation of approved provider status and the imposition of sanctions for breaches of responsibilities under the previous system. Provisions will be introduced that will enable the Commonwealth to take strong and decisive action against these providers, for example, where they have been convicted of serious crimes such as the abuse of residents or fraud. The Government is committed to ensuring that only those providers who meet their responsibilities will be able to provide care to the most frail and vulnerable in our society.It has also come to the attention of Government that the responsibilities of providers in relation to the kinds of fees residents and intending residents can be asked to pay need to be clarified. The bill contains provisions that makes it very clear that residents cannot be asked to pay additional fees, for example, to be placed on a service's waiting list, beyond those already allowed by the Aged Care Act.Lastly, the bill makes provision for a number of minor changes to facilitate better administration of the Aged Care Act. These include clarifying a number of definitions and providing for an `entry form' to enable people to be advised about their level of income tested fees as soon as possible. It also clarifies rules about pre-entry leave and entering accommodation payment agreements where a person has a mental impairment and the keeping of essential aged care service records in English. An amendment is also made to the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Budget and Simplification Measures) Act to correct a minor cross referencing error.These changes are the result of the Government listening to and responding quickly to address these issues. We have acted in a timely and sensitive way to keep the benefits of the aged care reforms flowing to consumers now and into the future.The accommodation charge will ensure the continued improvement of nursing home buildings and improved services for consumers.The other amendments clarify and improve some of the current arrangements set out in the Aged Care Act—the legislation that has seen the most significant reform to the provision of aged care in Australia over the last decade. The legislation that encourages innovation, flexibility and creativity in service delivery and planning.Ordered that the further consideration of the second reading of this bill be adjourned to the first day of sitting in the winter sittings, in accordance with standing order 111.Privilege135409:47:001354Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I 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.This parliament is the heart of our democracy. If it is to be respected by the people, if it is to be robust and healthy in itself, it must function free of corruption and protected from the taint of being abused by elected representatives for self-invested motives. Elected members must ensure not only that we are not financially advantaged by our use of the enormous power which the people of Australia have voted us, but that we are seen to be above such a conflict of interest.For that very reason, in 1994, the Senate established its Register of Pecuniary Interests. The register came into being after a decade of opposition by the coalition, at the behest of the then Labor government in the wake of the sports rorts affair of 1993. The register requires each of us as senators to declare interests such as shares and real estate which may be enhanced by our actions while in office. Moreover, we are obliged to declare such interests in the Senate when speaking or voting on matters which affect them.They are very modest requirements. They fall far short of the expectation at local government level in Australia, or even of the House of Representatives standing order 193 that an elected representative stands down from a vote on matters affecting her or his interests. As senators know, on several occasions over the last two years, I have drawn attention to the standing orders requiring senators to declare their interests. Those occasions have included important votes on the woodchip industry, mining and family trusts. The response has not been one which indicated that every senator appreciated the importance of disclosing interests. Some senators have heaped scorn on the idea or, at least, my determination to make it work and to make senators properly accountable according to our standing orders.Remarkably, there have been four separate references to the Senate Standing Committee on Senators' Interests, to try to have the requirement for disclosure either stopped or reduced—or at least reviewed. That is: while the requirement was dishonoured, no one worried; when I insisted it be observed, there were immediate moves to get rid of it. This week there has been yet another reference to the senators' interests committee to have the standing orders reviewed. In other words, if senators object to rules requiring that they come clean on potential conflicts of interest, do not insist that senators conform—insist that the rules go.However, in the past, the committee has stood firm. Let me read from its ruling of September last year entitled Why declarations of interest during debate and prior to division should continue. After laying down eight potent reasons, the committee concluded:In the current climate, abolition of the requirement to declare relevant private interests in debates and divisions would be seen as a backward step and would attract media attention and criticism.The Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Parer, has admitted that he failed to list very large interests in the register. He was, of course, aware of the register because he had declared other interests. But in the case of his shareholdings in Queensland Coal Mine Management Pty Ltd, he failed to disclose.At the outset, it is as clear as day that if any ministry courts conflicts of interest, it has to be the ministry for resources and energy, Senator Parer's ministry. There could be no more pertinent an interest than coalmining. Yet Senator Parer left off the register this large component of his interest in coalmining, said to be worth $2 million. The standing orders are explicit. Let me quote:(2) That any senator who:(a) knowingly fails to provide a statement of registrable interests to the Registrar of Senators' Interests . . .. . . . . . . . .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.Senator Parer knew the register well enough to enter other assets. He was well aware of his Queensland Coal Mining Management—QCMM—shares because he previously chaired the company. It takes an illogical leap of imagination to conclude other than that he knowingly failed to register his interests.If it were a small gift, a plane ride or a dinner out, it may not have figured prominently enough in events to ensure that his memory would be prompted to make the needed entry into the register. But $2 million in shares is a major, classic asset for which the register was set up by the Senate. To believe Senator Parer's explanation, that these assets were simply overlooked, is to believe the man who said that he forgot to register the car because it was a Rolls Royce.When it comes to the matter of declaring an interest during debate here in the chamber, there are a number of occasions when a major crossover of interests has occurred between Senator Parer's personal holdings and the matter before the Senate. Let us take the example of 4 December last year. I drew the attention of Senator Parer and everyone else here to the need for senators with interests in mining to declare them when voting on the native title legislation. A number of senators made such a declaration, as you will remember, Mr Acting Deputy President. Senator Parer did not. On 28 May 1997, there was a long debate and then votes on the issue of diesel fuel rebates—a matter involving more than $1 billion. Senator Parer led the debate for the government. He declared no interest, yet answers to questions I later put to him have revealed that his company, QCMM, the company in which he had shares, had benefited in 1995-96 by $1.7 million from that rebate; that is, a cheque for $1.7 million was given to the company in which he held a major holding, and he knew it. Can there be a clearer conflict of interest? There cannot.Senator Parer knew the score. He knew of his interest. He knew how the diesel fuel rebate system meant government handouts to mining companies, including his. After all, he was the minister, yet he failed to tell the Senate, as required by the Senate standing orders, by the law.In summary, Senator Parer has knowingly committed the most flagrant breaches of the Senate standing orders. He has treated the Senate with contempt. In October 1997, in the debate on whether a matter relating to the Australian Law Reform Commission should be referred to the Privileges Committee, Senator Harradine said this:I do not want to canvass all of the other matters that have been raised during this debate—such as whether the person who committed an act which may be held to be in contempt knowingly committed that act or had any reasonable excuse for commission of that act. These are matters which, it seems to me, are more properly dealt with by the Privileges Committee.He added very firmly that the matter should go to the Privileges Committee because it involved `the protection of the processes of this parliament'. I could not agree more. In May last year, in voting against a move to have matters relating to Senator Colston investigated by the Privileges Committee, Senator Harradine averred that justice demanded that the Australian Federal Police inquiry be allowed to take its course and not be jeopardised by a parallel inquiry of the Privileges Committee. He said:In any other circumstances, I would feel that the matter ought to proceed immediately to the Privileges Committee.There is, of course, no police inquiry on this occasion and, as Senator Harradine said, the matter should proceed immediately to the Privileges Committee. If ever there was a clear-cut case, this is it. Senator Parer has, prima facie, treated the Senate standing orders with contempt. The Privileges Committee must investigate the matter. For us to scupper that objective would be to risk the Senate itself being held in contempt by the people of Australia. I urge fellow senators to defend the standing orders and to defend the Senate itself by supporting this motion.09:58:001356Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment10—This is, of course, a political witch-hunt. Senator Brown has no interest in defending the standing orders in this place. For him and his small band of supporters—and there is only a small band that remain these days—this is the ultimate revenge. It is revenge against somebody who had a background in the mining industry—those that the Greens hate and will forever hate. What a chance for Senator Brown, as the leader of that small band, to come in here and force Senator Parer to go off to the Privileges Committee to justify himself. It may cheer Senator Brown's small band of supporters, but it should not succeed because a case has simply not been made out.For the Labor Party, of course, it is simply a scalp that they seek. They have no interest in this matter in terms of any merit or otherwise. What they have made clear from the outset is that they want another ministerial scalp as part of what they see as a process of return to government.There has been a convenience of motive here between Senator Brown with his prejudices and Senator Faulkner and his team on behalf of the Labor Party, who have jumped on the bandwagon of Senator Brown's motion in what they see as an opportunity to place further pressure upon Senator Parer. We are talking about an honourable senator. No-one has made any suggestion that Senator Parer has sought any personal advantage in this matter. He is, I think, highly respected within the community as a very competent and able minister. That means that the Labor Party must try all the harder to bring him down.The issue is whether it is appropriate for the Privileges Committee to be used by the Labor Party and Senator Brown in this political exercise. The case I put is that, in these circumstances, it is totally inappropriate. Why is it inappropriate? It is particularly inappropriate because judgment has already been passed by the Labor Party. One only has to recall the comments made by Senator Faulkner in this place when he shouted across the chamber, `He is guilty as charged', to realise how inappropriate it would now be to ask the Privileges Committee, including members of the Labor Party under the discipline of Senator Faulkner, to pass an objective judgment on this matter. Nothing would bring the Privileges Committee into greater discredit than for it to be abused in that way.Senator Faulkner is not the only who has prejudged the issue. Senator Ray and Senator Cook have also done so. If honourable senators so wish, I will go through the Hansard and point to each occasion on which it is demonstrated that the Labor Party has prejudged the matter. Let me refer to a few examples. On Monday, 23 March this year, Senator Faulkner said in this place, `He is guilty as charged.' And he did not just say it, he shouted it. Can there be a clearer indica tion of a judgment having been made than that statement?In the same presentation he said that this was `a flagrant conflict of interest'. He went further when he said that `the opposition has exposed his'—that is, Senator Parer's—`deceit in this matter'. He continued:What we say now is that this proves that Senator Parer is guilty as charged. The only issue remaining is the sentence, and there is only one appropriate sentence—that is, that Senator Parer should resign or be sacked by the Prime Minister.Given those comments, how can the Labor Party seriously expect this issue to go to the Privileges Committee to determine whether or not Senator Parer has committed a breach? It is totally inappropriate. The members of the Labor Party would have no alternative but to accept the direction of the party hierarchy. In the past, we have seen the sort of discipline that the Labor Party imposes upon its senators, and any attempt to come in here and argue, as no doubt Senator Faulkner will, that in some way the Labor Party will now be free of any party restraint and take an objective and independent view, would be seen to be farcical.I regret to say it, but Senator Faulkner seems to have muffed it again. By prejudging this issue, he has determined that it would be inappropriate for it to be considered on its merits by the Privileges Committee. As I said, it was not just Senator Faulkner. Other members of his merry band were part of the conspiracy. On the same day—23 March—Senator Ray said:When you read Senator Parer's declaration to the Prime Minister today, there is an admission of guilt.Senator Cook said that `the web of deceit is growing by the day'. So the charge has gone from `guilty as charged', to `admission of guilt', to `web of deceit' by three of the leading players of the Labor Party in this place on 23 March 1998.Senator Cook came back the following day and reinforced it even further when he said, `This is a case in which there is a clear breach of public duty . . . '. He did not say, `I allege a breach of public duty'; he said that it was a clear breach of public duty. Senator Cook had determined that guilt had been proven in this case. He went on to say, `There is no question about that.' So on 24 March, Senator Cook said that there was no question on the issue of guilt. Yet, today, the Labor Party is going to argue that the Privileges Committee, including members of the Labor Party, should determine whether or not a case has been proven. It is farcical.On 12 March, Senator Faulkner used the words `overwhelming evidence', and a little later he said that it is `a serious breach'. I draw your attention to the relevant provisions of the standing orders on what the committee has to determine. In the terms of the standing orders, the Privileges Committee would have to determine whether there has been a serious contempt, but on 12 March Senator Faulkner said that there was a serious breach.That is further evidence of the Labor Party having prejudged this issue. It has already made up its mind. That demonstrates how farcical it would be to send this matter to the Privileges Committee to seek to address this issue on its merits. To quote further from Senator Faulkner, on 12 March he said:Does Senator Parer possess shares or similar interests in any company or business involved in the area of his portfolio responsibilities? The answer to that question is yes, he does. Has Senator Parer divested himself of these shares and interests? The answer is, of course, that he has not. Is he in compliance with this much discredited prime ministerial code of conduct? No, he is not.In these circumstances, to even suggest that the Privileges Committee would be the appropriate body to consider the matter is ultimately to undermine public confidence in a very important institution within the Senate's structure. The committee would be asked to make a determination on the merits, when the second largest party in this chamber—the Labor Party—with members on this committee, has already determined that guilt has been proven. Of course, Senator Brown, the mover of the motion, is part of this political exercise as well.But, apart from that reason, unfortunately, Senator Faulkner in his leadership of the Labor Party, has lost the opportunity to appropriately refer this matter to the Privileges Committee. Of course, when the allegation was made, it should then have been referred rather than the Labor Party seeking to make two weeks of political gain by making, as I said the other day, an allegation and stating it as fact, that is, that the case has been proved. By doing that, they have simply lost the opportunity to go to the Privileges Committee on merits. There are also a number of serious issues that I think the Senate should look to as a lesson for the future in relation to this type of matter.There are before us three separate and distinct issues. The first of the issues raised by Senator Brown is the provision of the standing orders that requires senators during a debate to stand in this place and indicate any potential relevant interest. One can only say—and I say it with a touch of embarrassment because we were all part of the drafting of these standing orders or at least the debate on these standing orders—that this particular provision is ambiguous, to say the least. It is highly unclear, for example, whether, if a particular interest has appeared in a senator's declaration, it is necessary for the senator to stand again in this place. You, Mr Acting Deputy President, would have experienced the confusion of senators around the chamber on that particular issue.It is also highly unclear whether the relevant interest would cover something that we commonly refer to around here as a generic interest. For example, if a minister for primary industry is a farmer, should he have to stand on every occasion and say, `I'm a farmer'? Or should he only have to stand if there is a potential direct benefit for him in relation to part of his agricultural pursuits from the piece of legislation that is being debated in this chamber?These are serious issues that ought to be contemplated by the committee in charge of this particular process. Clarification should ultimately be debated in this place and written into the standing orders.Senator Brown raises three specific examples here. He says that Senator Parer should have risen in this place because of a potential conflict of interest in relation to the Native Title Amendment Bill. In that specific instance, as we have heard from Senator Parer, he had no knowledge of any conflict, direct or indirect. He subsequently has learnt that there may have been a Wik claim on some interest that he might have. But, if he had no knowledge of that at the relevant time, obviously it does not apply in any event.The next two examples fall more clearly within the level of confusion that I am talking about. The first of these is the issue in relation to diesel fuel rebate. Senator Brown says that Senator Parer had an obligation to stand on that issue because, if he indirectly had some mining interest, then he could serve to gain. But, of course, that is a classic case of the type of generic issue that applies to anyone who has any interest in the mining industry, rather than applying specifically to any particular mine.But, beyond that, what Senator Brown has not said in this place is that the government's reforms chopped $60 million off the outlays in relation to diesel fuel rebate. So, if you take Senator Brown's argument to its logical conclusion, he is asking Senator Parer to stand in this place and say, `I've lost some benefit through this legislation that's being debated in here.' Surely that is not what Senator Brown is suggesting. It demonstrates how inappropriate it is in these circumstances to stand.The other instance raised by Senator Brown is the decision of the government to remove export licensing. Of course, that was a whole of government decision and an announcement was made prior to the last election. In those circumstances not only is it generic but, in an instance where it is a whole of government decision, is there any obligation on a particular minister?There is no doubt in my mind that these issues require clarification. They should be considered by the Senators' Interests Committee, and I hope it will do so in due course. But any suggestion in the background of confusion in relation to this particular provision that Senator Parer should be sent to the Privileges Committee so that the committee can examine whether or not he should have stood is quite farcical.There are so many instances in this place when senators have been unclear as to wheth er their circumstances fall within the standing order, clause 5, as adopted on 17 March 1994. Is Senator Brown suggesting that in each and all these instances these senators should be referred? Of course he is not. This instance is simply, as I said, Senator Brown of the Green movement seeking the ultimate revenge against someone who has a background and history in the mining industry.The other matters relate to what is or is not in Senator Parer's specific declaration. The one that I think senators on the other side would say is the one of substance is that which relates to Senator Parer's family trust. The family trust was stated in the Register of Senators' Interests. What was not stated was the investment of the family trust. Clearly, in the past, senators were unclear as to whether beneficial interests had to be stated. There is no dispute about that, because the Senators' Interests Committee told us so. We find that it issued a letter on 20 March 1997 seeking to clarify the matter, therefore acknowledging, of course, that the relevant provision of the standing order in that regard, which is clause 3 of the resolution of 17 March 1994, is also ambiguous.In its letter of 20 March 1997, the committee said that beneficial interests, the shareholdings of a trust, should in fact be disclosed. As we know, in this instance, Senator Parer has informed the Senate that he does not recall receiving that letter. I would say that the committee has erred in fact. The committee should have not simply issued an explanatory memorandum but sought to change the terms of clause 3 in the resolution of the Senate to state the obligation that the committee is suggesting should be incurred as a matter of practice. If that had been done, the obligation would have been clearly within the standing orders and we would have all understood our particular responsibilities.There is not only the issue of those senators who may not have seen this particular letter from the committee that was delivered—we all, of course, get thousands of letters; I am told that I get some 16,000 letters a year—but also a very serious issue as to what is the standing of this particular change to the explanatory rules. I understand that it is being suggested by the Labor Party in its witch hunt of Senator Parer that the explanatory memorandum that was sent out by the committee has the same standing as the resolution that has been passed by the committee itself. In doing so, it is relying upon that part of the standing orders which says that the committee is to determine the form which the register will take. That, I would put to you, Mr Acting Deputy President, is clearly a misinterpretation of what these provisions provide.The form is really the form of the document that is to be lodged within the parliament, not the obligation of a senator. The obligation of a senator has to be the obligation that has been clearly set out in the standing orders. The committee has acknowledged not only that the obligation is ambiguous in this regard but also that there has been an accepted practice that it did not include an obligation to declare beneficial interests.So how in those circumstances can it be seriously argued—if it is to be argued seriously, which it is not because this is just a political exercise—that the Privileges Committee should now look at Senator Parer's instance and determine whether there has been a serious contempt of the Senate? To simply ask the Privileges Committee to do that in these circumstances, I would suggest, would be an abuse.The other issue that has been raised is what Senator Parer refers to as his superannuation interest. This group of companies had a fund in which former employees and directors were given some interest. Of course, there is a technical question as to whether that was declared, but that is not the case here. The case is what were its investments, and that is too indirect to be part of any reasonable charge. (Time expired)10:18:001359Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—Let me commence my contribution by going to the motion before the Senate, which the opposition has examined very carefully. In terms of the orders of the Senate on senators' interests, it is quite clear that, in relation to part 3 of Senator Brown's mo tion—`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'—this is an appropriate matter to be referred to the Privileges Committee for inquiry and report.I draw the Senate's attention to the fact that the second point under `Registration' in the order of the Senate makes clear in relation to its order on senators' interests:(2) That any Senator who:(a) knowingly fails to provide a statement of registrable interests to the Registrar of Senators' Interests by the due date;. . . . . . . . .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.It is unarguable that it is proper for that matter to be referred to the Privileges Committee. In relation to the justification for parts 1 and 2 of this motion, I have to say that the standing orders perhaps are less clear, and it is worth examining why part 5 of the senators' interests order is worded the way it is. Part 5—`Declaration of interests in debate and other proceedings'—is worded differently. That part of the order, of course, relates to parts 1 and 2 of Senator Brown's motion, which is before the chair. The issue here is whether that is a matter that is appropriate to be dealt with by the Privileges Committee.The opposition believes that to be the case, given the circumstances we have and the resolution agreed to by the Senate on 25 February 1988. Part 6 deals with matters constituting contempts and says:That, without derogating from its power to determine that particular acts constitute contempts, the Senate declares, as a matter of general guidance, that breaches of the following prohibitions, and attempts or conspiracies to do the prohibited acts, may be treated by the Senate as contempts.Subpart 8 of matters constituting contempts is headed, `Disobedience of orders', and reads:A person shall not, without reasonable excuse, disobey a lawful order of the Senate or of a committee.On that basis I think a case can be made, perhaps not as clear as the case in relation to knowingly failing to provide details of registrable interests to the Registrar of Senators' Interests. But clearly part 5 of the senators' interests order is an order of the Senate. I think under the Senate standing orders disobedience of an order is a matter that can be strongly argued as one that constitutes a contempt.At the commencement of this debate it is worth recalling very briefly some of the history in relation to the introduction of disclosure rules on pecuniary interests in the Senate. In government the Labor Party tried for years and years to introduce a similar system to that which the then Labor government had introduced in the House of Representatives in 1984. The then coalition in opposition delayed, obstructed, filibustered in every way that was possible and managed in fact to delay introduction of disclosure rules until 1994.We think that is absolutely a disgraceful performance from the coalition, bearing in mind that the House of Representatives had in place a similar system for 10 years before the Senate. I remind senators that we were reduced to ensuring that we had introduced a voluntary system of declarations of senators' interests which other minor parties and Independent senators engaged in when the then opposition, the Liberal and National parties, did not cooperate.When we circulated our draft proposal in March 1994 we omitted the requirements for senators to declare relevant interests in debate or prior to voting in a division. That is part 5 currently in the standing orders on pecuniary interests. That was omitted. We had taken the view at that time that a comprehensive register of interests, together with strict guidelines and application of those guidelines for updating declarations, would make such a requirement redundant.It was Senator Hill—this is the truth of the matter—who then was the opposition leader, who took a very strong contrary view to that of the Labor Party. I want to remind Senator Hill of what he said at the time. It stands in stark contrast to what he says today. In Hansard on 19 August 1993, on declaration during votes and proceedings, he said:There are many other concerns that we have in relation to the form. We are amazed that, for some reason that is not explained by the minister—but subsequent speakers on the other side might fill the gap—the government has removed from this draft the provision for ad hoc declarations which it had included in previous proposals. Notwithstanding the lodgment by a senator of a statement of registrable interests, in previous drafts a senator was to be obliged to declare any relevant interest at the beginning of a speech in the Senate chamber and after a division is called, if they propose to vote in that division.That has been a principle that we have adhered to on this side of the chamber. We have always accepted that if a senator, who has a conflict of interest, is going to participate in speaking or in voting, then the interest that could be in conflict should be made clear so that the public and the parliament can understand the position of that senator. Why has the government taken out that obligation, that it was going to put in previous proposals, in the draft that is before us today?We are of the view that if this is to proceed, and the numbers in this chamber seem to indicate that it is, such an obligation should be reinserted, and we have an amendment to that effect.He goes on to argue the case further. It was Senator Hill who demanded that this part of the Senate standing orders be included in the orders on senators' interests. It was not the then government, who thought it would be enough to have a full and complete disclosure and very regular updates in the Senate declaration of interests, but Senator Hill who demanded that this go in. But today he says, `It doesn't matter. Just ignore that. We don't care about that any more.' We were persuaded by Senator Hill's arguments in order to ensure that we had a registry of pecuniary interests in the Senate and we went along with the reinsertion of that requirement in the disclosure provisions. It is just extraordinary that Senator Hill could be so hypocritical as to come into the chamber today and argue that that particular provision is now redundant, is now meaningless.I have to say that what we have said—some senators have made the point quite regular ly—is that if a senator has properly and fully declared his or her interests in the register of pecuniary interests and if that register is up to date you can mount an argument that it is not necessary on every single vote or division before the Senate to make that interest known again if it is in the public arena in a document that can be accessed by all and it is an accurate record of the pecuniary interests. So you can mount that case, and some senators have argued that position consistently.But in Senator Parer's case the fact is that he at no time has that as a defence because at no time during a vote or division, during the course of proceedings—whether it be on the native title amendment bill, customs and excise, the customs prohibited export regulations amendment, or other debates and divisions—did Senator Parer declare an interest and he did not declare his interest in the pecuniary interests register. So you cannot argue in the case of Senator Parer that he had complied with either the letter or the spirit of the pecuniary interest requirements in this chamber. We have heard Senator Hill argue today in a very confused way that, because I said that Senator Parer was guilty as charged in relation to the issue of conflict of interest, this matter should not go to the Privileges Committee. What I said and what I stand by, and so does the opposition, is that Senator Parer has been guilty of conflict of interest. I note that Senator Hill now changes the definition of conflict of interest as the Prime Minister has changed the definitions included in his own ministerial code of conduct. But it is a changed definition. On 4 May 1992, the same Senator Hill said this:We have no problem with the question of conflict of interest; that is quite clear. If one has a potential conflict of interest, we accept the obligation to disclose it. We will always do so and suffer the consequences of not doing so . . . That was the hypocrite who now leads the government in this chamber—Senator Hill.EU4O'CHEESenator O'Chee—Withdraw!5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—I withdraw. The situation is this: Senator Hill comes in and says, `Oh, you can't take this motion seriously from Senator Brown because Senator Faulkner said that Senator Parer is guilty as charged. Senator Ray and other opposition senators have made comments about Senator Parer in terms of conflict of interest and the application of the Prime Minister's guide on key elements of ministerial responsibility to Senator Parer's behaviour as a minister.' That is high farce. The question before the Senate is the issue of breach of Senate standing orders. That is what is before the Senate.In relation to the issues of conflict of interest and the issue of the application of the Prime Minister's code, it is proper for parliamentarians and the public to reach judgment on them. I think the parliament has dealt with this issue very seriously. I have certainly reached a judgment in relation to conflict of interest and the application of the Prime Minister's code. I have to say that I think the public has too. You only have to read editorials in every major newspaper in Australia. So it is not just the parliament which has reached conclusions about this; the public has reached conclusions on this, and they are entitled to.Why cannot we say that the Prime Minister's redefinition of his own code of conduct and the issue of conflict of interest in the way that Senator Parer has fulfilled or not fulfilled his obligations as a minister are not proper matters for parliamentarians and the public to reach judgment on? We have reached judgment on that, but that is not what is going to the Privileges Committee. This is how thin the arguments are of the Leader of the Government in the Senate. What we would have before the Privileges Committee is whether Senator Parer knowingly failed to provide details of registrable interests to the Registrar of Senators' Interests. That is the matter, and that will be a matter for the Privileges Committee to determine. It really hinges on the word `knowingly'. It really is an open and shut case that he failed to do so, that he failed to respond to the letters on not one but two occasions following a statement by Senator Denman in the chamber. Senator Parer answered a question by me in question time and said, `Yes, it was a breach. Yes, it was a technical breach of the requirements.' The issue is whether he did it knowingly or not. It is an unarguable case that he failed to respond to those requirements. Not one person, except Senator Hill apparently, can come forward and put such an absurd statement to the Senate.The difficulty we have here is that Minister Parer has failed to disclose shares he holds in his own name which he has held in his own name since before he became a minister in 1996. You cannot argue that he has not failed to disclose them. He admits it. He has failed to disclose them. The issue is: did he do it knowingly? Did he deliberately connive to fail to disclose those particular holdings for personal gain? That is the issue that has to be determined by the Privileges Committee, not whether he did it or not. We know what he has failed to do. We know about his failure to declare his shares in the trustee company of the family trust. Everyone knows that he has failed to do that. Did he knowingly fail to do that? That is a matter for the Privileges Committee. That is what the Privileges Committee has to determine. We know about his failure to disclose shareholdings of his own family trust despite the warnings, despite the information and despite the correspondence he had. This is the issue for the Privileges Committee: can the Senate believe that this minister, who has just been defended by Senator Hill as such a competent, outstanding minister, missed not one but two letters and a statement from the chairman of the Registrar of Senators' Interests on a day when we know he was here because he was attending divisions? That is what we want to know. We do not want to know whether he did it or not; that is open and shut. Everyone in this parliament and in the Australian public knows he has failed to do it. We want to know why he failed to do it. What was his motive in failing to do that? Did he have a motive in failing to do that? Did he do it knowingly?Isn't it proper that the Privileges Committee investigate that matter? Of course it is. This is a motion that is a proper application of the Senate's standing orders. This is not a question of hanging Senator Parer on these offences of breaches of standing orders, or of finding Senator Parer guilty on those matters—though I say that he is guilty of a conflict of interest and of breaching the Prime Minister's code; and not only I, but many others in this parliament, and almost everyone outside it, stand by that statement. This is an issue of whether he knowingly breached the standing orders of this Senate. It is proper in this circumstance that such a matter is referred to and investigated by the Senate's Privileges Committee. It is for that reason that the opposition will be supporting the question before the chair.10:38:001363Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, the Information Economy and the Arts10—It is interesting that this motion has been put forward by Senator Brown, the same Senator Brown who holds a share in the Tasmanian Greens Pty Ltd; who is also a director of the Australian Bush Heritage Fund—a fund which raises money to both purchase private land and generally manage land; Senator Brown having participated in debates in relation to woodchips and voted on motions relating to woodchips on at least two occasions in this chamber since 3 October when the register disclosed his interest in those companies. I am sure Senator Brown would like the opportunity at some later time to explain why he failed to declare those interests and why, indeed, he is pursuing this matter.It is interesting that he has jumped on this particular bandwagon, because we know of his obsessions on these environmental issues. He has got absolutely no interest in matters of privilege and propriety. That is demonstrated by the fact that the motion itself is drawn in such terms that it is clearly designed as a fishing or trawling expedition. I am grateful to Senator Ellison for pointing out to me that paragraph 3 inquires:Whether Senator Parer knowingly failed to provide details of registrable interests . . . and whether any contempt was committed in that regard.In other words, it is utterly open-ended—an invitation simply to go through everything under the sun and consider whether there might be any other basis on which you could conceivably find that there was a failure to disclose or whether a contempt was committed. That is the essence of a denial of natural justice—without knowing the matters with which you are charged, you go before a Privileges Committee which then gives itself the luxury of exploring matters—UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—You don't go before it, actually; just send along papers, usually.LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTON—You don't even go before it. In other words, they are completely at liberty to wander around looking for anything else that they might possibly be able to come up with. It is interesting that Senator Faulkner should have resorted to this line—that somehow no-one has yet alleged that Senator Parer is guilty of any knowingly improper conduct; that there are simply a few matters on the record which are worthy—5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—What I said is: he has breached the standing orders. Did he do it knowingly? Don't tell lies.LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTON—I will just continue, as I intended to, Madam Acting Deputy President. What Senator Faulkner is now trying to do is suggest that somehow the opposition has not come to a view on whether Senator Parer acted knowingly in this regard.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Whether he was in breach of the standing orders.LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTON—Just a minute. From day one, we had Mr Crean in the other place alleging an absolute conspiracy of concealment, which is the height of an allegation of dishonesty and impropriety. We had Senator Faulkner, on 23 March, saying the opposition has exposed his deceit in this matter. You do not have to be too smart, you do not have to look up a dictionary to know that deceit goes to the heart of an allegation of dishonesty. Deceit is not simply directed—5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—The issue is the matter.LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTON—No, you have gone over the top. That is your fundamental problem. You have not simply said, `There is a failure to disclose and we want to know whether it was knowingly.' You have said, `The opposition has exposed his deceit.' In other words, he has deliberately done it, and you do not deliberately do it unless you know what you are doing. So you are on the record as having found Senator Parer guilty as charged, because there is no charge in this regard of mere failure. The offence arises and the contempt is committed if you knowingly commit the offence. If anyone for a moment thinks that anything could emerge from a matter being dealt with by the Privileges Committee, that would somehow get inside Senator Parer's mind—UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—You are prejudging the Privileges Committee on it, though.LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTON—That would do anything other than proceed on what is on the public record to date, then I would be amazed. I will be interested to hear Senator Ray, as the Chairman of the Privileges Committee, conceding that point.UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—I do.LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTON—If that is the case, how can you possibly gainsay what Senator Parer has consistently said: that he did not do it deliberately; that at all times he has done his best to ensure that there was not a conflict of interest; that he rearranged his affairs upon coming to government; and that he distanced himself by resigning as chairman and director. In other words, all that is on the public record supports the proposition that Senator Parer did not knowingly fail to disclose information. If that is the case, how could the Privileges Committee possibly come to any other view. In other words, the material that is on the record now, and on which a judgment should be made about whether there is a case to investigate—UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—You are prejudging the Privileges Committee's thoughts on it.LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTON—The Privileges Committee does not have any evidence on which it could come to any conclusion other than that—UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—You don't know what evidence Senator Brown has got.LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTON—I see. We are being asked to vote blind, are we? We are being asked to send it off there to have a bit of a trawl. In other words, there is nothing on the public record to date to suggest dishonesty or knowingly concealing, but you would like to send it off to the Privileges Committee—B36NEALSenator Neal—I don't know about that.LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTON—Are you saying there is? Come on, you are in the big league; you want to run in the House of Representatives. Are you saying there is evidence that Senator Parer has knowingly concealed? Are you? Is that what you are saying?B36NEALSenator Neal—It's not up to you to determine whether there is or not. It's up to the committee.LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTON—Why should the Senate vote blind to refer a matter to the Privileges Committee—5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Because it is in the standing orders, you drongo.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Reynolds)—Order!LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTON—If Senator Faulkner honestly thinks that you are going to get a fair hearing from a committee chaired by someone who delights in referring to `hanging Judge Roy Bean'—it is now the `Bean committee' because it is chaired by Senator Robert Ray, who has spent the last two years in this place doing not a skerrick of work on policy but doing everything to actually pay back—B36NEALSenator Neal—That's unfair.LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTON—You do not have to take my word for it. What did you say when you were in the course of pursuing Senator Colston as far as you possibly could? You said, `I'm not a nice person.' As recently as only a couple of days ago, in another context, I think you said, `We play it pretty rough in this place. We dish it out in the chamber'—UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—And we cop it.LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTON—`And we cop it'—indeed you did—`but it doesn't go outside the chamber.' In other words, what Senator Robert Ray is spelling out in absolutely black and white terms is that he will never ever let anything else prevail over party political advantage. He is in this joint for keeps, he plays the game to win and he will win by hook or by crook, but outside the chamber he is a good bloke.UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—I would give you a fair trial on privileges. I promise you that.LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTON—I would expect nothing less, of course. That would be the grand exception, if it ever occurred, I can assure you. Senator Robert Ray has an absolute commitment to the Labor Party going back very many years. He is imbued in the spirit of Labor, the `whatever it takes' syndrome. There is no way in which a committee chaired by Senator Robert Ray, or indeed a committee of which he is a member, could even begin to approach this with an open mind. You have Senator Robert Ray saying that, when you read Senator Parer's declaration, there is an admission of guilt.If Senator Robert Ray wanted to choose his words properly, what he would have been saying is, `There is a failure to disclose.' But you can only be guilty of an offence if you knowingly commit that offence. So to talk about admissions of guilt means you are implying that he has knowingly or deliberately acted in such a way as to be dishonest in his behaviour. You have used the term `admission of guilt'. Senator Cook—of course, no-one would take him seriously—said, `As the web of deceit is growing by the day . . . '. In his usual incomprehensible jargon, he managed to get out the words `web of deceit'.It is crystal clear, even to a schoolboy, that the Labor Party is determined to get Senator Parer, in many respects because he has been such a success inside and outside this place. He has handled himself very well on every occasion. He is on top of his brief. He has the respect of the industry and he has the respect of his colleagues in this place. In other words, everyone knows he is an honourable man.UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—Good blokes don't actually ever get questions. Is that what you are saying?LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTON—No, I am not saying that at all. He has had plenty of questions; he has handled them very well indeed. I am saying, in every respect he has behaved impeccably. He has looked after his portfolio in a way that you very much resent and you have been determined to get him. I am not saying that that is the only basis on which you try to get anyone. You will try to get anyone if there is half an opportunity—rat up a drainpipe!—the Labor Party first, last and always. So the idea of sending something off to the Bean committee strikes me as the absolute height of absurdity.To be able to, in some way, embark on an inquiry into whether Senator Parer might have knowingly committed an offence when there would not be a single person on that side of the chamber who did not reach an adverse judgment on day one, I think, simply says it all. In terms of the letters that were sent out by the committee, which were essentially—5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Did he breach the standing orders?LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTON—No. The standing orders require you to disclose matters of which you are aware and, because Senator Parer did not see that correspondence, he was not aware. So there is clearly no breach.Senator Conroy interjecting—10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order, Senator Conroy!LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTON—You ought to appreciate that as much as anyone else. Senator Hill made a very important point that, if you were expecting senators to be bound by these matters, they would have come forward by way of resolution on which we would all have voted, and then you would have been able to say, `There you are, you cannot say that you were unaware of this because you actually participated—it's on the record.' But to simply have someone coming up with an explanatory memorandum a year or two down the track putting down a view contrary to the one which had prevailed until that time is simply not good enough. It is like saying, `The act says one thing, but because someone else wants to interpret it in a different way, the wording ought to be changed.' It remains as it is until the act is amended or repealed, and that is precisely what ought to occur here.Unless and until the Senate resolves in the same solemn way that it sets down the rules in the first place, then all you have is another contrary advisory opinion. On that basis, it is no surprise that Senator Parer would not have come across that material. I thought even Senator Faulkner was getting very close to suggesting once again that Senator Parer should not be believed. He said, `Can you believe he missed three letters?'5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Two. Two letters and a statement.LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTON—Two letters and a statement. In other words, a clear imputation—`Why would anyone believe that?'In other words, he got them—5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Why did you answer them?LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTON—Well, I might have got them; he did not. I might have read them; he did not. What you are saying is, `Can you believe that anyone did not get them and read them?'I can.UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—The Prime Minister doesn't listen to your decisions, so you have time to read letters.LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTON—Guilty as charged. The fact remains that not all senators read all their correspondence, quite often not through their own fault because it might not actually come to them. It might get lost in the post, it might not be passed on by staffers or it might go incorrectly to Senator Robert Ray's office instead of to Senator Parer's office. There are a multitude of reasons why you may, in very good faith, not see correspondence. Yet, Senator Faulkner is on his feet saying, `Can you believe that he missed these?' `Can you believe' is another way of saying `I don't believe it'—in other words, `I've made up my mind; this bloke shouldn't be believed.'It ought to be abundantly plain that what we are looking at here is a denial of natural justice. People are entitled to be tried by a tribunal free of bias. That is the essence of natural justice, and that is precisely what we do not have here.B36NEALSenator Neal—You have not established any bias.LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTON—I can remember people alleging that I had made up my mind in relation to the ABC committee of inquiry. We had that clown Loosley rabbiting on for days about the fact that somehow I had made up my mind and I should be sacked as chairman.The Labor Party has made up its collective mind. If anyone were ever tempted to wander onto the straight and narrow and actually come up with an unbiased view, I am sure Senator Ray would set them very straight and say, `I'm sorry. I understand your point entirely, but we have got an election coming up. You cannot in any shape or form diverge from the party line.' In fact, the rules say you get expelled from the party—or you get suspended, I think, in Senator Georges' case.There would be no way in which Senator Bean or anyone else would contemplate going into that hearing with an open mind. I think this motion is exposed for what it is. It is an attempt to bring down a very efficient and honest minister, someone who has done his very best in all respects to try to ensure that he complies with the rules. But Labor takes the view that policy does not matter; the way to get through to the next election is to simply stay in the gutter, dredge up the dirt and run on the negatives day after day. With people like Senator Brown jumping on the bandwagon, it has been encouraged to think that the matter might actually go further.It certainly should not go further, not only because you would not get a fair hearing from the Bean committee but because you could not possibly sustain the charge on the evidence that is on the public record. I simply say this is a remorseless pursuit by an utterly political operator and operation. It is not designed to seriously analyse the issues. We have had Senator Parer saying ad nauseam that he has not in any way sought to act dishonestly and there is no evidence to support that proposition.I notice Senator Faulkner once again in this very debate running off at the mouth. He cannot help himself. I suppose that is what happens when you like to think you are smart enough to interpret a few things and you have got a bit of an understanding of the law because you have been around the place for a while and you have read a few shonky pieces of paper that you think constitute legal advice. Here he was again saying—Senator Conroy interjecting—LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTON—Can I just tell you? This is what he said out of his own mouth about five minutes ago—`You cannot argue that he has complied with the letter or the spirit.' It is one thing to say you have not complied with the letter because you have failed to disclose; the spirit of it goes to intent. The spirit of it is all about whether you did it deliberately or not. Right? That is precisely the trap poor old Senator Faulkner has fallen into yet again because he simply does not understand what he is saying.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—It is whether he knowingly did it; you know that. Read the standing orders. Are you incapable of reading the standing orders of the Senate?LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTON—Exactly my point, clown. You cannot in any shape or form say he has failed to comply with the spirit without implying—10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Alston, it is not appropriate to call another honourable senator a clown.LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTON—My apologies, Madam Acting Deputy President. I must have been looking a bit further afield. To talk about not complying with the spirit is clearly to suggest that he has acted improperly or dishonestly; in other words, not only that there is a technical failure to disclose but that he has acted dishonestly. That is the essence of the matter that is supposed to go to the Privileges Committee today, the Bean committee. Quite clearly, there is no way in which Senator Parer's position that is on the public record could get anything other than a no vote from the Labor Party. I, therefore, think it stands condemned as a shabby and grubby little political exercise.10:56:001367Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAYUI4VICALP00—Senator Alston refers to the Privileges Committee as the Bean committee. I should at least declare that the Senate Privileges Committee is considering the leaking of a document from Senator Alston's office to the department of transport and communications. I assure him that we will take no offence and we will approach that issue in a totally objective way.I want to address a few of these issues—firstly, the President's ruling. Let us get it quite clear. The President has ruled that this matter has precedence. The only fact to come out of that is the President has ruled it is not trivial. The very giving of precedence by the President to this matter does not mean that the President considers that there is in fact a prima facie case here, only that it is not trivial.Senator Brown has asked for two broad areas to be referred. The first one is failure to get up in this chamber and declare during a division or during a contribution that someone may have a conflict of interest. The head of power for this particular reference is section 4 of the Parliamentary Privileges Act, which then relates to the resolution carried by the Senate on 17 March 1994 as amended on 21 June 1995. Part 5 of that resolution directs a senator to declare a pecuniary interest. You would have to go back, however, to the Senate resolution on privileges of 25 February 1988, part 8 headed `Disobedience of orders', for that to have some validity to be before the Privileges Committee.I have to say that I do not think it is as clearly expressed in all those standing orders and the Privileges Committee as to be not without at least some doubt in this part of the reference. There is some doubt about it because it links a whole series of powers, interlocking into each other, as to whether it could be regarded as a breach of privilege or a contempt of the Senate. But defying an order of the Senate is a contempt.Nevertheless, that one is not as clear cut as the second part of the reference which really goes to standing order 22A and the provision of the resolution of the Senate on 17 March 1994. The key part of that goes to the question of what happens if a senator does not declare their pecuniary interest. It says:(2) That any senator who:(a) knowingly fails to provide a statement of registrable interests to the Registrar of Senators' Interests by the due date;. . . . . . . . .(c) knowingly provides false or misleading information to the Registrar of Senators' Interests—that is a prescription, but they also put a remedy in here—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 key to all this, frankly, is the word `knowingly'. The only smidgin of contribution that Senator Alston made in the debate was actually to go that point. I am disappointed that Senator Alston did not explore this in more depth. The whole point about the `knowingly' section is that it is up to the Privileges Committee to interpret, not this chamber. This chamber is talking about whether it will refer this matter to the Privileges Committee and the Privileges Committee is going to have to come up with an answer as to whether Senator Parer knowingly did this.I have to say to Senator Brown that when you put your submission to the Privileges Committee you are going to have to lead some evidence that Senator Parer knowingly did this. It is a bit like proving a conspiracy theory. This will be a difficult task, I have to say, and the Privileges Committee would have to be satisfied that this was deliberate behaviour on Senator Parer's behalf and not accidental. That will not be easy to prove.We do know, in outline, what Senator Parer has said about these matters, and there are really three areas to look at. Firstly, there is the 44 shares in ESP. He says he did not declare them from 1994 through to 1998 in the belief that these are akin to superannuation. That is Senator Parer's claim as to why he did not do it. His second claim goes to why he did not declare the knock-on effects of his family trust in terms of shareholdings and the companies it holds shares in. Senator Parer has said that he did not read the correspondence on this particular matter. Note, first of all, that it was one piece of correspondence. Later, it was shown that he had in fact missed two sets of correspondence.That, of course, raises the question: does Senator Parer's office have a register of mail for all incoming mail? If so, he should be able to track down why he missed it. If he does not have that, he is not the competent minister that Senator Alston has indicated, because that is really the first rule of a ministerial office—to keep track of all correspondence and papers by way of a register. The odds of two letters going missing, especially if one was hand delivered, do not seem to me to be credible enough.However, Senator Alston goes on to say that maybe a staff member has not drawn these matters to his attention, and that may well be a plausible excuse because I am sure that not every piece of correspondence is shown to a minister, nor should it be. But you really should have staff competent enough to know what should go to a minister and what should not. If it transpires that these two letters were sidelined by a staff member—I am sorry, I do not want to be harsh—but that is a pink slip job, isn't it, and you get a staff member who can handle that particular area.Senator Parer, nevertheless, can put the argument that he did not knowingly do this because he did not read the correspondence. Even though the very gracious and dynamic chairman of the committee presented a statement here, I have got to admit, Senator Denman, that I was not following that statement at the time like Senator Parer. I have to say I am not sure what I was doing at the time but I missed it. I did read the correspondence when it came around. I put it straight in the bin, because I do not own any shares or family trusts or any other interests, so naturally it did not highlight my attention. So Senator Parer can run that argument.The third argument Senator Parer can run, and I find it highly credible, is that he is a pretty vague sort of a bloke. He can earn the odd couple of hundred thousand or couple of million and not remember it. I think that goes to his credit in terms of this: his very vagueness on all these particular issues. He has not been on top of it at question time. He has not been able to answer any questions on this. He has been just totally confused.What we have on the record is Senator Parer explaining why he did not declare the shares declarable in 1994 and why he did not declare the shares in 1997. The one missing link in this to me, though, is that Senator Parer has knowingly not updated the pecuni ary interest register in the last 15 days. These issues were raised on 11 March.LD4ALSTONSenator Alston—He's got 28 days to amend.UI4Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAY—Oh, Senator Alston disingenuously says he has 28 days to amend. That is when your circumstances change, Senator.LD4ALSTONSenator Alston—Or when you become aware.UI4Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAY—Oh, when you become aware. He was aware, Senator. But wouldn't you have thought that just in the last 15 days he would have actually bothered?LD4ALSTONSenator Alston—Well, he's had other things on his mind, thanks to you.UI4Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAY—Oh, he's had other things on his mind, has he? I think this would have been one of the basic building blocks but it just goes to the question that in this case he knowingly did not put these matters right for 15 days. Yes, Senator Alston, if he has been busy that may make an excuse as to why he has not done it.LD4ALSTONSenator Alston—But doesn't he have 28 days from the time he becomes aware?UI4Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAY—He has been aware of ESP for five years, Senator.LD4ALSTONSenator Alston—No, aware in your terms that it should have been disclosed. He did not have that belief.UI4Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAY—You are claiming that he did not have that belief and what I am saying is that the position is open on that: that you have to prove that he knowingly did not. But I would have thought that he would have actually corrected the record because what he now knows, Senator Alston, is that he was in error. He now knows he was in error. He has admitted that in this chamber. He was in error on the ESP shares, he was in error on the family trust and non-disclosure, and I think he should have corrected the record.The only contrary view that can be put on the `knowingly' thing, to prove that in fact he knowingly did this, is to go to motive. In trying to prove that he knowingly did this, as Senator Alston has said—and I agree with you on this part, Senator Alston—you have to go into Senator Parer's mind, and it is very difficult to do to prove one way or the other. The only way you could prove that he knowingly did it is by saying that he had a very strong motive for not declaring those shares.It is possible—people have run that argument in this chamber—that he did not want to disclose these matters because they were in conflict with the Prime Minister's code of conduct and that they may have been politically embarrassing to him. People have pointed out that having a separate superannuation scheme set up in 1994, when you are already in the parliamentary one, might be in fact a cause of embarrassment, and maybe that was the reason that he did not disclose. People have pointed out that owning $2 million worth of coal shares when you are the coal minister might have been embarrassing. Those sorts of motives come forward to suggest that maybe he knowingly did it, but it is going to be very difficult to prove, in my view. It is like proving a conspiracy theory, and therein lies some of the nub of it.None of this goes against Senator Brown's motion. Senator Brown is abiding by the principles of the standing orders that actually set out that it is the Privileges Committee that should examine and resolve these things. No other committee should. After all, the standing orders say that, in terms of non-disclosure, it is not a contempt of the Senate, it is a severe contempt of the Senate. Therefore, that is the appropriate course.We had Senator Hill come in today with all his guilty as charged quotes, all of which refer to Senator Parer's conduct in terms of the prime ministerial code of conduct. Of course we made allegations in regard to that. But in a shifty shift of ground they moved all those `guilty as charged' on the Prime Minister's code across to the senator's declaration of interest. What a sleazy lawyers' trick that was—absolutely demeaning the Leader of the Opposition.As Senator Faulkner pointed out in this chamber, it was in 1992 that Senator Hill pumped himself up and said, `We'll finally accept the declaration of interests, provided you retain the declaration in the chamber.' That was a nice shifty move by him. Now he has reversed the position because the whole Procedure Committee, including Senator Hill, has a different view. They have shifted position.Having fought declaration of pecuniary interest by way of filibuster in this chamber for a full decade—for a full decade they talked this issue out until they were finally pinned down on it—they come in here and have the gall to say that the Labor Party votes as a disciplined outfit. This was a disciplined outfit for 10 years. They resisted pecuniary interest declarations. They followed the party line. You only have to look at the number of family trusts and shareholdings on that side to see why they had that fight at that time.Then they come in and say that the Privileges Committee could not give Senator Parer a fair hearing. Why have a Privileges Committee? Yes, we are partisan in this chamber, but when we walk in the door of 1S6 every Thursday morning we have to put that partisanship aside. That is one of the reasons why the Privileges Committee has a government majority. They have four senators on that committee; it is the reason why the opposition has three—so it cannot be misused.In the time that I have been chair of the Privileges Committee I cannot recall an occasion when we have had a partisan discussion or vote on an issue. We cannot afford to. It is too damaging to our reputation. We have to try to bring a degree of objectivity to these things. It is fair enough for Senator Hill to point out that bringing objectivity to this is not an easy task. But, funnily enough, if this goes to the Privileges Committee it would be to Senator Parer's advantage that we have had partisan views in the past. We have to make sure we give him a super fair hearing and that it is not seen as some gang-up ramp that he is going to get strung up by the Privileges Committee.If Senator Alston believes that, as he has argued today, let him come forward with one decision from the Privileges Committee in the last 15 years that has had political bias in it. He cannot. I do not mind if he smears me, but he has basically smeared all members of the Privileges Committee, saying that they cannot make a proper and objective judgment on these particular matters. If you cannot win the argument, attack the tribunal.What this all comes back to is that clearly Senator Parer has failed on two streams of declarations. He has failed to declare his ESP shares and he has failed to declare all the shares owned by his family trust. Both are in defiance of standing orders. That is established fact and Senator Parer would acknowledge that. The question is: did he commit a contempt of the Senate by doing that? That all hinges on the phraseology here—did he knowingly do this.I say to the Senate that I think this should go to the Privileges Committee because it is the appropriate procedure, but I acknowledge in advance that it is going to be extremely difficult to prove that Senator Parer knowingly did these things. You have to go to what was in his mind at the time. I also say that if it goes to the Privileges Committee there is going to be no reverse onus of proof. Proof has to be given that he knowingly did it. We are not going to go on a trawling or fishing expedition in which you can adduce evidence by luck. These matters are usually settled on the papers and rarely go to public hearings.Senator Hill has the gall to come in here today and admit part guilt himself that he should have rewritten these standing orders, et cetera. These matters have been up for public dispute. The Procedures Committee and Senators' Interests Committee have on two occasions considered oral declarations in this chamber and considered whether or not they should continue.I have often expressed the view that if you have a decent register with full disclosure you do not need declarations. Senator Brown disagrees with me on that, but I think we have both been consistent on it. The problem in Senator Parer's case is that it was not on the declaration form. He actually not only breached Senator Brown's requirements but also breached mine. As such, the only proper vehicle to deal with this is a parliamentary committee.If we want the broad debate on partisanship on parliamentary committees then we might have to have it. There will always be some degree of partisanship on most committees. There are a couple of committees of this parliament where if you have the belief that they are going to be partisan then you may as well abolish them. One of those committees is the Privileges Committee. It must address issues on merit and it must make findings on merit.On occasions I have had a few disagreements with my colleague sitting opposite in the whips chair, but quite clearly I expunged any of those from my mind when I was considering his case before the Privileges Committee. I had to come to the conclusion that there had been a contempt of the Senate and he had been grievously treated by a particular individual.If we reacted in the way that Senator Hill and Senator Alston said today—that is, that the old Labor Party hierarchy sends out the orders and we march in—we never would have made that finding in Senator O'Chee's favour. That is one example. No mention has been made of the four Liberal members of that committee. Are they somehow different from the Labor members? Is that the distinction and dichotomy we are drawing here? Is it the case that they can come in with an independent mind and rule on all matters without any political partisanship, and it is only the Labor Party that will follow orders? We are apparently the Daleks of the Senate—we shall obey; we shall follow the party commands, onwards and upwards.That is, frankly, nonsense. What we have heard from the Liberal Party today, apart from one passage of Senator Alston's speech—I think he is surprised that I acknowledge this, but I do—has all been red herrings and has all been irrelevant. I repeat: the whole matter hangs around the question of whether Senator Parer knowingly did this particular act.This matter should be referred to the Privileges Committee on the basis of what is in the standing orders and on the basis of Senator Parer's own admissions. But I have to say, and I am speaking now as an individual, not as chairman of the Privileges Committee, that this is going to be a very hard case to prove—not that he did not declare, because he admitted it himself, but evidence would need to be provided to support the claim that a senator knowingly did something, and I think that will be a very hard task.11:16:001371Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—One of the phrases just used by Senator Ray was, `Senator Brown's requirements.' I feel that it is necessary to suggest that the standing orders are not Senator Brown's requirements. I know that there are people who have different viewpoints about them, and I think that has become very evident from the contempt that has been shown, especially by members of the opposition when they have been asked to declare an interest. To a large extent, there has been a contemptuous attitude to that standing order from some members of the Senate. It is a case of `I don't think I should have to do this,' and basically throwing it to the Senate with an `if I have to', and growling and sitting down—if they stand at all. I really do think that is contemptuous.This is a standing order of the Senate, and it is not a matter of choosing between the standing orders that people like and the standing orders that people do not like. In my opinion, the issue concerning the standing orders is not whether or not something is on record; it is how conflicts or apparent conflicts are presented to the community. That, to me, shows the importance of continuing to have this section in the standing orders.Members of the community who either read Hansard or listens to the Senate debates when they are broadcast do not have in front of them the Register of Senators' Interests. Very few people would have had access to that. I believe it is important for the credibility of the Senate that issues where there is the possibility of a conflict of interest be clearly set out. This should not be seen by the Senate as a hindrance and an annoyance. It should be a normal part of the way debates take place and a normal part of the way votes are taken. If this practice were adopted, we would not see some people throwing tantrums. They would be asked simply to declare. This can be done in a relatively simple way. I believe it is necessary for people to read a vote.We are making laws; we are changing laws; we are making decisions on behalf of the people in Australia. We are making decisions on behalf of the shop assistants and the taxi drivers. Ask the average taxi driver what they think of the perception of a conflict of interest where $1 million or $2 million is concerned. My staff members have told me about the opinion that is frequently given by taxi drivers.There is a need for the Senate to refer this matter to the Privileges Committee in order for the Senate to maintain, or try to regain, that level of confidence that may or should exist in the community about the decisions that are made in this area.The Greens (WA) put forward an amendment to the diesel fuel legislation. We were told, in a response to a question asked by Senator Brown, that Queensland Coal Mines Management benefited from the rebate to the tune of $1.7 million. The average taxi driver and the average person in the street who takes some interest in what is going on and in the way the country is being governed would say that a decision which affects a company with which a politician or minister is involved to the extent of $1.7 million is not something that should be sneezed at. We should be looking to see whether or not this was a decision that was knowingly made. Most people would find it difficult to believe how those kinds of amounts of money could be ignored, forgotten or considered to be so inconsequential as to not be part of the normal process of declaring interests in the Senate.Anybody looking back through the Hansards of the Senate since I have been a senator, since Senator Brown has been a senator, and since former Senator Chamarette was a senator, will understand and note that the Greens have been consistent in relation to issues of privilege. We have supported reference to the Privileges Committee of prima facie cases that needed to be answered, if those cases came within the guidelines for taking such action. We have done so because we believe in the Senate; we believe in the democratic process; and we believe that this is the only action that can be taken in this place to take us to the next step of trying to regain some of the confidence of the com munity in the decision making processes of this place.11:21:001372Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEYSF4VICALP00—Madam Acting Deputy President, I would like to address some remarks to this issue because it is an important one. Much has been said about the Privileges Committee, on which you have served with distinction in the past and on which I now serve. The function of that committee is not to come to a judgment in the way a court may come to a judgment; it would not be right for it to do so. What it has to do, according to the standing orders, is inquire into and report upon matters of privilege referred to it by the Senate. It is the Senate itself which comes to the conclusion as to whether or not a particular privilege has been breached and what the appropriate penalty for the person who has done that ought to be. I raise that issue to demonstrate that the problems that have been raised this morning are not problems with the Privileges Committee but problems with the Senate. If you think of it in that way, they do not become problems.I say in respect of Senator Parer that I think he is a person who has the respect of all—a person of integrity. But in the same way, Senator Ray, who is the chair of the committee and who has come under attack during this debate—understandably so—is also a person of great integrity and a person who can act in the appropriate way. The way in which a person acts in this chamber, in the hurly-burly of debate, is different from the way in which he or she may act in a particular committee or in a particular situation. In other words, a proper politician is a politician who knows how to act appropriately in the proper situation. The way in which a person may act, as I say, in the middle of a debate, when there is give and take in the chamber, is different from the way in which a person may act when he or she is chairing a committee.Having served on that committee with Senator Ray, I can say that he has always acted with proper respect for what he is there for, with full integrity and I think with the respect of everybody on that committee, no matter what party they come from. It is an all-party committee; it is a committee that has always acted in the true spirit in which it is intended—not in a party political way but in a way that tries to get to the right result, given the situation that is before it.I simply wanted to put that on the record. If this matter went to the committee, it would not be the case that a person of Senator Parer's standing would be attacked and judged in a way that he should not be so judged or treated. I am not sure how this vote will go, but I can assure Senator Parer that if the matter did go before the committee, his proud record would be taken well and truly into account—it would not be pushed aside in the interests of party politics—and that that would happen under the assured chairmanship of Senator Ray.In the end, all that committee can do is to bring back a report to the Senate. I hope that if that happens—I do not know the numbers; it may well not happen—the chamber itself will act in the same way as the committee would have done under the chairmanship of Senator Ray.11:26:001373Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—in reply—I thank senators on all sides for the contributions they have made to the debate on this important motion. I sum up by saying that the reason for presenting this motion to the Senate is not frivolous; it is a matter of great importance. We have to ensure that we, as parliamentarians and elected members representing the Australian community, are seen to carry out our duties in a way which does not advantage ourselves but is very clearly and always focused on benefiting the community at large.Of course, because we are members of the community, there will always be parallels drawn between the matters that we are dealing with in the parliament and how they affect ourselves. Because of the difficulties involved in any of us appearing to be divested of self-interest, after more than a decade's debate, the Senate, in 1994, as has been recalled a couple of times today, set up the mechanism for ensuring that there was a register of interests and that senators recorded their interests in that register.As a number of senators pointed out, the important word that we are dealing with today is `knowingly'—whether a senator knowingly omitted her or his duty to put in the register a personal interest which could be in conflict with that person's duty or the contribution to the debate. That is the matter in so far as the register is concerned.I agree with Senator Ray that that is no easy matter ever to prove, because one has to get into the mind of the person involved. The word `knowingly' has been put there to protect senators. Nevertheless, it underscores the importance of us all acting with an eye on our obligation to make it clear to the public that we treat as important the matter of registering our interests; that it is not a frivolous matter; that it is not treated in a cavalier fashion; and that we do give it priority, so that not only are we seen to be acting without self-interest but also the public can see that.On that matter, I refer to Senator Harradine's submission last year on the matter of the Australian Law Reform Commission, because I believe that it sums up the question of referral to the Privileges Committee. It is not for us to judge in this place whether Senator Parer knowingly failed to put some $2 million worth of interests into the register; that is a matter for the Privileges Committee. That is why it is important that this matter goes to the Privileges Committee. I agree with Senator Harradine when, in relation to the earlier matter, he said:I do not want to canvass all of the other matters that have been raised during this debate—such as whether the person who committed an act which may be held to be in contempt knowingly committed that act or had any reasonable excuse for commission of that act. These are matters which, it seems to me, are more appropriately dealt with by the Privileges Committee.I totally concur with that, and that is why the Privileges Committee is there. The matter ought to go to the Privileges Committee for investigation and adjudication.On the matter of whether senators declare an interest in this chamber during a debate or at the time of a vote, the word `knowingly' is not used. On page 146 of the standing orders, under the major heading of `Senators' Interests', the standing orders say:That, notwithstanding the lodgment by a Senator of a statement of the Senator's registrable interests and the registrable interests of which the Senator is aware (a) of the Senator's spouse; and (b) of any children who are wholly or mainly dependent on the Senator for support, and the incorporation of that statement in a Register of Senators' Interests,—so notwithstanding whether or not you put it in the register—a Senator shall declare any relevant interest:That refers both to in a debate and in a vote, and that declaration must be recorded. That is a much more clear-cut case. Therefore, the obligation upon us to declare an interest at the time that we enter into a debate or a vote is much clearer.I reiterate that last year we had the situation where Senator Parer not only entered into the debate on the matter of the diesel fuel rebate, but he led the debate for the government. In consequent questioning on notice through Senator Parer to his departmental officers, no doubt, it came back to me that his interests may have been advantaged, or an entity in which he had shareholdings was advantaged, to the tune of $1.7 million—a diesel fuel rebate cheque of $1.7 million from the government went to a company in which he had a very substantial interest.Therefore, Senator Parer could hardly deny that there was interest. However, at the time of that debate, he did not declare it. If, on the face of it, we are to ignore that, then we are to ignore that very important standing order. Where does that process lead? Where do we stop in ignoring the standing orders as whole? Privilege is no small matter. On page 27 of Odgers, in referring to privilege, the immunities and the power of the Senate, it begins:The term "parliamentary privilege" refers to two significant aspects of the law relating to Parliament, the privileges or immunities of the Houses of Parliament and the powers of the Houses to protect the integrity of their processes. These immunities and powers are very extensive. They are deeply ingrained in the history of free institutions, which could not have survived without them.We have privilege in this place, for example, to escape being sued when we get to our feet to speak. We can speak in here without fear or favour. We can speak with a freedom that citizens in the street cannot. That is an important and integral part of the functioning of a parliament in a free democracy.However, there is a quid pro quo for the freedom which exists in this parliament, and that is the internal processes which put some limitation and cap on the way in which parliamentarians can behave. That is in the standing orders and in the adjudication, in relevant cases, of the Privileges Committee. It is an internal review—an internal court, if you like—which is a counterbalance to the freedoms we have in this parliament. If we are not to stand conjointly by the standing orders and the mechanism by which privilege is adjudicated in this place, then we put in doubt the privilege that parliament as a whole has. We put in doubt hundreds of years of evolution of the marvellous system of parliamentary democracy we have which makes this country a special place to live in. It is as important as that.This is a very important matter. On the face of it, we have a serious conflict of interest. On the face of it, we have a contempt of the Senate by a senator's failure to declare, both in debate and in the register, an important asset which could have, or may have, or would have led to a conflict of interest. The matter deserves to go from this chamber to the Privileges Committee. I urge honourable senators to stand by the standing orders, to stand by the Privileges Committee, and to give Senator Parer the adjudication by the Privileges Committee which he deserves and which this Senate ought to ensure occurs. Question put: That the motion (Senator Brown's ) be agreed to.11:41:00The Senate divided. (The President—Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid)31Allison, L. Bartlett, A. J. J.Bishop, M. Bolkus, N.Bourne, V. Brown, B.Carr, K. Conroy, S.Cook, P. F. S. Cooney, B.Crowley, R. A. Denman, K. J.Evans, C. V. *Faulkner, J. P.Forshaw, M. G. Hogg, J.Lees, M. H. Lundy, K.Margetts, D. McKiernan, J. P.Murphy, S. M. Murray, A.Neal, B. J. O'Brien, K. W. K.Quirke, J. A. Ray, R. F.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. Colston, M. A.Coonan, H. Eggleston, A.Ellison, C. Ferguson, A. B.Ferris, J. Harradine, B.Herron, J. Hill, R. M.Kemp, R. Knowles, S. C.Lightfoot, P. R. Macdonald, I.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.Troeth, J. Vanstone, A. E.Watson, J. O. W.Campbell, G. Tierney, J.Collins, J. M. A. Gibson, B. F.Collins, R. L. Crane, W.Gibbs, B. Heffernan, W.Mackay, S. Newman, J. M.Reynolds, M. Macdonald, S.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the negative.Bills1375r3971375Bill received from the House of Representatives.Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell) agreed to:That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.Bill read a first time.137511:47:001375Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I table a revised explanatory memorandum and move:That this bill be now read a second time.I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard .Leave granted.The speech read as follows—The legislative changes made by the Intellectual Property Laws Amendment Bill are threefold. The first will implement the Government's decision to allow an extension of the patent term to a total of 25 years for patents relating to pharmaceutical substances. The second will provide for the introduction of a new regime for regulation of the patent attorney profession and de regulate professional practice in trade marks and designs. The third will make minor changes to the patent regime of a technical nature, making it easier for applicants to transact business before the office.Extension of Term Scheme for Pharmaceutical PatentsThis Government is committed to the development of a viable pharmaceutical industry in Australia. In April this year, we announced three new initiatives to ensure an internationally competitive operating environment for the industry into the 21st century—the introduction of the Pharmaceutical Industry Investment Program; the extension of patent terms for pharmaceuticals by up to five years; and the provision of a regime of data exclusivity.These measures were announced in the context of the Government's response the Industry Commission's Report No. 51, The Pharmaceutical Industry .This bill implements the second of these measures.The development of a new drug is a long process. A new chemical entity, from which a pharmaceutical is derived, is patented early in the process. However, considerable research and testing is still required before the product can enter the market.This long development time, combined with the considerable regulatory process to register and market a new product, means that companies usually have considerably fewer years under patent in which to gain a return on their investment.This becomes significant to the industry as companies rely heavily on patents to generate the substantial cash flows necessary to finance the development of new drugs.A country's patent system is also an important factor in investment decisions. A strong patent system contributes significantly to a positive investment climate and sends a signal that Australia values an innovative pharmaceutical industry.The objective of this part of the bill is to provide an `effective patent life' more in line with that available to inventions in other fields of technology. It will also create a patent regime for pharmaceuticals which is in line with our competitors.An extension of up to five years will be available for a standard patent relating to a pharmaceutical substance that is the subject of first inclusion on the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods.The scheme will apply to all existing 20 year patents, as well as those patents granted after the commencement of the scheme. An extension is not however, automatic. Companies will need to apply within six months of the inclusion of the product on the ARTG or within six months of the date the patent is granted, which ever is the later.Transitional arrangements will be put in place to accommodate existing patents.The new arrangements make provision for `spring-boarding' activities. This allows manufacturers of generic drugs to undertake certain activities prior to the expiry of the patent solely for the purposes of meeting pre-marketing regulatory approval requirements. Companies will be permitted to spring-board any time after the extension has been granted.Regulation of ProfessionsProfessional practice in patents, trade marks and designs, has long been regulated by Governments throughout the world to ensure that professionals in the field have the high level of technical and professional competence necessary to foster high quality rights that support strong innovation and trading regimes.In Australia, patent attorneys hold an exclusive right to draft patent specifications on behalf of others for gain. Patent attorneys and the legal professions have exclusive rights of practice in respect of the prosecution of patent applications and all aspects of the prosecution of trade marks and designs applications where owners choose not to prosecute the application themselves. To ensure Australia's continued competitiveness in innovation and research, the Government examined the current regime to ensure that the profession would be better placed to continue support of these vital activities in the future.The Government has been concerned to ensure that the profession continues to offer a high quality service while being subject to competitive pressures It wishes to ensure there are no undue barriers to competition in professional practice that might adversely effect the public interest. The Government recognises that allowing unqualified persons to perform the highly specialised activity of drafting patent specifications would involve unacceptably high risks to both consumers and the public. However, in the less specialised areas greater competition would afford benefits to the public with little risk.It is these areas of lesser specialisation that the Government considers should be opened to greater competition. The existing restrictions require a level of technical qualification that is higher than that required for effective practice.The bill will make a number of changes to the existing regime contained in the Patents Act 1990, the Trade Marks Act 1995 and the Designs Act 1906 to provide greater access though a wider choice of providers of professional services. In trade marks and designs it will remove restrictions on who can practice. Restrictions on practice in patents will be retained given the technical and demanding nature of patent regimes and the potential cost to the applicant of a poorly constructed or prosecuted application.Suitably qualified persons will be entitled to registration as a trade marks attorney and will have the same rights of privilege as patent attorneys and lawyers in trade marks and designs matters. Trade marks attorneys will be given the same exemptions from obligations over copyrighted material for the purposes of the provision of professional advice as are currently available to patent attorneys and lawyers under the Copyright Act 1968.Qualifications for registration as a trade marks attorney will be less rigorous than those required for registration as a patent attorney as there will be no requirement for a technical qualification.The bill proposes that the existing partnership arrangements for patent attorneys should be relaxed to improve the public's access to the professions by encouraging a broadening of the competitive base within the patent attorney profession. The proposed system will allow mixed partnerships with other professions where at least one member of the partnership is a registered patent attorney. However, patent attorney partners will still be required to prepare patent specifications.The Government is taking the lead and providing for these new partnership arrangements to foster linkages in the provision of professional services.The rules of practice are amended to make it clear that an employee is not infringing the restrictions on practice in patents by undertaking patent work for the employer.The Government intends that the education and examination functions should be moved from the narrow base of the existing Patent Attorneys Professional Standards Board to the universities to make them more accessible to people seeking entry to the profession.Other minor amendmentsThe bill also introduces other minor amendments to the Patents Act 1990, some of which are of a technical nature. Amendments will allow employees of the Patent Office to provide a higher level of advice to applicants while not compromising their official duties and revise procedures for the payment of certain fees.Madam President, I believe that the amendments proposed in the bill will enable to Government to meet its objectives of balancing a strong intellectual property system with competent professional advice against the benefits of greater competition.There will be no additional cost to Government from any of the proposals as the patents, trade marks and designs systems operate on a cost recovery basis.I commend this bill to the Senate.Debate (on motion by Senator Chris Evans) adjourned.Bills1377r3531377Debate resumed from 10 November 1997, on motion by Senator Newman:That this bill be now read a second time.11:47:001377Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I table a regulation impact statement relating to the explanatory memorandum to this bill, and I also table a supplementary explanatory memorandum relating to the government amendment to be moved to this bill. This memorandum was circulated in the chamber on 3 March 1998.11:48:001377Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—The Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 5) 1997 provides yet another example of the poor management by the government of its legislative program and the unreasonable delay that taxpayers face in the implementation of announced decisions by the government in the taxation field. Some measures in this legislation were announced in early 1997, which is more than a year ago, and some were announced in the 1996 budget—that is, more than 18 months ago.This bill before us today contains an example of gross indolence on the government's behalf. There are some important anti-fraud measures relating to computers and to sales tax. That is a serious problem. Indeed, the Treasurer (Mr Costello) announced that he would be acting against these fraudulent practices in the 1996 budget—as I said, that was over 18 months ago, and this bill comes before us now.Labor supports this crackdown, and we will be supporting the measures contained in the bill. However, we are entitled to ask why it has taken so long for such an important measure to come to parliament. How much revenue, for example, has been lost because of the delay? Have any law-abiding businesses, which the government claims will be assisted by this legislation, been, for example, put out of business by the totally unreasonable delay in cracking down on the alleged cheats in some areas of the computer industry?All we have had from the government is complete silence on those points. We know that last year there were pleas from some sections of the industry to pass the bill quickly to address the problem, but the government just arrogantly ignored them. After much delay from the original announcements of the policy, this bill was introduced into the House of Representatives on 23 October last year. The opposition was then told that the bill was urgent and would be debated during the next week. This gave us literally the minimum time possible to go through the processes of considering the legislation and then debate the issues in the House.Despite this totally unreasonable approach by the government, due to the representations by various interest parties, we agreed to pass the legislation expeditiously in the House of Representatives, and we proceeded to do that. This occurred on 28 October, but we noted that some important matters needed to be considered by the Senate Economics Legislation Committee before we were fully satisfied with those proposals. The committee process followed and it reported in early December—three months ago—in plenty of time to be considered by the Senate prior to the rising of the Senate last year.The reason the opposition believes this bill should have been considered last year comes from being sympathetic to the major beneficiaries of the legislation—namely, those honest firms in the computer industry who were suffering unfair competition from the unscrupulous operators committing sales tax fraud and those infrastructure providers who were wanting to have certainty concerning the infrastructure borrowings regime that is to apply. So Labor happily cooperated with the unreasonable request in an effort to get the issues settled quickly. What happened? The government then did not consider the issues important enough to proceed with, even though it was given all reasonable opportunity to do so. This slovenly approach to important legislation is simply another reason why the government is faring so poorly in the eyes of the Australian public.Having dealt with the appalling processes preceding this debate, let me now turn to the provisions of the bill. This was the fifth omnibus taxation bill for 1997 but, due to the government's mismanagement, it will only be enacted in 1998. It covers a very wide variety of issues. As well as the sales tax proposals designed to combat fraud relating to computers and related equipment, there are very important capital gains tax provisions which are designed to assist small business. In addition, the government's new and totally inadequate infrastructure borrowing provisions, which again have taken more than a year to be considered by the Senate, are also in the bill.There are a litany of problems with this proposal compared with Labor's previous scheme. Some of these are: firstly, the funding is completely inadequate. Only $38 million has been allocated for this financial year and an ongoing maximum commitment of $75 million has been set. Basically the government has abandoned the commitment to assist in the private provision of necessary public infrastructure. This compares with the $200 million program introduced by Labor.Secondly, the scope of the infrastructure projects which can be assisted under the scheme is totally inadequate. This new regime is limited to only road and rail projects as well as transitional arrangements to make up for the damage caused to those projects which were retrospectively thrown out of the previous infrastructure borrowings scheme.Thirdly, important regional development projects have been delayed or put on hold because of the uncertainty associated with the unreasonable delay concerning this legislation, and the much reduced scope of the new infrastructure borrowings proposal shows that the government really does not want to assist regional development but that the new scheme is merely a charade. To limit the projects to only road and rail projects is to effectively destroy the scheme. The Treasurer knows this and that is obviously what his aim is.The new legislation excludes energy projects completely. So opportunities in regional Australia in some new and exciting areas such as wind and solar power, which still need some assistance to compete successfully with established power generation sources, are being sacrificed. Similarly, a key energy related stimulus to regional development is the extension and interconnection of gas pipelines throughout regional Australia. There are currently various projects on the drawing boards of the major utilities. Some of these would have been considered in the context of the previous scheme, but now the government has completely cut out those regional projects.Similarly, the decision to exclude future water and sewerage projects is an inconceivable decision. The National Party is, with this legislation, supporting the removal of support for infrastructure to: clean up inland waterways and coastal environments, for example, by further investment in sewerage systems; to improve the drinking water quality for residents of regional Australia—surely I would have thought that was a priority for anyone in this parliament; and to improve the irrigation infrastructure, some of which is desperately in need of refurbishment for economic and environmental reasons.In addition to the other changes to the scheme, the arms length arbiter under Labor's scheme, the Development Allowance Authority, has been replaced by the Minister for Transport and Regional Development. So any objective assessment of projects will now presumably be replaced by the kind of pork-barrelling we are seeing concerning the Natural Heritage Fund. This is exactly the type of problem that Labor avoided by keeping the decision making process at arms length from ministers to try to ensure that only the highest quality investments would be assisted—that is, those projects that would proceed on their merits not because the minister could be persuaded to support subsidising a dubious local proposal for electoral advantage.So here again the coalition has let down regional Australia. There will be few, if any, new projects under this new infrastructure borrowing regime, which does not bode well for the supply of infrastructure to regional Australia generally. We know this government has already cut the national highway funding program; they have cut the funding to Track Australia, that is the rail program—that is for urgently needed investment in rail—by around one-third; and they have cut the untied grants to the states thereby lessening the capacity of the states to invest in regional infrastructure. This new proposal is merely a further measure following the trend of neglect of this government to regional infrastructure.The bill also proposes to broaden the capital gains tax rollover provisions. These provisions propose to broaden the CGT rollover provisions to allow a rollover where a business is conducted through a company or a unit trust and the company or unit trust is disposed of. Conceptually, this is a logical extension of the current rollover regime which only allows a rollover for the sale of a business when that business is conducted by an individual as a sole trader.Taxpayers are entitled to ask: why didn't the government introduce an adequate provision in the first place? It must have known that the original proposals ignored the fact that hundreds of thousands of small businesses are conducted through companies and unit trusts and that therefore many small businesses would have been completely excluded from the change the government claims is so vital to small business.Furthermore, the complexity associated with rollover relief almost beggars belief. This government says that they are interested in reducing complexity, cutting red tape, but their actions are always in the other direction. So far we have had legislation in three separate bills—the No. 1 bill, the No. 3 bill in 1997 and now the provisions of this bill. Why couldn't we have had a complete set of proposals for the parliament to consider in a more rational way? The answer is obviously that they were making policy on the run and had no idea how to properly design the concession.As well as broadening the scope of the concession provisions, the bill actually contains amendments to the existing rollover provisions. So, despite having had 15 months from the election until the commencement of these provisions, which was last July, the full legislation has not yet been passed by the parliament and already the government is having to come back in here and move amendments to their originally flawed scheme. Let us not forget either that these amendments to the concession have increased the cost by an estimated $90 million per year, so the full cost of the rollover concession is now around $300 million per year.The Treasurer is continually saying that the tax system is about to fall apart. He is continually painting a false picture that the revenue base is unsure and inadequate. We know there will always be a need to clamp down on tax avoidance and shore up the tax base that is threatened in various ways. We know that and have argued that. Rather than shore up the income tax base, as one would expect if it was in such poor repair—and that is what the government says it is—the government continues to introduce huge holes in the base. Let me give you five examples: family tax initiative of around $1 billion per year; health insurance rebate of $600 million per year; tax rebate for wealthy, self-funded retirees worth $70 million per year; the capital gains tax concession for small business worth almost $400 million per year; and a further $50 million per year in fringe benefits tax concessions. Labor is not saying that we oppose all of these initiatives. Far from it. What we are saying is that the rhetoric underlying the government's GST is demonstrably false. There is no crisis in Australia's tax base which is not manageable in the normal way. The only tax crisis facing Australian families will be if they are lumbered with a goods and services tax, something I can guarantee that Labor will not do. In evidence of that, we need more proof than the fact of the government claiming that they will be back in surplus in their budget next year. How can a government with a supposedly broken tax base be in surplus throughout the whole forward estimates period? This is especially ludicrous given that they have voluntarily sacrificed $4 billion from that tax base as I have previously outlined. There is no need for a regressive change to the taxation system in Australia, and the government knows that.There are issues that need to be addressed, as there always will be, but we do not need to tax families' food and clothing in the process, which is just one part of the impact of a goods and services tax. Mentioning the goods and services tax brings me to the principal revenue matter in this legislation. The bill proposes altering the wholesale sales tax regime which applies to personal computers and related goods to overcome fraud. Wholesale sales tax evasion is apparently a significant problem in the computer industry. Apart from the estimated $80 million per year in evaded revenue, tax evasion also significantly alters the commercial environment through granting an unfair uncompetitive advantage to those engaged in fraudulent practices. I note a report in the Melbourne Age of 14 October last year about a man charged with fraud of over $1 million concerning sales tax on computers. So this is a serious matter which needs to be addressed. The measures in the bill will deny the current right to purchase computers and related equipment tax free unless the person has been accredited by the Taxation Office as a person likely to fulfil their proper taxation obligations. The regime has been decided in a generic manner so that other goods can be dealt with under the altered arrangement if there is concern about fraudulent practices with these other goods. Interestingly, it appears as though the government has considered and rejected a multistage tax model—that is, a GST—to deal with this fraud. When faced with a problem that actually might be addressed by one aspect of a GST—that is, the fact that all purchases would be taxed—the government, at the behest of business, does not introduce the GST model of no exemptions but rather simply modifies the quoting procedure from the current unregulated one to one where taxpayers will have to be accredited to be able to continue to quote and hence defer the payment of wholesale sales tax. The real question is: why was this multistage tax rejected? We know from media reports on the development of the legislation that the government was trying for a GST style model but that it was rejected. Clearly this rejection occurred because industry would not wear the additional paperwork and costs associated with the cessation of the exemptions which make the sales tax system relatively simple to comply with. Even the government has rejected a GST style solution in this context even though we are constantly told that the GST will solve all of Australia's problems. This is further evidence that the GST is not the answer for Australia's tax system. A further proposal in this bill is converting a tax rebate under the CRAFT scheme to a cash payment to employers for certain classes of apprentices. The details of this proposal are unclear at this stage. On the basis that the proposal is revenue neutral, we will not be opposing the proposal. However, if the aggregate level of cash payments which are to replace the tax rebate granted under the CRAFT scheme are less than the tax rebates, this would indicate a lessening in the level of support for apprenticeships, and that would not be supported by the opposition. Finally, there are a plethora of amendments to the new Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 to effect technical amendments and to align provisions in the new act with recently enacted legislation. I conclude by again deploring the dilatory nature of the government's urgency on this matter. That is a contradiction in terms. They said it was urgent last year. It has taken until now to arrive, some 18 months after they declared in the House of Representatives that they needed this immediately. I think there is a case to answer for the government that some businesses, particularly in the computer field, may well have suffered economic loss because of slowness to repair the provisions on fraud. If they have, then it is directly attributable to the government's failure to move swiftly to close off these loopholes. I think that is unfortunate, but the government should wear the blame. I have indicated, however, that we will support the passage of this legislation because something needs to be done in these areas quickly. I have expressed my views about other provisions in the bill. I move:At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate is of the view that the Government should withdraw and redraft Schedule 3 of the bill to properly address the adequacy of the funding for new infrastructure programs, as well as extending eligibility to projects beyond the transport sectors into the energy, water and communication sectors".12:07:001381Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—The Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No 5) 1997 gives effect to a range of measures which were considered by the Senate economics committee. At that time the Australian Democrats reserved full comment until the current Senate debate, but we did indicate some concerns. I will outline these concerns as a basis for fuller explanation of those amendments we will be moving in the committee stage.We have previously outlined our position in relation to support for private infrastructure borrowing for land transport, during debate on the Development Allowance Authority Amendment Bill in 1996. We successfully moved changes to that bill to remove tax concessions for private urban road builders.We can see no economic case for further tax incentives to encourage investment in road, a point very firmly stated in the 1995 Private Infrastructure Taskforce report by the government statutory body, EPAC. The Australian Business Monthly, in its July 1994 article, described toll roads as a `licence to print money.'There is, however, a much better case which can be made for supporting rail transport. It may be necessary to provide tax subsidies to improve the viability of investment in rail, and the Australians Democrats will support this part of the bill. It should be noted, however, that the EPAC report found that direct public investment in infrastructure was more cost effective than public subsidies through tax concessions. Knowing the Treasurer's interest in limiting tax concessions, I would have thought he would have encouraged more direct public investment.We are disappointed that this bill is being presented at a time when federal government financing of national rail infrastructure has still not been delivered. Despite government assurances of having entered a new era, the Australian rail industry remains hampered by a lack of infrastructure investment and a playing field markedly tilted in favour of road—or maybe I should say markedly cambered. The following figures speak for themselves. Between 1975 and 1997, successive federal governments invested $33 billion in roads, and a miserable $1.8 billion on rail. That is a bias towards road over rail of more than 18 to 1. Clearly, rail is the neglected child in the Australian land transport family. As the Australian Railway Association put it, rail is having to deliver 21st century service on l9th century infrastructure. Despite all this, Australia's interstate rail operators maintain a 40 per cent market share of intercapital road and rail freight—indicating the high demand despite the relative weakness of the infrastructure.The coalition promised to revive rail and to provide $161 million to upgrade the interstate rail line, but they failed to deliver. They have said they will put up this commitment, by a further $75 million, to $250 million over four years. As yet, no money has been forthcoming from the government as these funds only become available on 1 July 1998.In the case that this funding commitment is maintained and delivered, this is a step in the right direction. Even so, it will be insufficient to bring rail even near parity with road, or to correct rail's severe infrastructure defects. The corridor from Adelaide to Brisbane, through Melbourne and Sydney, is substandard and in desperate need of substantial upgrading—particularly, I understand, on the route between Adelaide and Melbourne. Letting Australia's rail network decay further represents a huge opportunity cost on the existing invested capital.The new rebate for land transport replaces the old infrastructure borrowings tax concession, which the coalition government abolished last year. The new scheme is much less generous, being capped at $75 million a year, and it is restricted to road and rail transport.But the reasons for differentially supporting rail, in relation to road, go beyond economic and commercial arguments. Rail is more energy efficient and generally less environmentally damaging. I will quote from an article in the Economist, on 21 February 1998:Investment in railways is growing because governments accept that the car, the train's chief competitor is running out of space. Congestion and pollution in many countries are now so bad that politicians are obliged to restrain road traffic either by price or by regulation. The economic balance, so long tilted against rail, is beginning to shift.Australia is clearly experiencing these problems too, as any Sydneysider contemplating a purple sunset from their vehicle, marooned on a clogged arterial, will attest. The Economist article went on to argue that:. . . rail freight will revive in the twenty first century, but will not prosper against its road competitors until prices are properly adjusted to reflect environmental and other costs.I will therefore be moving changes to the bill to delete references to road transport and to direct the capped rebate preferentially to rail projects. It is a direct challenge that we are making to government policy in this regard, and I hope that the Senate will support us in that matter.I now move to consideration of the provisions of the bill which deal with the prevention of computer sales tax fraud. The Australian Democrats support the government's intention to eradicate loopholes which have provided some companies with an unfair advantage in selling computers on the basis of fraudulent quotation of a sales tax registration number or exemption declarations. I acknowledge also the anticipated extra $80 million tax take, which I hope will be used to redress in some small measure the social deficit created by this government in such areas as health, education, social welfare and the environment.The Australian Democrats have received a number of representations from small computer operators regarding the implementation of this measure. Their concerns should be well known to government. These relate to uncertainties as to the cost and difficulties of gaining accreditation from the Australian Taxation Office, as a bona fide vendor of sales tax exempt computer equipment. We are hopeful that the ATO will find ways and means of improving that accreditation process. Section 91K of the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No 5) allows the Taxation Commissioner discretion to refuse accreditation to a vendor on the basis that:. . . the Commissioner has reasonable grounds for believing that sales tax will not be, or is unlikely to be, paid by the person.I foreshadow seeking in the committee stage a demonstration from the Assistant Treasurer: firstly, that the new scheme will minimise compliance costs to a level that is a reasonable impost on small business operators; and, secondly, that the scheme will adequately protect the interests of small operators in relation to assessment of their applications by the Taxation Commissioner.In relation to sales tax and computers, the Australian Democrats have received a number of representations to redress a change of interpretation of tax law by the Australian Taxation Office. Computers leased or purchased by schools are presently sales tax exempt. Until last year, the tax office read this exemption as also being extended to computers leased by schools to parents solely for the education of their children. These computers, the ATO has decided, are now subject to sales tax. The Australian Democrats are looking into this matter and are considering whether, at some future date, to move amendments to sales tax law. We do not, however, intend to move amendments to this bill because we believe that the matter needs further consideration.One of the reasons we believe it needs further consideration is that at present we are advised that supplying the exemption for leasing for schools could cost the tax office between $175 and $200 million, which translates back to about 500,000 computer units, we think. I think that such a figure is likely to be a gross exaggeration, but I still do think that large sums of money require us to take care on this issue. We would be appreciative of government looking into it and advising us further in due course.We are mindful that parents of children at non-government schools would generally be more able to take advantage of those previous favourable tax arrangements for leasing computers than parents of children at government schools. Any action we take on this matter would try to ensure that government assistance would be directed fairly to allow computer access to children of all financial means and backgrounds.The Democrats will also be moving amendments to this bill to redress the government's policy failures in the area of youth unemployment. These will be moved by my colleague, Senator Stott Despoja who has responsibility in that area. The Democrats will move firstly to extend the family tax rebate to the 46,000 families whose family income has been reduced by up to $60 a week as a result of the government's youth allowance deeming children unemployed up to age 21, or in higher education up to age 25, as dependants of their parents. Secondly, we will move an amendment to reverse the 1997 budget decision to cut after-tax subsidies for employers by $83 million for taking on apprentices by retaining the tax exemption for up-front incentives under the CRAFT—Commonwealth rebate for apprentices in full-time training—scheme.Thirdly, we will move an amendment to prevent the education minister watering down training standards for apprenticeships and traineeships by allowing bodies other than state training authorities or industry training bodies to approve training courses. The need for these changes exposes, in our view, the shoddiness of the government's training policy agenda to this date.The Democrats' family tax initiative will start removing the inconsistency between government social security and tax policy where students up to 25 years are treated as dependent on their parents under the youth allowance parental means test, but are not treated as dependants for the purposes of the family tax system.You will recall, Mr Acting Deputy President, that the youth allowance bill passed the Senate only after Senator Harradine received assurance from the Prime Minister that families would be looked after in tax reform. The problem is that the 46,000 families affected cannot wait that long. The youth allowance takes effect on 1 July and tax cuts which would assist that situation are likely to be several years away.The amendment to reinstate the tax exemption for apprenticeship incentives will reverse the $440 cut in the value of the incentives for small businesses during an apprenticeship which the government estimates would save it $133 million. I will speak at greater length in the committee stage. The Australian Democrats will be supporting the bill with those amendments that we put.12:19:001383Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—The Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 5) 1997 contains three major issues. The collection of sales tax on sale of personal computers is fairly non-contentious. It is something the industry has looked for in order to ensure that all businesses are on equal footing.The next issue is capital gains tax, with an extension of the capital gains roll-over relief. Originally this seemed to be sold as a retirement measure to allow small businesses to sell their business without paying full capital gains tax and provide for their retirement, or to roll the money from a sale over into superannuation or some other investment vehicle. Then it was extended to rolling over in terms of sale of assets or a business to buy similar assets or businesses. But the criteria remained that the businesses must somehow be productive enterprises actually producing goods and services, and that the sale must be of those businesses or active assets of those businesses, with the purpose of buying similar assets or businesses.Now we see a further extension well beyond any normal sense of either rolling over a small business or selling a small business for retirement. The government wants to lose $90 million of taxpayers' money by exempting from capital gains tax some people who sell shares in their business, or to unit trusts which operate a small business. I know this will pass with ALP support, so I will say that I do not think, in this period of economic slash and burn of all social programs and crack-down on students, youth, the aged, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders, and anyone else who is vulnerable, that expansion of relief of capital gains is a good idea.I recognise that it may help some people who could legitimately be called small business people. I wonder how many real battlers would be included in that. In any case, I think this is part of a general shift away from income based taxes and taxes on capital generally, and a shift of the tax burden to consumption. As such, this is a problematic measure and we will not support it. The prospect of a GST, by any name we care to give it, will directly increase the level of taxation paid by the poorer section of the community, all of whom must consume to live, regardless of their income. Unless we are talking about axing taxes overall, and therefore axing the ability of government to provide some public services, then we will have to put quite substantial taxes on goods. There is no way I will be convinced that anyone making less than the average weekly wage will pay less tax if the level of government revenue is to be maintained.A primary reason to increase consumption taxes is precisely to increase the tax burden to ordinary consumers, so that it can be decreased to those who use their money as a tool for investment and creation of wealth. Further measures to reduce capital gains taxes are completely in line with that objective.The third major aspect of this bill is the new infrastructure borrowing provisions. These are the flip side of the earlier changes last year to the old infrastructure borrowing scheme in which the provision of incentives for private infrastructure provision for power, rail, sewerage and other areas were eliminated. A new scheme was announced which would provide funding only to land transport. When this occurred last year, there was a measure of outrage. Not only were projects such as co-generation facilities being axed from the scheme, but the major focus of the new scheme was to be government subsidies for private motorways. Even the Labor Party saw the folly in that. But this government loves roads and loves privatising things even more.The Greens still find the changes unacceptable. Some of the projects in the old scheme were not ones we would support, but certainly there is an opportunity to include power projects that work actively to dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Continuing support for co-generation could be augmented by support of power generation from renewable sources—wouldn't that be nice? This would be particularly beneficial in rural communities where often power generation is not by coal but by diesel generator. Many of the power plants in more remote towns are most likely to be operated by private industry since there is no commitment at all by public utilities to make sure these services are available at the prices we currently see.There is significant scope for incentives for a wide range of projects which represent innovative solutions to significant and widespread technical problems facing our population. We need energy. We need to find ways of producing that energy without producing large levels of pollution which have both local and global impact. We also need to find ways for both remote homesteads and remote towns to have power without subsidising the massive expense of either overextended grids or diesel power plants.We also need to address the problem of water. Water is in short supply and many rural towns have very primitive means of treating sewage or waste water. This waste water frequently ends up polluting both ground water reserves and rivers. There are significant improvements in sewage treatment that have been developed and are in use in some towns. Support for such infrastructure projects are another area where incentives may be considered a real benefit. I would also like to point out that, since the problems of pollution from energy production and water use are common to any concentration of people virtually anywhere in the world, solutions we develop here have obvious commercial value, including export value—unlike private motorways.Private motorways have seemed like a good deal to various governments, but more often than not the deals governments do to get such projects up mean that, if there is a profit, the private sector wins and, if there are problems, the public loses. Currently, there are a number of private motorways that are in very poor shape as a result of insufficient funds. In any case, from the Greens' perspective, we do not support a transport system in which each person wishing to go to work or to the shop has to go for several miles taking their own private tonne of steel around with them. This seems neither healthy and efficient nor sustainable. It is far better, first, to have an urban structure that supports walking or cycling rather than driving and, second, to have reliable, frequent and inexpensive public transport for journeys that are too long for walking.We, therefore, support urban restructuring programs, such as elements of the previous better cities program, or support rail and bus services. To the extent that we can support any of the government's current infrastructure scheme, we can support only the rail section. We would like it to be pushed to explicitly include light rail systems, which form relatively inexpensive options for public mass transport.12:26:001385Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—I rise to address one aspect of the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 5) 1997 . I know that the general position of the Australian Democrats has already been eloquently outlined by Senator Andrew Murray on our behalf. Today we are debating an omnibus tax bill with which the Senate has a great opportunity. We have, I believe, a rare opportunity to actually make an impact on this government's anti-unemployed policies. I wish to discuss only two aspects of the bill. The first of these is a measure it contains to repeal the tax exemption for apprenticeships and the second is a measure I intend to move to complete some unfinished business arising out of the common youth allowance legislation.The bill before us proposes to eliminate the tax exempt status of payments under the CRAFT scheme—the Commonwealth rebate for apprentices in full-time training. Under this scheme, the Commonwealth pays $2,500 to employers as an incentive to take on new apprentices. Half of this was paid up front with the other half being paid as the apprenticeship progressed. The payment was tax free. However, in the 1997 budget the government announced that the tax-free status of CRAFT payments would be abolished. To compensate for this, employers would receive a $1,500 payment on completion of an apprenticeship. This, according to the budget papers, would return to the employers the `approximate value' of the old CRAFT exemption.Immediately the Democrats were a little concerned that the new arrangements may not actually achieve this approximate value. Why? Because the numbers do not add up. The budget papers say that the abolition of the CRAFT rebate will save around $135 million, yet the replacement extra incentive payments will cost only $52 million. That is a gap of around $83 million. In other words, the value of incentives paid to employers will fall by $83 million over the next three years. So I ask the government: what is the `approximate value' in that? Where is it?Take the case of a larger company or a larger business, the after tax value of the commencement and progression payments for an apprenticeship fall from $2,500 now to around $1,600—a drop of $900 tax. When the apprenticeship is completed, which usually takes around three to four years, the after tax value of the final payment will be $960. So the approximate value is achieved only three to four years later than it is now. Does the government honestly believe that that will encourage companies, specifically larger businesses, to take on more apprentices? I doubt it.For smaller businesses, the vast majority of which are unincorporated, the situation is even worse. The after tax value of early payments is reduced from $2,500 to $1,288—a drop of more than $1,200. Three to four years later, the after tax value of the final payment will be a further $773, but they are still worse off to the tune of $427 over the life of the apprenticeship. That I suspect goes some way towards explaining the $83 million budget saving.So the question for the Senate becomes, why on earth should we cutting subsidies for apprenticeships by $83 million at this particular point in time. The Democrats do not believe it is an appropriate time to make such cuts, if indeed at all. Perhaps the argument would be acceptable if the number of apprenticeships was rising rapidly, but it is not. In fact, apprenticeship starts have fallen sharply over the past two years: from 49,742 in 1995 to 43,930 in 1996, to just 40,495 in 1997. Clearly, when apprenticeships are falling around 18.4 per cent over two years, now is not the time to be cutting incentives for new apprenticeships.The second matter I wish to address—and I will do so in the committee stage; I will actually move some amendments following the common youth allowance debate—is that Senators may recall that, as a consequence of that new legislation as of 1 July 1998—and it is very difficult to estimate the exact number of families and young people who will be affected by these measures, but using government estimates, as we have all along—as many as 46,000 young unemployed Australians and their families will be left out of pocket. This is because the government believes that if a young person is unemployed then, obviously, they cannot be regarded as an independent adult at the age of 18. In fact, the government has set the age of independence for a young person who is unemployed at 21. Similarly, we find these ages of independence quite concocted as they apply to students, and that debate saw the redefining of the age of independence for a young person or a student as 25—quite outrageous. Youth allowance eligibility is to be based on parental income, not the income of the young adults. So, if the family earns more than a paltry $23,400 per annum, then this government will start taking money away from them.The Democrats believe, and we said this throughout the debate on the common youth allowance legislation, that this is a remarkable attack on Australian families—not only on young people, but on their families, specifically, lower and middle income families. Let us face it, $23,400 per annum is not even average earnings; it is a very small amount for a parental means test, or any means test for that matter, to kick in. But it follows on from the extraordinary decision in previous budgets to deem young Australians in higher education as, of course, not mature enough to be regarded as independent adults capable of leaving the family financial unit until they turn 25. That particular measure, which we strongly opposed, that is, the defining of independence at age 25 for young people in education and training, cost about 8,000 Australian families a collective $62 million this year alone.When it comes to giving out income assistance, this government regards young Australians as children, still dependent on their families until age 21 if they are unemployed, up until the age of 25 if they are in higher education. However, when it comes to giving families some form of assistance, primarily in terms of family tax rebates or social security payments to keep their dependants, the government then changes its tune and says these people cease to be child dependants at age 18.Clearly, there is a huge inconsistency in treatment here. Indeed, Senator Harradine was so concerned about this particular matter and the impact it would have on families that during the youth allowance debate he had a chat with the Prime Minister, and possibly the Social Security Minister, and the Prime Minister assured him that he would fix this problem in the context of tax reform debates and discussions. With his concerns alleviated, Senator Harradine then voted to cut the incomes of thousands of families across Australia. We do not know what is in that tax reform package. We have had no guarantees from the government or the Prime Minister specifically. We have had no specifics outlined as to what might be in that package. We do not know when it will start. What we do know though is, that from 1 July this year, potentially 46,000 Australian families will lose money because adult children are regarded as dependants, but are denied access to the family tax rebate relief in respect of those children.So, as an interim measure, until the as yet unspecified tax relief arrives or kicks in, the Democrats will be moving to extend to those families, and to the roughly 8,000 families who had their Austudy cut last year, the benefit of the basic family tax rebate. True, receiving a mooted $200 annual rebate after losing up to $90 a week youth allowance is small fry, but at least it is a start. At least it moves the definition of family in the tax system closer to the new emerging definition of family and adult status, independent status, the government is using in the social security system. I understand this government is all for consistency in legislation, so let us have a bit of consistency here.The Democrats will be interested to see, of course, how Senator Harradine approaches this amendment to be moved by the Democrats. It is entirely consistent with his comments during the youth allowance debate and it provides some measure of relief to those 46,000 Australian families he spoke about so passionately during his speech in the second reading debate on the common youth allowance legislation. I certainly hope that all senators, including Senator Harradine, will not be parties to what we consider a mean-fisted approach by government that says we will include young adults in families to take money off them, but will exclude them when we are giving them some form of assistance.12:36:001387Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I will necessarily be brief in my summing up. At the outset, may I thank all of those honourable senators who contributed to the debate on Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 5) 1997 . I need to respond, however, to a number of matters that were raised by contributors to this debate and particularly to the accusation made by Senator Cook at the opening of the debate when he said that the government for some reason had delayed or stalled bringing on this bill. I must say I find that accusation to be—I will not say an act of hypocrisy, because that is unparliamentary—rather bizarre coming from the Australian Labor Party.The history of this bill is that it was introduced last year. It is a complicated matter. We are trying to replace a failed piece of legislation from the previous government with a regime that is sustainable and delivers benefits to Australia. This bill was referred to the Senate Economics Legislation Committee. That committee delayed its reporting date twice—once from 25 November to 26 November and then further to 2 December.If this chamber had dealt with the legislative program in a sensible way instead of taking days and weeks to deal with bills that could have taken hours, this bill would have been passed and certainty would have been returned to the people affected and Australia well before Christmas last year. The reason it is being debated now, halfway through the third sitting week of 1998, instead of in November or December last year, is that honourable senators on the other side of the chamber chose to speak for hundreds of hours on other bills making it impossible for this bill to be debated in 1997. Had Australian Labor Party senators and other senators decided to curtail debate on the Native Title Amendment Bill for a few hours, you would have been able to—656FORSHAWSenator Forshaw—Oh!H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—For even an hour or two, Senator Forshaw.656FORSHAWSenator Forshaw—An unimportant matter, is it?H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—No, it is a very important matter—60 something hours worth of importance. It is a matter of priorities.I say to Senator Cook and his colleagues that they should not come whingeing to us that they cannot return certainty to taxpayers because we, for some reason, have not been diligent in trying to get this legislation through when we have been asking for it week after week, day after day. They come in here and say that we have been in some way negligent when they spent 60 something hours on one bill. Last year, the Australian Labor Party ensured that the Senate spent 100 hours passing three pieces of legislation. The hypocrisy is breathtaking.As Manager of Government Business in the Senate and Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer, I know that we wanted Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 5) before Christmas. There was no way in the world that the Australian Labor Party was going to give it to us. We will probably have this debate when Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 7) comes in. If they have their way, they will delay Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 7) until late this year. In case they come in here and say, `Why didn't you do this in April?', I put it on the record that we want that bill passed before Easter. Labor is saying, `No, you cannot have it. We want you to send it off to a committee.' That bill was introduced last December.AX5EVANSSenator Chris Evans—Have you finished your amendments yet?H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—If you want to talk about amendments, Senator Evans, you go back through the Hansard and pull up Senator Bob McMullan, senator for the ACT, and see how many entries you get about bringing in amendments to tax laws amendment bills in this place in the six years before you got here. Every day you would get a new amendment. The officers here would know because most of them were sitting here at the time.It is complete hypocrisy for the Australian Labor Party to say that we could not get our tax laws through because we are a bit slow. We are ready to do Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 7) next week. We would have done Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 5) last December if those opposite had allowed us to do so.There are a number of other matters that were raised in the debate. I think they are all matters that can be dealt with in detail during the committee stage. I therefore conclude by thanking honourable senators for their contributions.Senator Chris Evans interjecting—H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—Senator Evans, there are two things that I have a close involvement with in this place. One is trying to manage the government's program through this place and the other is being Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer. I know very well that we wanted Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 5) and I know very well why we did not get it. For Senator Cook to come in here and say that it was our fault is absolutely absurd. If Senator Cook can say that with a straight face then he is a very clever man and he would make a very good poker player. I would like him on my side. What a joke.There are other matters that were raised in the debate. We do not have time to discuss them now. I would like to see the second reading vote taken before the luncheon adjournment. I undertake to senators to deal during the committee stage with the detailed matters that were raised during the debate. I commend the bill to the Senate.Amendment agreed to.Original question, as amended, resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Hogg)—Order! It being almost 12.45 p.m., we will move to the consideration of non-controversial legislation.Bills1388r305Billsr3061388Debate resumed from 25 November 1997, on motion by Senator Ian Campbell:That these bills be now read a second time.12:44:001388Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—I indicate on behalf of the opposition that we support the passage of the Ballast Water Research and Development Funding Levy Bill 1997 and the Ballast Water Research and Development Funding Levy Collection Bill 1997 . A couple of my colleagues wish to make some comments on this very important legislation. I will make some brief remarks. The bills establish a levy to be collected from ships entering Australian ports to provide funds for the strategic ballast water research and development program. The levy amounts to be collected are of the order of $210 for bulk carriers and $140 for other ships, including tankers of 50 metres or greater in length.The funds will be used for the purposes of conducting further research into the problems associated with discharge of ballast water and hull fouling on ships entering Australian ports. The research is directed to finding ways of improving the management and the treatment of ballast water. There have been identified serious problems associated with the discharge of ballast water in Australian ports. Indeed, in 1994, just prior to entering this parliament, I visited the CSIRO fisheries establishment in Hobart and saw some of the work being done there. I was given an excellent briefing on the harmful exotic species that can come into this country and be released into our waters as a result of the discharge of ballast water. In turn, those exotic species can devastate our fishing industry. I am sure my colleagues Senator Sherry, particularly, and Senator O'Brien will be able to comment further on the problems that have occurred in Tasmania in the shellfish industry and the fishing industry as a result.This is also legislation that brings to fruition initiatives started by the previous Labor government. In particular, Senator Sherry was very involved in that process in his capacity as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Primary Industries. Mr Acting Deputy President, I am conscious of the time and indicate, on behalf of the opposition, that we support the passage of these bills. We also note that the government has proposed minor amendments to the levy collectionbill—they are technical amendments—which we accept.12:47:001389Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRYZW4TASALP00—I have in my hand a sample of ballast water taken from a ship. It was presented to me in my capacity as chair of the ballast water working group when I was parliamentary secretary. All I can suggest is that I would not drink it.ZS6QUIRKESenator Quirke—It looks like good old Adelaide tap water.ZW4Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRY—I can assure you, it is significantly worse than Adelaide tap water. What is significant is that there are 154 million tonnes of this water coming into the Australian jurisdiction every year.I want to make a few comments. Obviously, we are speaking in support of this legislation, and I congratulate the government for the initiative of proposing a levy to support ballast water research. Australians have a very significant and justified interest in this issue. Until recent years, ballast water has not been recognised as a significant environmental issue but, fortunately, that recognition is growing.Australia, as an island continent, has enjoyed relative isolation from exotic pests and diseases. As a major exporter, we are a net importer of considerable amounts of ballast water. In fact, 121 million tonnes—on the last figures I have available for 1991-92—was discharged from more than 6,000 vessels arriving in Australia's 40 ports. These vessels come from some 300 ports in 53 countries.Seaborn transport is unfortunately a haven for unwanted aquatic organisms which effectively hitchhike their way around the globe. There are at least 15 unwanted aquatic organisms that have made their way to Australia via ships' ballast. Some of these are already having an adverse effect on the marine environment.With respect to my home state of Tasmania, perhaps the best known of these is the Northern Pacific sea star, scientifically known as asterius amurensis—which is believed to have been in Tasmanian waters since 1986, causing havoc in Tasmania's shellfish farming industries—and a brown kelp known as Undaria pinnatfida from Japan, and that has spread along Tasmania's east coast, with a significant adverse effect on the abalone industry. From time to time, toxic algal blooms also cause the closure of seafood production areas in various parts of this country.Domestically, we are also vulnerable to the movement of organisms in ballast water between our ports. The introduced species that I have referred to relocate around the country in ships' ballasts. Any strategy must limit the risk of translocation of these and other introductions between Australian ports. Australia's efforts on this issue have seen ballast water placed not just firmly on Australia's agenda but also on the international agenda, and much has been done in this country in the last 10 years.I would particularly like to acknowledge the work of the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service which, more often than not, receives criticism rather than praise. They have been at the forefront of developments on ballast water and over the last decade they have been responsible for the organising of symposiums and conferences, and coordinating the work of the ballast water working group that I had the good fortune to be a part of. I must say, it was not an issue I had any particular interest in or even dreamt of becoming involved in when I entered politics. That ballast water working group set out a strategy for research, for the management, for the control of ballast water and the various unwanted aquatic organisms.One of the central issues that we had to address was how to fund the research into the management of ballast water. Certainly, when we were in government, the working group received significant funding from industry. I cannot recall the figures in detail offhand, but I would like to acknowledge that the industry, and particularly the shipping industry, voluntarily contributed significant amounts of money towards the research into the ballast water problem.At that time, we considered the option of a levy on the industry, and that is what is contained in the bills that we are now considering. It was felt, initially at least, that we should see what degree of cooperation we would receive from the shipping industry particularly in this regard with respect to financing, and then look at a levy at a later date to assist the funding of research and management into this very important area.Certainly, in considering a levy, it was felt that if the problem is to be dealt with in an equitable financial way, the entire industry would have to pull its weight. That is one of the reasons why we are considering the levy strategy today.As I said, ballast water management is a major environmental issue. I can confidently say that Australia is leading the world in respect of research and management of this very significant environmental problem. I am certainly pleased with the recognition of the work done when Labor was in government. I am also pleased to see this government continuing to prioritise ballast water research and management, as is reflected in the legislation we are considering today. It is a major environmental issue and it is pleasing to see that major recognition being continued by the government. It is a great pleasure to support this legislation.12:54:001390O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—In following Senator Sherry, I think it is important to acknowledge that a number of people have had a role to play in this matter. Hopefully, I will touch upon the value of both Senator Sherry's and Senator Collins's work earlier, and that of the government in introducing this legislation.We have before us two bills that, on the face of it, appear to be quite simple. The first, the Ballast Water Research and Development Funding Levy Bill, is to set criteria for, and details of, the imposition of a levy on certain ships entering Australian ports in order to provide funds for the strategic ballast research and development program. The second, the Ballast Water Research and Development Funding Levy Collection Bill, actually imposes the levy on those ships.While the bills are simple, the research effort they will fund—the development of strategies to prevent the spread of unwanted aquatic organisms through the ballast water released from ships—is far more complex and very important. Both the problem and the research effort under way to deal with that problem are very important to Tasmania because, as Senator Sherry said earlier, the waters around Tasmania already suffer from problems associated with introduced exotic marine species.Brown kelp, which, as Senator Sherry said, comes from Japan, was discovered on the east coast of Tasmania in 1989. It is a real problem for abalone sites as well as oyster and mussel farms. The North Pacific seastar, which has been present in Tasmania's Derwent Estuary since the early 1980s, is a problem which has spread along about 200 kilometres of the Tasmanian coastline, further putting at risk Tasmania's shellfish industry. It is suspected that both these pests were introduced by ballast water. So there is an environmental imperative and an economic imperative in Tasmania to develop strategies to ensure that no further exotic pests are introduced into our coastal waters.As I said earlier, these bills are also important for Tasmania as we have in that state one of the top four major research centres in the field of ballast water research in the world—the Centre for Research on Introduced Marine Pests, CRIMP. It is vital that this research centre, which is located in Hobart, is successful in attracting some of this additional funding generated by the levy to continue its important work.The centre has a key role in the Australian ballast water research program. In 1996-97 the program was funded by the international shipping industry and the Australian Maritime Safety Authority. In 1997-98 the Commonwealth provided a further $1 million. This levy will provide a further $1 million per annum for the implementation of the program in 1998-99 and 1999-2000.The outcomes of this research program are central to the development of effective ballast water management policies. The program is focused on the development of a risk assessment framework as an effective management tool for the Australian Quarantine Inspection Service, other relevant agencies and state port authorities. As I said, CRIMP has played a central role in all of this.Knowledge both in Australia and internationally regarding the scientific and technological issues relating to the management of ballast water are not well advanced. However, because of the initiatives taken by the former government and now, I am pleased to say, carried on by this government, research in Australia is being accumulated far more quickly than in the past. Tasmania, through the Centre for Research on Introduced Marine Pests, together with the additional funding from the arrangements we have before us, will continue to be at the forefront of this effort to manage ballast water and the problems it brings with it.12:58:001391Hogg, Sen JohnSenator HOGG7L6QLDALP00—It is not normally the case for a piece of legislation like this to attract such attention, but I must thank my colleague Senator Ray for drawing my attention to this matter being listed on the business sheet because it is a very important piece of legislation. Having participated last year in an inquiry into marine and coastal pollution, I wanted to dwell for a few moments on the importance of this legislation.The report on marine and coastal pollution that was brought down by the Environment, Recreation, Communications and the Arts References Committee in October last year clearly identified the problems at our doorstep in respect of ballast water from ships.My colleague Senator Sherry referred to some earlier figures. By way of an update on those figures, in order to look at the enormity of the problem—and this came out in a submission to the committee from AQIS—there are 150 million tonnes of ship ballast water discharged into Australia's 64 international ports each year by 10,000 vessels from 300 overseas ports. The AQIS submission went on to say that there are 34 million tonnes of ballast water being moved by domestic shipping each year from one Australian port to another. What we have here is a major problem at our doorstep. The report was fairly comprehensive in its analysis of the problems caused by ballast water. It stated:There is no known case of successful eradication of an established exotic marine species.The report went on to say:According to SOMER, the most cost-effective treatment for infected or suspect tanks is ocean exchange of ballast waters by emptying and refilling ballast tanks. But it also went on to say:Recent Australian research into methods of using heat generated by ships' engines to kill marine organisms in ballast water has been promising and trials are under way.This bill adds to the research that will take place. That was one of the things that was highlighted to me in the inquiry—that is, the general lack of research that we conduct into our marine environment. So this is undoubtedly very welcome legislation that the government is bringing forward today, and I commend the legislation to the Senate.13:00:001392Troeth, Sen JudithSenator TROETHGX5VICLP10—I thank honourable senators for their comments. It is important to realise that this debate has reflected the importance of research and development to the minimisation of the risks to Australia's coastal waters from the introduction of marine pests and disease pathogens via ships' ballast water. It has also recognised the very important contribution made by the shipping industry to fund research and development aimed at more effective ballast water management arrangements. I am pleased to see their support for resolving the risks which are posed by ships' ballast water to the environment. That support is to be commended and is testimony to the important partnership between industry and government, and it complements the government's commitment to Australia's coastal environment through the oceans policy and the clean seas initiative.The legislation allows the collection of $2 million over two years for the strategic ballast water research and development program developed by the advisory council and administered by the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service. The research and development program has several exciting projects planned, and I only hope that the research projects do something to lessen the colour of the water that was demonstrated by Senator Sherry. That was indeed an alarming indicator of the problem we need to tackle, so I do thank him for providing that very graphic illustration.It is important to point out that in 1990 Australia was the first country to introduce national ballast water management guidelines for international vessels visiting an Australian port as first port of call. This government has endorsed the management strategy and in 1996 appointed an Australian Ballast Water Management Advisory Council to advise and assist it in implementing the strategy. The research and development program is a key element of this.It is important to point out also that this is the first voluntary shipping levy for ballast water research and development in the world and it will be the subject of discussion at the International Maritime Organisation meeting next week. We have also been prominent in that organisation in securing a target date of the year 2000 for the introduction of a mandatory international regulatory framework through a new ballast water annex to Marpol, the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships. This levy will make it possible to achieve more effective ballast water management arrangements and also enable us to work towards a total solution to the ballast water problem. I commend the bill to the Senate.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills read a second time.1392BALLAST WATER RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT FUNDING LEVY COLLECTION BILL 199710000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—The government amendments to the Ballast Water Research and Development Funding Levy Collection Bill 1997 have been presented in the form of requests. This is not the bill which imposes a levy so it is amendable by the Senate. There appears to be no reason for the amendments to be taken in the form of requests. The supplementary memorandum accompanying the amendments states that they have no financial impact. They will therefore be treated as amendments.The bill.13:04:001392Troeth, Sen JudithSenator TROETHGX5VICLP10—I table a supplementary explanatory memorandum relating to the government amendments to be moved to this bill. This memorandum was circulated in the chamber on 3 March 1998.I seek leave to move the amendments together.Leave granted.1393Troeth, Sen JudithSenator TROETHGX5VICLP10—I move:(1) Clause 3, page 2 (lines 14 and 15), omit the definition of Fund.(2) Clause 3, page 2 (after line 24), the definition of quarter , insert: Reserve means the Strategic Ballast Water Research and Development Reserve established under section 11.(3) Part 3, clauses 11 to 13, page 7 (lines 2 to 20), omit the Part, substitute:Part 3— The Strategic Ballast Water Research and Development Reserve11 Establishment of Reserve (1) There is established a Strategic Ballast Water Research and Development Reserve. (2) The purpose of the Reserve is to provide funding for the Strategic Ballast Water Research and Development Program. (3) The Reserve is a component of the Reserved Money Fund. (4) If interest is received by the Commonwealth from the investment of money from the Reserve, an amount equal to the interest must be transferred to the Reserve from the Consolidated Revenue Fund.12 Transfers to Reserve There is to be transferred to the Reserve from the Consolidated Revenue Fund amounts equal to the amounts of levy received by the Commonwealth.Amendments agreed to.Bill, as amended, agreed to.BALLAST WATER RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT FUNDING LEVY BILL 1997Bill agreed to.Ballast Water Research and Development Funding Levy Collection Bill 1997 reported with amendments and Ballast Water Research and Development Funding Levy Bill 1997 reported without amendments; report adopted.1393Bills (on motion by Senator Troeth) read a third time.Bills1393r4071393Debate resumed from 12 March, on motion by Senator Ian Macdonald:That this bill be now read a second time.13:07:001393Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—The opposition supports the Customs and Excise Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1998 . It is a bill which has changed its name since it was in the House of Representatives, when it was called the Customs and Excise Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1997. This is because there was a government amendment which sought to remove the proposed reduction in the entry threshold for goods imported through the post, leaving it at the existing $1,000 threshold. That was to take into account the views of the current Joint Committee of Public Accounts inquiry into the area—views which are also likely to recommend further changes in the future. We do not oppose the amendment which is now incorporated in the bill before the Senate.The bill also seeks to amend the Australian Postal Corporation Act 1989 to correct an anomaly in the exercise of Customs' power of the examination of mail arriving into Australia from external territories. The bill also makes several technical amendments to the Customs Act 1901 and the Excise Act 1901.As I said, these are minor amendments. We do not oppose the bill, but we do indicate that we acknowledge the reference to the Australian Postal Corporation in the bill. We recognise Australia Post as a successful government business enterprise and, in doing so, put on record once again our opposition to the National Competition Council's report into Australia Post—a report which recommended the dismantling of the reserve letter service, by opening up competition in the business and international letter market. Having said that, can I say that the actual amendments in this legislation are minor and we do not oppose them.13:08:001393Troeth, Sen JudithSenator TROETHGX5VICLP10—I thank senators for their contributions and commend the bill to the Senate.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.Bills1394r3891394Debate resumed from 24 March, on motion by Senator Troeth:That this bill be now read a second time.13:10:001394Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—The Chemical Weapons (Prohibition) Amendment Bill 1997 is not considered to be controversial. I want to put something in perspective in relation to Australia's view and the international view on chemical weapons. I guess part of the pressure for the amendments in the Chemical Weapons (Prohibition) Amendment Bill is because of the international issues relating to Iraq, but that perspective should include reference to a report which was written by Alan Friedman, from New York, entitled The Middle East: Washington gave green light to Iraq sales . The report stated:The official admitted that the equipment went to IRAQ because the policies of the Reagan and Bush administrations permitted trade and were aimed first at bolstering Mr Saddam Hussein during the 1980-88 war with Iran and later (in 1988-90) at selling the Iraqi president technology in an attempt to encourage him to be more moderate.There seems to be some evidence that the Iraqi crisis in 1990 had some very important commercial considerations for the United States. The reason I mention this is that I do not think those commercial considerations are a thing of the past. I would like to read from a small, half-page article written by Paul McGeough, from the West Australian newspaper, on 26 February 1998. He said:While the struggle for control of chemical and biological weapons intensifies in the Gulf, another arms race has already been decided. The United States has a dominant role in the region's thriving arms bazaar, though Britain and France have also cornered a reasonable slice. The end of the Cold War in the 1980s heralded a slump for arms dealers, until Iraq's 1990 invasion of Kuwait. Since then the region has spent more than $130 billion on the most sophisticated weapons available. The Washington-based International Institute for Strategic Studies rates oil-rich Saudi Arabia as the region's biggest arms buyer . . . Second was Egypt, with more than $3 billion. The institute's figures show the US controlled almost 43 per cent of the international arms trade in 1996, more than the combined sales of the increasingly competitive Britain and France. More than two-thirds of US weapons sales are in the Middle East, where tension has been high through the 1990s because of setbacks to the Israeli peace process, concern about Iran's nuclear and missile programs, Iraqi intransigence and fundamentalist violence in Algeria. The White House has helped protect the interests of American defence contractors and their workers. Bill Clinton has become the first President to order expressly that the evaluation of proposed arms deals includes their impact on the defence industry. Under Mr Clinton, US contractors have consolidated their stranglehold on the world market. Contractors such as Lockheed have pressured the Pentagon for permission to upgrade the technology on offer to would-be buyers in the Middle East. The Washington Post reported last year that Mr Clinton urged United Arab Emirates leader Sheik Zayed bin Sultan Nahayan to buy American when he wanted 80 new jet fighters in 1995. A Pentagon team was dispatched to a big arms fair in the UAE. The US Army assistant secretary for research, development and acquisition, Gilbert Decker, worked the American pavilion to support big US contractors. Mr Decker told the Post: "If we don't deal, someone else will, and it might not be in as controlled a Manner."Gosh, have we heard that before? The article continued:But the UAE placed its first-batch order for 34 combat aircraft with the French dealer Dassault Aviation. The deal was expected to be worth $8 billion. US enthusiasm for the arms trade belies historic ironies. In the l970s, Islamic revolutionaries in Iran acquired US weapons, so the US and its allies armed Iraq—only to be facing their own weapons in the Gulf crisis. The renewed tension since then has prompted a flood of arms imports. Saudi Arabia is estimated to spend about a third of its budget on defence. Oman spends about half.I would just like to make it clear that there are three countries in the world which are acknowledged as having chemical weapons. They are the United States, Russia and Iraq, but there may well be lots of other countries that have not come clean.I just wonder when was the last time UNSCOM demanded to inspect the Pentagon in the United States. With all the hand-on-heart statements that we have heard about the outrage when United States weapons inspectors were not originally welcomed into the presidential palaces of Iraq, I just wonder whether or not this perspective has been put to the community of the world and the community of Australia. I think there is a lot that needs to be done and, if we are going to take any action in support or otherwise of international actions against weapons of mass destruction, we must make sure that our slate is clean and that the slate of our allies is in the same condition.13:16:001395Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—There is not much for the opposition to add, other than we support the Chemical Weapons (Prohibition) Amendment Bill 1997 .13:16:001395Troeth, Sen JudithSenator TROETHGX5VICLP10—I thank honourable senators for their comments and commend the Chemical Weapons (Prohibition) Amendment Bill 1997 to the Senate.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.Sitting suspended from 1.18 p.m. to 2.00 p.m.Questions Without Notice139513951395Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—My question is to Senator Parer, the Minister for Resources and Energy.Government senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Cook, wait a moment. Thank you. I call Senator Cook.RF4Senator COOK—Minister, I refer to your statement of 11 March when you said, in regard to your family trust, and I quote you, `it is not a tax lurk or anything like that'. If it is not a tax lurk, why do you hold your $2 million of coal shares in your family trust and not in your own name? Is it not a fact, Minister, that you are able to minimise tax through splitting the trust income between your family members, or by holding profits undistributed until a later time to be taxed at a lower rate? Isn't this how your trust will deal with dividend streams such as the $850,000 received since 1993 from your coal shares?1395Parer, Sen WarwickSenator PARERKI4QLDLPResources and Energy10—Madam President, the question asked by Senator Cook, I might say, does not relate to my portfolio areas. But let me also add that all these questions were canvassed yesterday and the day before, and I have nothing more add to what I said previously. Let me also say that the general public out there are sick and tired of this muckraking by the other side, and they want us to get back to the real issue of the investment in the creation of jobs.1395Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Minister, I note your refusal to answer the direct question about your affairs. Perhaps you might answer this question: Minister, isn't this tax lurk completely unaffected by your recent revision of arrangements? Isn't it another of the dubious features of family trusts that you can be reinstated as controlling shareholder and director at the instant you cease being a minister, with access to dividends received by the trust while you were minister for coal?1395Parer, Sen WarwickSenator PARERKI4QLDLPResources and Energy10—There is nothing new in those questions; they have been asked day in and day out. I have nothing further to add to the comments I have made on previous days.13951395Chapman, Sen GrantSenator CHAPMANFF4SALP10—My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Given my long concern about improving the situation on Australia's waterfront, I am concerned that the strike by the Maritime Union at Port Botany will cause unnecessary damage to Australian businesses and threaten thousands of jobs, and that it is also undermining Australia's international trading reputation. What is the attitude of the government to the standover tactics of the Maritime Union, and what would be the consequences if alternative policies were pursued? 1396Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment10—Senator Chapman has good reason to be concerned about this vital issue. It is incredible, really, that issues of importance are now only raised from the government side of this chamber. He raises it to the background of good news for job seekers today, with the DEETYA skilled vacancy index rising 1.3 per cent in trend terms, which is up 14.1 per cent on the same time last year. There we have, as a result of the government's actions, job opportunities increasing; and as a background to that we have the Maritime Union continuing to undermine the job prospects of Australians, and the Labor Party remaining silent on the issue.Why does the Labor Party refuse to address the issue of the rorts on the waterfront and the cost of those rorts to all Australians? We know the answer to that: it is because they are the wholly owned subsidiary of the union movement. If the maritime unions want them to turn a blind eye, they turn a blind eye. This is a vitally important issue in the interests of all Australians. What did we see from the Labor Party yesterday in relation to the 50,000 jobs that the small business association told us could have been produced under the unfair dismissal laws if they were reformed? The Labor Party voted against it. Fifty thousand potential jobs were lost because the Labor Party was not interested in creating jobs.It is exactly the same principle in relation to the Labor Party's attitude to the waterfront. The Labor Party was told 10 years ago that if Australia were to have an efficient waterfront they would have to get rid of rorts and inefficiencies. The advice to the Labor government was contained in the Inter-State Commission report. It stated—and I remind you—that although there was general agreement that the number of waterfront unions should be reduced, more concern was expressed in the second round about possible abuses of power by a single maritime union. That is exactly what we see today.But, of course, the Labor Party cannot face up to the rorts being performed by that single maritime union. What we want to hear today from the Labor Party is: does the Labor Party support a wage increase of $4,500 for what is, according to the latest survey of international shipping companies, world's worst practice? Does the Labor Party support that—a $4,500 increase for world's worst practice? Does the Labor Party support the strike at Port Botany which is costing Australian businesses thousands of dollars, and threatening hundreds of jobs directly and even more jobs indirectly? Does it support the delays which are costing shipping lines $25,000 a day? Sooner or later, the Labor Party is going to have to address some of these questions.We know—we heard it yesterday—that the plan is to be negative; the plan is not to be positive, it is not to develop policies, but to be negative for as long as they possibly can. But they have to start facing up to some of these issues, and they have to do better than what Mr Beazley said was his answer to the waterfront problem. What did he say he would do? He said he would bring in Bob Hawke—bring in Bob Hawke to find a solution!UNKNOWNGovernment senatorsGovernment senators—Ha, ha.BH4Senator HILL—When Bob Hawke was in charge, the Labor government spent $420 million of taxpayers' money on the waterfront, which has left us with the worst waterfront in the world. He is the man that the now Leader of the Opposition, Mr Beazley, wants to bring in to settle the issue rather than develop real alternative policies. Madam President, the people of Australia are about ready to hear some policies from this lot. Time is rapidly running out. (Time expired)1396Chapman, Sen GrantSenator CHAPMANFF4SALP10—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. The minister has told us something of the Labor Party's proposed solution to the problems on the waterfront, but obviously we need to hear how that in fact contrasts with the government's positive approach. I am just wondering whether the minister could provide a contrast between the government's initiatives and what we have heard of the Labor Party's approach.RF4COOKSenator Cook—That's out of order. He can't comment on Labor Party policy.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Hill, speak to the matters that are within your portfolio.1397Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment10—Of course, Madam President. The government is facing up to the issue. The government would actually like to see a competitive waterfront. Out of a competitive waterfront you would have competition and real benefits that flow to all Australians. It is the Labor Party that is against a competitive waterfront because the Maritime Union is against a competitive waterfront. How long is the Labor Party going to be allowed to get away with this?There is nothing that Bob Hawke can do for Mr Beazley to solve the problem on the waterfront if the Labor Party is not going to allow competition. It is no wonder, as I said the other day, that the Courier-Mail puts it in these terms:Two years after its defeat, Labor is lacking policy depth and credibility.They have had two years to start developing some policies in these important areas. Not one policy in any area is yet on the table. Time is running out. If they pretend to be an alternative government, they have got to start telling the people of Australia what they stand for. (Time expired)Distinguished Visitors139710000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—I draw the attention of honourable senators to the presence in the President's Gallery of the state ministers for procurement and construction who are in Canberra for a ministerial council meeting. On behalf of all honourable senators, I welcome you to the Senate and wish you well with your deliberations.UNKNOWNHonourable senatorsHonourable senators—Hear, hear!Questions Without Notice139713971397Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY3L6VICALP00—My question is to the Minister for Resources and Energy. Minister, how many of the beneficiaries of your tax manipulating QCMM—Honourable senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Parer needs to hear the question.3L6Senator CONROY—Minister, how many of the beneficiaries of your tax manipulating QCMM (ESP), described by you as akin to superannuation, were real working employees of a coalmining company? Isn't it the case that every one of the six persons who received shares in the employee share plan was a director of Queensland Coal Mine Management, the major company involved in the operation of the Jellinbah Mine? Isn't it the case that no person who actually digs the coal out of the ground, loads it on to trucks and ships it out was the beneficiary of your amazing retirement scheme? Will you now admit that this was just a scheme to manipulate the tax system at the expense of PAYE taxpayers—the battlers of this country—where you and your mates invested $10 in the morning and were entitled to $1 million by the afternoon?1397Parer, Sen WarwickSenator PARERKI4QLDLPResources and Energy10—Madam President, I pointed out to Senator Cook before—I do not know how many times I have got to point this out—this was debated. The questions were asked yesterday. I answered the questions. I have got nothing further to add. Let me also say that, in regard to taxation questions, under standing order 72(1), they should not be directed to me.1397Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY3L6VICALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Minister, how can you justify this scheme when real miners in Cobar and Woodlawn are refused their just entitlements, including superannuation?N26ABETZSenator Abetz—Madam President, I raise a point of order. Does standing order 196 dealing with tedious repetition apply to the opposition's questions?Government senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! This one seems to relate to Cobar and Woodlawn, which I do not think has been put previously, but I will listen to the question.3L6Senator CONROY—I will repeat it, given the interruption. Minister, how can you justify this scheme, when real miners in Cobar and Woodlawn are refused their just entitlements, including superannuation? How many superannuation schemes have you got and how many do you need?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—There are parts of that question outside your portfolio area, Minister. I suggest you deal only with those that are within it.1398Parer, Sen WarwickSenator PARERKI4QLDLPResources and Energy10—The questions raised by Senator Conroy really have nothing whatsoever to do with my portfolio area.13981398Synon, Sen KarenSenator SYNONFQ6VICLP10—My question is to the Minister for Schools—Honourable senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Just a moment, Senator. Order! Senators on both sides will abide by the standing orders.656FORSHAWSenator Forshaw—Three hundred workers are out of a job.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Forshaw!Senator Newman interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Newman, cease interjecting.FQ6Senator SYNON—My question is to the Minister for Schools, Vocational Education and Training. The Dusseldorp report titled Australia's youth: reality and risk , on the employment and education of Australia's youth identified the bleak legacy left behind by Labor. Will the minister outline some of the major findings and what the government is doing to address the problem it inherited?1398Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSchools, Vocational Education and Training10—Thank you, Senator Synon, for that excellent question. What this independent report shows is that the years 1985 to 1996—for 10 of which the opposition was in government—painted a very bleak picture indeed for Australia's youth. It is an independent report which looked at the education and labour aspects for young people between the ages of 15 and 19. In fact, Senator Stott Despoja referred to it yesterday. What it found—and Senator Carr might be interested in this—was that the number of young people in TAFE courses fell from 30 per cent to 20 per cent.AW5CARRSenator Carr—I would be interested to know why you cut the subsidy by 40 per cent.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Carr, you can have a question later, if you wish.9X5Senator ELLISON—Apprenticeship commencements under your government, Senator Carr, plummeted during the 1990s, falling by a staggering 44 per cent from 1990 to 1996. In fact, it was in 1992 that we had the peak youth unemployment of over 34 per cent, and who was the then Minister for Unemployment?FQ6SYNONSenator Synon—Kim Beazley.9X5Senator ELLISON—The member for Brand; correct, Senator Synon. It was none other than the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Brand, Kim Beazley. He presided over the highest rate of youth unemployment in seasonally adjusted terms in this country's history. Labor should hang its head in shame at the outcome of this report. What the coalition has done to address this situation is introduce a youth allowance, which will involve expenditure of some $42 million, which will encourage young people to stay at school or return to school.AW5CARRSenator Carr—Some 480,000 are worse off.9X5Senator ELLISON—As well as that, we are devoting $187 million over four years to a school to work program, something which you never did, Senator Carr, when you were in government—AW5CARRSenator Carr—480,000 worse off.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Carr, cease interjecting.9X5Senator ELLISON—It is something which the Labor government never did. We are building a bridge from school to work. The other thing that we are doing is providing some $560 million worth of incentives to employers to provide up to 200,000 new apprenticeship positions in the next two years. Young people can only benefit from this.It is not only Labor but also the Democrats who can take a lesson from this. This is the joke press release from the Democrats, `We'll fight an election on unemployment'. We have not yet seen a policy from them as to what they are going to do on unemployment. In fact, the figures they cite in that press release are quite incorrect.Honourable senators interjecting—9X5Senator ELLISON—At June last year, we had the highest number of apprentices and trainees in training—175,000.Honourable senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Ellison, just a moment. There is far too much noise in the chamber, and it is difficult to hear Senator Ellison. I would ask senators to abide by the standing orders. There are senators near Senator Ellison speaking, which is making it very difficult.9X5Senator ELLISON—Thank you, Madam President; they just do not like what they are hearing. I can tell the Senate right now that we have devoted $13½ billion to a jobs pathway program, which builds another bridge from school to work. Under the coalition government, the youth of Australia have a great future to look forward to—the absolute reverse of what they had under Labor for 10 years, and the Dusseldorf forum was cited as saying that the youth of Australia had a bleak future during those 10 years.Senator Stott Despoja interjecting—9X5Senator ELLISON—The Leader of the Opposition might well say it is easy to be negative, and Senator Stott Despoja might say the same as well. When are we going to see something positive from the Democrats, from the opposition? When are we going to see some policies? When are we going to see what they are going to do for the people of Australia, especially the young people of Australia?N26ABETZSenator Abetz—When are we going to see some policy?Senator Ferguson interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Abetz and Senator Ferguson, cease interjecting while Senator Ellison is answering!9X5Senator ELLISON—I am indebted to Senator Abetz for his interjection. He said, `When are we going to see some policy?' That is what I say too: when are we going to see some policy from the Democrats? When are we going to see it from the opposition, or is it going to be more of the same as the 10 years of a bleak legacy for Australia's youth?13991399Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—My question is directed to Senator Parer, the Minister for Resources and Energy. Minister, do you recall your speech on the Sydney Airport Curfew Bill on 14 November 1995 when you expressed concern for `the battlers who live in suburbs like Leichhardt, Marrickville, Drummoyne, Annandale, Haberfield and so on—the true believers; the Labor heartland'? Minister, how many battlers in the suburbs such as these and right around Australia have access to the contrived superannuation schemes that you were putting in place in 1994 and 1995? How many battlers are able—Government senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Carr, resume your seat. Senators on my right will cease interjecting during the time the question is being asked.AW5Senator CARR—Minister, how many battlers are able to manipulate the taxation system in the same way that you did with QCMM Group (ESP) Pty Ltd while you were a member of this parliament and purporting to represent the battlers of this country?BH4HILLSenator Hill—Madam President, I rise on a point of order. I wonder how that could possibly be within Senator Parer's portfolio. It has no relationship to his responsibilities in this place whatsoever.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—The question has almost no bearing whatever on Senator Parer's portfolio. If there is anything in it that he wishes to deal with, he could have the opportunity to do so.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Madam President, point of order: is it not competent for questions to be directed to the minister in relation to his arrangements, which he has canvassed now in answer to questions for some two weeks?BH4HILLSenator Hill—You canvassed!10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order!5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Madam President, with respect, Senator Parer has been asked similar questions in relation to QCMM Group (ESP) Pty Ltd on a number of occasions. Not before has there been any suggestion that they be ruled out of order. Madam President, you have allowed on every other occasion a question in relation to Senator Parer's business interests both to be asked and to have expected an answer from the minister. I would submit to you that on this occasion it is no different.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—I did not rule the question out of order. I said that it seemed not to relate to the minister's portfolio and that, if there was anything he wished to say on it, he may do so. It seemed to be asking about superannuation matters for people living in electorates near the Sydney airport. Minister, if you have anything—I call Senator Woodley. Senator Carr?1400Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—Madam President, I seek to ask the minister a supplementary question. Minister, in relation to the Prime Minister's guidelines—Honourable senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! There is a point of order being raised. There is far too much noise in the chamber. It is almost impossible to know what anybody is saying.LD4ALSTONSenator Alston—Did an unconvicted thief write that one?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Alston! Senator Vanstone has the call for a point of order.7E4VANSTONESenator Vanstone—Madam President, you might be able to assist in advising the Senate how there could possibly be a supplementary question arising out of Senator Parer's answer since he did not answer.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—I cannot imagine that there would be, but I am prepared to listen to the question.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Madam President, on the point of order—BH4HILLSenator Hill—What about education and unemployment or health?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Hill!5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Perhaps you could also advise the Senate, Madam President, how it is competent for the minister to remain in his seat when you have directed him to answer a question.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—I did not direct him to answer the question. I said that, if there was anything in the question that he wished to comment upon, he may do so.4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—Madam President, on the point of order: when you asked Senator Parer whether he had an answer, he only shook his head. I think it is pretty hard for Hansard to describe a shake of the head. He should at least indicate that the Hansard recorded he said, `No.'10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—I think it is unlikely that Hansard can hear anything that is being said actually. But it was quite clear to me that the minister had said no.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Will you let him ask his question?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—I will allow him to ask his question. Whether it is relevant, I can only determine when I hear it. But I cannot imagine how it arises.AW5Senator CARR—Thank you very much, Madam President. Minister, I draw your attention to the Prime Minister's Guide on Key Elements of Ministerial Responsibility , which states on page 10:It is vital that ministers and parliamentary secretaries do not—BH4HILLSenator Hill—Madam President, I raise a point of order. There can be no relationship between what is being asked now and the answer that was given. A supplementary can only relate to the answer that was given. He is seeking to raise another issue and he should give that question to the next one in line.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Carr, there is nothing supplementary to the answer or even the question.AW5Senator CARR—On the point of order: I am halfway through the first sentence of my supplementary question. I find it an extraordinary proposition that you would rule out of order a supplementary question that goes to the Prime Minister's ministerial guidelines which state that ministers, by their conduct, should not undermine public confidence in them or the government. What I seek—BH4HILLSenator Hill—Madam President—5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—He's on a point of order. Sit down!10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Hill, I wish to hear the question first. Finish giving your question, Senator Carr.AW5Senator CARR—What I seek to ask the minister as a supplementary question is: in view of the Prime Minister's ministerial conduct code, how many battlers in this country have access to a superannuation scheme in which their 12 cent original investment, by the minister himself, can grow on the same day to a figure of $12,000?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—It has nothing do with the minister's portfolio. I do not require—BE4NEWMANSenator Newman—You took all that time to say that!10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—I am speaking. The question, as I have heard it, does not relate to the minister's portfolio.14011401Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEYHX5QLDAD00—My question is addressed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Minister, are you aware that your Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs considers it `a badge of honour' to have a vote of no confidence passed in him by ATSIC? Do you recall Senator Minchin's answer to my question yesterday—Government senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senators on my right will cease interjecting!HX5Senator WOODLEY—Do you recall Senator Minchin's answer to my question yesterday—Senator Abetz interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Abetz!HX5Senator WOODLEY—Can I start again?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Yes, please.HX5Senator WOODLEY—Thank you. Minister, do you recall Senator Minchin's answer to my question yesterday when he deliberately misrepresented and virtually dismissed the role of the National Indigenous Working Group in the whole Wik debate?LD4ALSTONSenator Alston—Madam President, I raise a point of order. You cannot ask a question that suggests in bald terms that someone deliberately misrepresented. That is a clear breach of standing orders.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—I agree. Senator Woodley, the question will have to be rephrased to put it within the terms of the standing orders and not cast imputations on a senator.HX5Senator WOODLEY—Thank you. Minister, by their recent statements, is it not obvious to you that both of these ministers are escalating tension between black and white Australians and are therefore unfit to lead the government in the vital national issues of native title and reconciliation in Australia?VW4HERRONSenator Herron—On a point of order, Madam President; I have been misrepresented in the question.B36NEALSenator Neal—That's not a point of order.VW4HERRONSenator Herron—Yes, it is. Madam President, if I could elaborate on that. From the Hansard yesterday, I said that if I am being `criticised by the ATSIC board . . . because I am on about accountability, and the government is on about health, housing, education, economic opportunity and the future of the Aboriginal people . . . I wear that as a badge of honour.' I did not say that I regarded it as a badge of honour because I had been—Honourable senators interjecting—]VW4HERRONSenator Herron—I have been misrepresented in the question. I would ask you to look at the Hansard , and I would ask Senator Woodley to withdraw the question because I have been misrepresented.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Hill, do you have anything you wish to say on this matter?1401Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment10—I thought Senator Woodley might like to withdraw the question. But if he is not withdrawing the question I will say something. The first thing I would like to say is what an excellent job Senator Herron is doing as Aboriginal affairs minister. Why? Because Senator Herron is interested in the real issues facing Aboriginal people in this country—issues of education, issues of jobs, issues of housing—VW4HERRONSenator Herron—Health.BH4Senator HILL—Issues of health—the substantial issues that were neglected by Labor in its 13 years of government. Finally there is a government in power and a minister in office who has a serious interest in these issues and knows that we have a responsibility to provide a better future for Australia's Aboriginal people in these critically important areas of health, education, jobs—VW4HERRONSenator Herron—And housing.BH4Senator HILL—And housing. So I will make no apology on behalf of Senator Herron. I think he is doing an excellent job. If there may be a little bit of creative tension from time to time between Senator Herron and ATSIC in its political role, then so be it. That is all part and parcel of politics, and I am sure both ATSIC and Senator Herron can handle that.In relation to Wik, again the honourable senator seems to miss the point. What we are seeking in the legislative response to Wik is something that not only gives greater certainty for all Australians but is fair to Australia's Aboriginal people. We have gone to great pains, made great effort, through a long period of consultation to find that correct balance—something that is fair and reasonable for Australia's indigenous people whilst at the same time providing greater certainty for all other interests within Australia, whether they be the pastoralists, mining interests and all others who have a concern and are affected by the Wik judgment.We believe that we have the balance right. We trust next week when the Senate for the second time addresses the government's response senators around the chamber will accept that the package that we have put down is fair and just, that they will pass that legislative package and then allow the Senate to move on to other issues.LI4PATTERSONSenator Patterson—Madam President, I raise a point of order. Senator Woodley made an imputation. He should be asked to withdraw it.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—He rephrased his question, as I understand it. The amount of noise in the chamber is such that it is almost impossible to hear. It was my impression he had withdrawn it. If you did not, Senator Woodley, I ask you to do so.HX5WOODLEYSenator Woodley—Madam President, if there is any problem with any of the words I used, I certainly withdraw them. I am not sure of what it was I needed to withdraw.1402Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEYHX5QLDAD00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Minister, today Senator Minchin told the Australian public on Radio National that the Democrats had not responded to his offer of talks on the Wik legislation. This is not true.YW4MACDONALDSenator Ian Macdonald—This is not a supplementary question.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator, what is your question?HX5Senator WOODLEY—Is the minister aware that I attended talks with the staff of Senator Minchin's office on the Native Title Amendment Bill on 27 February this year? The Democrats expected him to be present but he did not turn up. We are used to these kinds of statements from Senator Minchin. Minister, do you consider it acceptable behaviour for your minister to tell untruths to the Australian public to advance your government's dubious solution to the High Court's Wik decision?1402Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment10—The government is willing to provide whatever briefings are necessary to help the Democrats in their decision. But the real opportunity is now before the Australian Democrats. They have a chance to do something really worthwhile in the interests of all Australians, including indigenous Australians, and that is to acknowledge that the package that we have put up on Wik is just, fair and reasonable. Let it pass the Senate. Let us provide the certainty that all Australians expect and reasonably demand and then allow the Senate to get on with some other business.Senator Alston interjecting—14021402Crowley, Sen RosemarySenator CROWLEYZF4SAALP00—I heard that, Madam President, and perhaps Senator Alston might be encouraged to withdraw. My question is to Minister Herron representing the minister for health. Minister, on what basis has the Prime Minister claimed that his Medicare agreement offered to the states would provide a 15 per cent real increase in health care funding? Isn't it the case that, when you take account of the money already in the forward estimates and the money you are double counting for mental health and palliative care, plus the $800 million you took from public hospitals in the 1996 budget and the $400 million you took from the states by abolishing the dental health program, you are doing nothing more than putting back the money you have already taken away?1403Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—I thank Senator Crowley for the question because it gives me the opportunity to clarify the mathematics for her. Despite what the premiers are claiming, the position of the Commonwealth put to the states at the Premiers Conference on health funding was very generous indeed.4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—It isn't what Borbidge said.VW4Senator HERRON—The existing forward estimates based on the current Medicare agreements negotiated by the last Labor government provided for spending over the next five years of $27.3 billion.4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—It's not what Court said.VW4Senator HERRON—That was the agreement negotiated with the states by the Labor Party when they were in government.4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—Why are all the Liberal premiers against it?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Schacht, cease interjecting.4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—I was trying to help him.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—You are not helping; you are just hindering and persistently interjecting.VW4Senator HERRON—Our offer increased the amount available to the states to $30.2 billion. As well as a $1.5 billion increase in ongoing funding, this included $120 million for waiting list reduction in 1998, $500 million for projects designed to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the acute health system, and $750 million to meet the full cost of treatment of entitled veterans. Total real growth for next year will be 6.9 per cent and total real growth over the five years will be 15.4 per cent, Senator Crowley.Furthermore, the government proposed to increase funding by $83 million each time the private health insurance participation rate dropped by one percentage point. Madam President, I remember telling Senator Crowley the other day that, in her government's five-year agreement, it was to be renegotiated after every two per cent drop. They reneged on it. They did nothing about it, Senator Ray. It was in the health care agreement and they did not do anything about it. That is how you have Labor Party agreements—you just do not take any notice of them. However, the states are persisting in arguing for a $1.1 billion increase in base funding next year, an increase of over 20 per cent, and a total of $5.5 billion over five years on top of the Commonwealth offer. The hollowness of their demands can be seen by the fact that they have not altered it since December last year, since when the Commonwealth has put an extra $1.2 billion on the table. As far as the states are concerned, the answer is always the Commonwealth offer plus $1.1 billion each year. It is simply impossible to negotiate with people holding such a position.Madam President, you will recall that when we came into government we had a black hole, the Beazley black hole, of $10½ billion. We have to take that into account in our forward estimates, and we will look forward to where we are with the budget this year. As Dr Wooldridge said, this amount of money would fund over 300,000 admissions and there simply are not that many extra people needing treatment.The facts of the matter are that this occurs on every occasion. The states come to the Commonwealth with their hands out and say, `Give us more money. Give us more money.' What has happened in the past is that they have reduced their own amount of funding. I am pleased to say that, in my own state of Queensland, the coalition government has increased the capital funding going into the public hospitals by a large sum of money and are making up for the defects that are occurring.4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—Borbidge still reckons you're crook. Why is Borbidge complaining?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Schacht! Cease interjecting.VW4Senator HERRON—And that was due to the Labor Party running down the amount of funding that went in the capital funding of the last Medicare agreement. It went down to less than three per cent. So the deficit has to be made up by the present coalition government in Queensland, and they are doing a great job. But that does not stop them coming to the federal government and saying, `Give us more money. We will spend it.' Of course there are deficits occurring. The Labor Party's attack on the private health care system meant that the number of privately insured in my own state of Queensland went from 80 per cent to less than 30 per cent. That was an effect of the withdrawal of the bed day subsidies from private hospitals and the increasing escalation of the cost of private health insurance.It increased over 100 per cent while the Labor Party was in power and there is the fact that technology is increasingly in use and the ageing of the population. There are many factors here. But it is a standard procedure, as Senator Crowley well knows, for the states to come to the Commonwealth. Where are the Labor Party's policies in relation to health care? Where are they? Have we heard what they are going to do about this? What is their answer? (Time expired)1404Crowley, Sen RosemarySenator CROWLEYZF4SAALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I note that the minister completely failed to address the question I put to him—that is, are you doing nothing more than putting back the money you have already taken away? Further, why is it that your government, Minister, is so inept at working cooperatively with the states? You were bad when it came to education, but you have reached dizzy new levels of ineptitude with health. Don't Australians have a right to expect that, at least in an area as important as health, a conservative federal government should be able to get its act together with so many conservative state governments?1404Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—I draw Senator Crowley's memory back five years, if she can go back that far, to when the Labor governments in the states came to the federal Labor government with the same arguments and the same story. I pulled out a speech that I made five years ago; all I had to do was transpose `Labor' and `coalition' and the same old story went on. Senator Crowley, I will drag out your speeches. In fact I was told to do that—Government senators interjecting—No! No!VW4Senator HERRON—My colleagues have told me not to. Senator Crowley, it might be an interesting exercise for you to do it yourself. Drag out your speeches of five years ago, and I guarantee that you could substitute `coalition' for `Labor' and you would get the same result that you are getting with your questions this afternoon.14041404Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—My question is directed to Senator Minchin, the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister. Was I right in pointing out to the Punuba people in the Kimberley whom I met and canoed with down the Fitzroy River three or four weeks ago that in relation to the dam proposed for the Kimberley, the proposed 300-kilometre canal from that dam and the hundreds of thousands of hectares of cotton crops resulting from that to prospectively be laid out east of Broome, the indigenous people will have no right to negotiate on the dam, the canal, the cotton crops and other infrastructure? Was I right to point out that under a Labor government the indigenous people would also have no right to negotiate? I also ask the minister: when you spoke with Fran Kelly on ABC radio this morning, were you referring to this stripping of the rights of Aboriginal people to a say in their land when you said:. . . we are discussing with the officials of the Labor Party and Senator Harradine . . . different ways of skinning the cat.1404Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPSpecial Minister of State;Minister Assisting the Prime Minister10—I must confess I am not an expert on the dam proposal, so I cannot say with any confidence over what title that dam is proposed. I gather it has not got to a particular stage where it is even likely to occur. As I understand it, it is a feasibility proposal. Whether the right to negotiate would apply to that proposal, should our bill become law and should that proposal proceed, depends on whether the land over which the developments are proposed is vacant crown land, Aboriginal land or pastoral lease land.If it is vacant crown land or Aboriginal land, the right to negotiate will be maintained by our bill for Aboriginal people if the proposal involves either mining or the compulsory acquisition of native title. We maintain the right to negotiate on 39 per cent of Australia, as was intended and put down by the then Labor government in 1993 in the Native Title Act. We are not winding back the right to negotiate where it applied when the Native Title Act was first passed. It is one of the furphies perpetrated by your side of politics that we are somehow removing the right to negotiate altogether. That is an absolute nonsense.As far as pastoral lease is concerned, if there is any land on which the proposal proceeds that is pastoral lease land, may I repeat again: the right to negotiate was never intended to apply on pastoral lease land because the Native Title Act was passed on the presumption that native title had been extinguished on pastoral lease land. So it was never designed to apply on the additional 42 per cent of Australia that is pastoral lease land.What will happen on pastoral lease land under our bill in relation to mining or proposals involving compulsory acquisition for third parties is that the native title claimants and holders will be granted exactly the same procedural rights as the lessees of that land. We insist on equality of treatment for coexisting titleholders. We are not going to put up with a situation where one group of people, based on their race, gets a different and more generous set of procedural rights than other people coexisting on that land. If you insist on perpetrating that sort of nonsense, you will end up with an awful situation on the ground. You ought to realise the impact of such a nonsensical proposition on the ground where you have coexisting titleholders.We have accepted that native title may have survived on pastoral lease land. We accept the Wik decision; we are giving effect to the Wik decision but, as to the procedural rights that attach to the native title on pastoral lease land, the only tenable, sustainable and fair proposition is that there be equality of treatment for the coexisting titleholders—that is, for the families who are farming that land and for the native title claimants or holders. It is outrageous for the other side of politics to be insisting on legalised discrimination against pastoral lessees based on race. It is an untenable proposition which we cannot accept. If there are Aboriginal people involved on pastoral lease land and this development proceeds, as any other development on pastoral lease land, they will get the same procedural rights as anybody else.1405Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I ask the minister to explicitly answer the question as to whether indigenous people will have a right to negotiate on a massive extension of cotton crops across pastoral lease lands in areas where they have a claim in the Kimberley or anywhere else. I also ask the minister: in the negotiations reported in the media to be proceeding between himself and other parties, is the Labor Party's spokesperson on Aboriginal affairs, Daryl Melham, still involved in those negotiations or has it passed to other people in the Labor Party who may not be taking such a strong line on behalf of indigenous interests?1405Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPSpecial Minister of State;Minister Assisting the Prime Minister10—If Senator Brown wants to have a go at the Labor Party, he ought to ask them a question, not me. You are free to ask Senator Bolkus what the situation is in the Labor Party, and that is too complicated for me. Our dealings with the Labor Party are at the official level, and we are seeking to persuade officials of the Labor Party of the wisdom, fairness and good sense of the propositions that we are putting.XE4BOLKUSSenator Bolkus—And it's not working!JX4Senator MINCHIN—It is very difficult to get through the thick heads of some on the other side as to how fair our propositions are. As to any potential upgrade of leases to accommodate agricultural activity, where that is done for a third party, the native titleholders will have exactly the same procedural rights as other titleholders on that land. We will treat Australians equally; we will treat them fairly; we will not discriminate.14061406Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—My question is directed to Senator Herron, the Minister representing the Minister for Health. Minister, when the private health insurance incentive scheme was announced in the 1996-97 budget, did the government claim that the scheme would increase the level of membership in private health funds to 34 per cent by 1997-98? Is it also the case that in a press release on 29 August 1997 the Minister for Health said:We are confident that the cash incentives will attract many thousands of people to take out private health insurance.Minister, given that the level of private health fund membership has now dropped to 31.6 per cent—the lowest level ever—will you now concede that this $1.7 billion scheme is a total failure?1406Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—No, I do not. If you look at the graph of what occurred under the Labor Party, it was disastrous. It was in free fall. The former Labor Party minister, Senator Graham Richardson, had an argument with his caucus and with Mr Keating at the time. You will recall when Mr Keating said that he was going to stand on the necks of the private health insurers and that he was not prepared to take out private health insurance because he wanted everybody to be in Medicare so that it would be totally available to everybody in the country; whereas, the then Senator Richardson argued—and it is on the public record—that he thought that wealthy people should have a premium on them if they did not take out private health insurance. We brought that in, Madam President. That was one of the steps that we took to try to stop the free fall that had occurred.Madam President, we came into government, you will recall, a little over two glorious years ago. It has been a delight to be here because we are trying to fix up the effects of Labor after 13 years in government and to stop the free fall in private health insurance. As I was explaining to Senator Lees the other day—whom I thought would understand—when we had the system of about 50 per cent of the population in private health insurance and 50 per cent in the public hospital system, there were not the demands that are occurring today because of the people who have been forced out of private health insurance by the previous Labor government. What we did after the last election was to bring in an incentive scheme, $450—656FORSHAWSenator Forshaw—I know that; answer the question.VW4Senator HERRON—Senator Forshaw says he knows it. He seems to have forgotten again, because that was designed to help people take up private health insurance, particularly the younger members of society.Since we have been in government, I am pleased to say there have been a number of things that have occurred. The immunisation program, for example, has helped keep people out of hospitals. Under the Labor Party, we reached a level of immunisation in this country—656FORSHAWSenator Forshaw—On a point of order, Madam President: I have sat and listened to the minister for a while. He has about two minutes to go. He has not yet addressed the point of the question. When they came to government, they said it would reach 34 per cent. It has now reached 31.6 per cent—it's gone in the other direction. I ask the minister to direct his answer to the question: isn't that a failure? I was not talking about immunisation. That had nothing to do with it.VW4Senator HERRON—On the point of order, Madam President—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—There is no point of order.VW4Senator HERRON—Madam President, I was going to speak on the point of order; I will finish the answer in any case. But on the point of order, I answered the question right at the beginning. I said I did not agree in my first sentence. I answered his question. I did not agree with him. So now to jump up on a spurious point of order is not correct.Madam President, it was designed to stop the free fall. I remember Dr Wooldridge saying that he could not predict, nor can anybody predict, the outcome of these measures. But they were designed to stop the free fall and they have stopped the free fall that was occurring under the policies of the previous Labor government. They have slowed down the rate of decrease. In fact, for one month—Senator Forshaw, you are probably not aware of it—it went up 0.1 per cent. We do not recognise that as valid because it has to be over at least a three-month period and it will be after the end of the financial year before we can find out whether the effect of the premium increase on people of higher income has had an effect.For Senator Forshaw to jump up and down is the height of hypocrisy. It was his government that produced this free fall in private health insurance. We will not be able to give an answer in relation to that Senator Forshaw, and you should know that because it will not be until after the end of the financial year when the taxation returns come in that we get the adequate numbers to see what occurred. I can tell you Senator Forshaw—you are probably not aware of it, but my Queensland friends in the gallery would be aware of it—that it has plateaued in Queensland, where it has been about 30, 29 or 28 per cent for 13 years, and because of the fine private hospital system which has catered for about 40 per cent of the population for as many years as I can remember.Senator Forshaw, I cannot predict what will occur; nobody can. At least we have brought in measures that will slow down the rate of fall in private health insurance because that is the only answer for this country for a viable system, not the socialised public system that you on that side want and the Democrats want by increasing the Medicare levy.1407Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Minister, you may think it is not a failure, but all the state premiers think it is a failure.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Your question, Senator Forshaw? 656Senator FORSHAW—You may not be able to predict what the figure would be, but Minister Wooldridge predicted it would be 34 per cent; it is now 31 per cent.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—What is your question, Senator Forshaw?656Senator FORSHAW—My supplementary question is this. In his press release of 20 August, Dr Wooldridge said that his measures on private health insurance were designed to assist the battlers. Minister, given that health fund premiums have risen by over 20 per cent since March 1996 and funds will further increase premiums by between 10 and 14 per cent this year, is it not the case that the tax rebate has already been eroded by the extent of premium increases? Minister, do you agree with Premier Court and the other premiers when they say, `This scheme is a dud; this scheme is a failure'?1407Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—Madam President, I do not agree with those premiers. It is the height of hypocrisy when the other side talk about premium increases. Do you know what the percentage of premium increases were when the Labor Party was in government?LI4PATTERSONSenator Patterson—What were they?VW4Senator HERRON—They were over 100 per cent in the time that Labor was in government.Honourable senators interjecting—VW4Senator HERRON—Now to start talking about premium increases and blaming it on us, Madam President, I ask you: if that is not hypocrisy of the highest order, what is?656FORSHAWSenator Forshaw—Talk about on an annual basis.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Just a moment, Senator Herron. Please continue, Senator Herron.VW4Senator HERRON—Even the coalition government cannot stop the ageing of the population. We can do practically everything else but we cannot stop the population ageing and the fact that two-thirds of the health care dollar is spent on people over the age of 65. I am delighted to say that, under the coalition government, the fastest growing segment of the population is that of people over the age of 75. That segment will double from 350,000 to 700,000 people by the year 2006. I do not even take responsibility for that. (Time expired)14081408MacGibbon, Sen DavidSenator MacGIBBONYH4QLDLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business. Minister, what will the consequences be of the failure of the Senate to pass the amendments to the Workplace Relations Act yesterday on the government's job creation program, and how rapturously will it be adopted by small business trapped in the position where they cannot recruit people because to fire them it might cost anywhere between $15,000 and $50,000 for non-performers?1408Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, the Information Economy and the Arts10—That is a very good point made by Senator MacGibbon. You do not have to take our word for it. COSBOA, the council of small business associations, estimates that up to 50,000 jobs will be lost as a result of that decision. The New South Wales Chamber of Commerce has conducted a survey which shows that 85 per cent of small businesses have nominated unfair dismissals as a key factor affecting small business and over 42 per cent believe that the prospects of unfair dismissal claims are a deterrent to employing more staff.There is only one party that is in the slightest bit interested in the welfare of small business. We have already introduced capital gains rollover relief. We have reduced red tape. We have introduced an innovation investment fund. We have reduced the provisional uplift factor for provisional taxation. In other words, we have done all the things we promised to do and more. If you want an example of the extent to which the Labor Party hates small business, you only had to be listening to Kim Il Dinosaur.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator, address senators properly please.LD4Senator ALSTON—Madam President, I was simply adopting a term used by Mr Brumby in referring to Senator Carr. What he said today is a classic example of the class hatred and envy that permeates certain sec tions of the Labor Party. He asked Senator Parer whether or not there was something inherently unfair about the battlers in the western suburbs of Sydney not having access to more generous superannuation funds than they did. In other words, what he was saying was that he bitterly resents any small business that actual manages to accumulate some reserves, any small businessman or woman who manages to build up a retirement nest egg, a superannuation fund, that happens to be a bit more generous than his trade union. That is what he is on about. It is the politics of hatred and envy.They are not in the slightest bit interested in the welfare of small business. They want to pull it down, not build it up. We are not going to tolerate that sort of nonsense. They have come up with absolutely no policies at all. It has all been said. We know he cannot get a job on the frontbench, but nonetheless he is allowed to run rampant. He can get out there and write a newspaper article in response to a comment from Mr Brumby in which he defines `renewal' as the right of members of parliament representing the Labor Party to represent the ALP itself—nothing to do with representing constituents. That is what renewal is about. Renewal is about getting in there and fighting the class war on behalf of those who put you in power in the first place.It is an absolute disgrace. They do not know what small business is about. They are not in the slightest bit interested in representing its interests. They are there for themselves. They are there to look after their mates. They are there to pay back their dues. They are there to make sure that this massive conflict of interest on the other side continues to be a running sore. The Australian public understand it. The small businessmen and women of Australia understand it. They know that not only won't they get any relief from that mob but they will actually be penalised and crucified by people who resent their very success.That is the nub of the problem. That is why we are so committed to small business and to the jobs generated. That is why they hate them so much, because they are actually earning a bit more than they are.14091409McKiernan, Sen JamesSenator McKIERNAN1I4WAALP00—My question is directed to the Minister representing the Attorney-General. Minister, I refer you to the Attorney-General's recent criticisms that the courts were not doing enough to reform themselves. Minister, given that Australian courts are world leaders in respect of a number of major reforms of judicial process, such as the Federal Court's use of video conferencing and the Family Court's counselling and mediation service, what specific practice is it that the government believes the courts are engaging in which is inefficient? Exactly which specific reform is it that the government says the courts should adopt which they are not now adopting? Or is it, as the Chief Justice of Victoria, Justice Phillips, has put it, just one more ill-informed criticism?1409Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPMinister for Justice10—I thank Senator McKiernan for the question. Senator McKiernan, you would have had some experience on the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee of this place when you, Senator Cooney and I were involved in the cost of justice inquiry. Through that experience you would have, I am sure, a clear understanding of the sensitivities involved in suggesting there should be reform of the legal profession. Whenever there is a suggestion that reform should come or should move at a more rapid pace in one direction or another—whether it relates to technology used by the courts, whether it relates to the rules and regulations and their procedures, or whether it relates to something one might consider the profession ought to do—one necessarily meets with some response and some inertia to the criticism.There is the opportunity, of course, for misunderstandings and misreportings. Then when you get someone commenting on the misreporting, the story in a sense gets out of hand and becomes a very pale version of what it was in the very beginning. It is regrettable that some judges have responded in a defensive manner to the comments that the Attorney made. It is clear that some judges may have misunderstood the Attorney's comments.In referring to the lack of further resources being available, the Attorney was referring to legal aid funding. His comments were not directed to the courts alone. The point he sought to make is that reform is largely in the hands of the judges and the hands of the legal profession. The Attorney is there not to simply protect the judges and to protect the profession but to be the first law officer of Australia for the Australian people. These were appropriate remarks to make in that respect.I can give you an example, Senator McKiernan. You well know that some states held on tenaciously to what was referred to as the two-counsel rule—where, if you had a silk appearing on your behalf, that silk could not appear unless junior counsel came along as well. I think, Senator McKiernan, this is a good example of the role that judges can play. If you chose to have a silk appearing on a small matter, the cost to you would be quite extensive because the legal profession's rules required you to have a junior there.Senator McKiernan, Senator Cooney and any lawyer in this place know that, if a judge had consistently and politely said when two counsel had appeared and it was not required, `Nice to have you in my court, Mr or Miss So and So. I am always pleased to hear your erudite contributions. Isn't it a shame that your profession's rules require you to have two people here at vast expense to your client when you and I know, Mr or Miss So and So, only one counsel is required?'; if a judge had been prepared to do that, how long do you think the two-counsel rule would have lasted? How much more quickly would the two-counsel rule have disappeared? How much more quickly would Australian litigants be able to go to court and have only one counsel when they needed only one?In summary, Senator McKiernan, it is important to understand the role of the Attorney. He is the first law officer of Australia for all Australians—not just for the judges, not just for the legal profession, but for the litigants as well. Sometimes people do get a bit sensitive when they are criticised and over-respond. But the Attorney will not walk away from reform of the courts and of the legal profession in the interests of all Australians.1410McKiernan, Sen JamesSenator McKIERNAN1I4WAALP00—I ask a supplementary question, Madam President. Thank you, Minister, for your answer, as far as it went. Unfortunately, I did not have the honour of serving with Senator Cooney and you on the cost of justice inquiry. I came to the committee later. Minister, why is the Attorney blaming the courts for the effect of his decision or the government's decision to cut legal aid funding? Hasn't it always been inevitable that the legal aid cuts would result in more Dietrich applications with the guilty walking free and the innocent unable to clear their names? How does the government believe that the Dietrich principle should be softened to enable cases to proceed to trial, and why is the government's view inconsistent with the right that every Australian should have a fair trial?1410Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPMinister for Justice10—Senator McKiernan, I think you perhaps may not have the benefit of the full extent of the Attorney's remarks and I will endeavour to get them from him so that you can put it in proper perspective. I accept there is no malice intended on your part. You can only ask questions on the basis of what you have read in the paper if you don't have the full content of what he said. But the Attorney is not seeking to blame the courts for any government decision whatsoever. I think that is a gross misrepresentation of the Attorney's intention. I will get such remarks as he can make available to clarify the situation for you.14101410Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—My question is to the Minister for the Environment. Minister, yesterday Senator Minchin said that the National Biodiversity Council had no idea what it was talking about when it said the Native Title Amendment Bill will have profoundly negative impacts on Australia's biodiversity. Minister, considering that it is your advisory body, is this your view too? Is it not the case that your government's Native Title Amendment Bill allows the states to bypass native title and change land use by upgrading pastoral leases? Do you, at least, recognise that this is what the National Biodiversity Council says will have a significant impact on the environment? Do you intend to correct Senator Minchin today, or are you happy to again be rolled in your obligations to protect the environment?1410Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment10—I was surprised that I did not get asked the question yesterday. I welcome it today because the Biodiversity Council is unfortunately under a misunderstanding in this matter and we might be able to help them out.The bill allows state and territory environmental land management to continue unhindered by the unintended consequences of the operation of the existing Native Title Act following the Wik decision. It does not add to the rights of leaseholders, nor does it upgrade pastoral leases. Pastoralists will only be able to carry out those primary production activities permitted under the terms of their leases or under government permits, regulations and legislation. There is no new provision to upgrade existing pastoral leases and the bill will not mean massive freeholding of pastoral lease land.Under the existing Native Title Act, states and territories, of course, can already acquire native title rights. If they do it through non-discriminatory means, this will continue. Environmental, land management and other laws and regulations remain in force and must be complied with by leaseholders.Further safeguards are provided by government amendment during the bill's debate in the Senate, ensuring that on large pastoral leases, that is, over 5,000 hectares, new primary production rights cannot be granted over more than 50 per cent of the lease. The bill ensures that governments cannot convert a pastoral lease into a freehold or other exclusive tenure simply by granting additional primary production or associated rights.State and territory governments have told the parliamentary joint committee that there is no intention to change current lease management practices. The Commonwealth government considers that environmental management is important in its own right and is not an appendage to the Native Title Act. Of course, the Commonwealth's commitment to the Natural Heritage Trust of $1.25 billion demonstrates the priority this government places on effective environmental management and conservation.1411Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Senator Minchin also said yesterday, and I quote:The Prime Minister . . . 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.Was it your advice to the Prime Minister regarding the environmental impact of potentially downgrading the protection of natural habitat, accounting for 42 per cent of Australia's land surface? Will you table that advice? Will you continue to ignore the advice of this eminent council, just as you have ignored ATSIC, conservation groups, constitutional experts, the Law Reform Commission and the Reconciliation Council, together with churches, in this debate?1411Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment10—The answer in relation to the EP(IP) Act is that the parliament is deciding whether to take this legislative course of action. This is in the hands of the parliament. It is not as if it is a normal type of development proposal where consideration has to be given and it does not come for parliamentary consideration. Some might humbly say that the course of this parliamentary process is the most thorough evaluation of these matters that might be possible. It gives the Democrats, for example, the opportunity to argue their position on the public record and for us to put a counterview. So that is why, I presume, the Prime Minister considered that it was inappropriate in these circumstances to invoke that act, because it is being addressed through a parliamentary process.Madam President, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.Questions Without Notice141114111411Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—Madam President, on 24 March Senator Harradine asked me a question about imported blood products. I have received an answer from Minister Wooldridge and I ask that the answer be incorporated in Hansard .Leave granted.The answer read as follows—SENATOR HARRADINE: My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Family Services. Can me minister confirm that the CSL and the department are negotiating a lucrative arrangement which would be quite financially favourable to the recently privatised CSL? Will the arrangement involve the importation of plasma into Australia to allow CSL to establish a large blood products pool? If so, how can the government provide an absolute guarantee of protection for those Australians who are to be treated with products derived from plasma imported into Australia by CSL?Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Could you confirm there are negotiations going on for the establishment of the large blood products pool by CSL? If so, then what consultations have actually taken place with blood transfusion services, hospitals, consumer organisations, relevant members of the medical profession and others? When is a final decision on this particular matter to be made?Minister Wooldridge has provided me with the following answer. There is no intention to establish a large pool of blood or plasma products manufactured from foreign plasma for general use. From time to time small amounts of finished foreign product are imported into Australia for individual use when domestic products are not available or are clinically contra-indicated. In addition, between 1995 and 1997 an overseas Rh(D) immunoglobulin was imported to supplement a shortfall in domestic productionHowever, because demand for most plasma products is increasing faster than the Red Cross can collect plasma, there are currently no significant reserves of key plasma products. The Australian health care system, like many overseas counterparts, is vulnerable to a crisis that results in a major but temporary reduction in domestic supply or production. Patient lives can be put at risk if alternative products are not readily available. Therefore, contingency plans are being considered, including the establishment of a minimum national reserve of key products (which could be made from foreign or domestic plasma) and encouraging foreign manufacturers to register products for use in Australia in such circumstances.Whatever strategy is adopted to deal with a critical shortage, the welfare of patients will be paramount and the use of foreign products, or products made from foreign plasma, will only be considered where the Therapeutic Goods Administration is satisfied that the products are safe and efficacious.Consideration of the options is at an early stage and a decision is not expected in the near future. Once the options have been fully developed, key bodies such as the Red Cross Society, State health authorities and medical colleges will be consulted. Minister Wooldridge would be happy to arrange for the Department to provide a more detailed briefing for Senator Harradine as the options are developed.141215:07:001412Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—I move:That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Parer), to questions without notice asked today, relating to the financial interests of Senator Parer.Today, of course, we have had a very significant change of tactics from Senator Parer and the government. He just cannot answer the questions. So now have the new tactic from the government: Senator Parer will not even try. It has just got far too hot now for the government.For the past couple of weeks we have had a different tactic from Senator Parer—that is, evasion and non-answer. It has been pretty difficult because there has not been a ready answer to most of the questions that have been asked without admitting to a breach of the standing orders, a conflict of interest or a breach of the Prime Minister's code on ministerial responsibility. That has always been a bit too hard for Senator Parer and for the Prime Minister, Mr Howard, and his government.Today we see the new government tactic—that is, total refusal to answer. He will not even try to answer the questions that are put before him. The suggestion has been made by the minister, `I do not have to answer these questions. It does not matter that I have misled the Senate on no less than eight occasions.' It does not matter that he has failed to comply with the standing orders of the Senate and the requirements that each and every other senator has had to comply with. He does not have to answer any questions about that.He does not have to answer any questions about the fact that he has failed to comply with the Prime Minister's code of conduct. Senator Parer cannot be expected to answer any questions about the fact that he has been the minister responsible for seeing a redefinition of the Prime Minister's code of conduct. Senator Parer cannot be expected to come into the Senate and answer questions about a conflict of interest. That is far too difficult for Senator Parer. He cannot be expected to answer questions which have meant that the government has been involved in redefining the concept of conflict of interest.Minister Parer is now really saying to the Senate and to the Australian people, `It's too hot. It's too difficult. It's too hard.' He cannot answer the questions so today, the last day of the sitting week, he comes up with a new tactic of he is not going to try to answer.The questions that Senator Parer refused to answer today are questions about his own area of ministerial responsibility. These are questions that he is required to answer. In failing to answer them he has been engaged in yet another breach of the Prime Minister's Guide on Key Elements of Ministerial Responsibility. The code basically makes the point that ministers are required to answer questions. The code states:In general, questions asked at question time are answered fully by ministers.It does not say what when it gets too difficult or too hard or too hot that ministers, like Senator Parer, can duck out. There is a new tactic from the government in relation to Senator Parer. Senator Parer might be going to say that questions asked about mining companies that he is involved with and that have interests in coalmining and other resources which he has ministerial responsibility for in this country are not relevant, and he is not going to answer them, but I think the case has been proven that they are relevant. We intend to continue asking this minister for answers to questions. We intend to continue to keep the pressure on this minister.UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—Monday is another day. 5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—Monday might well be another day, Senator Ray, but even the weekend and Friday will be another day.Senator Ian Campbell interjecting—5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—I promise you that even tomorrow is another day, Senator Campbell—just wait. A minister is required to come in here and answer questions. He cannot duck his ministerial responsibilities. It is not acceptable conduct and, for the opposition's part, we intend to hold the government and the minister responsible. I can guarantee Minister Parer, the Senate and the government that we will be back next Monday and demanding answers to questions of this minister. (Time expired)15:12:001413Chapman, Sen GrantSenator CHAPMANFF4SALP10—Here we have the same old cracked record about Senator Parer going on day after day. It is becoming entirely irrelevant and the truth is that no-one is listening any more. No-one is listening to this nonsense that we are hearing day after day in this chamber. People are heartily sick of it.What they want to hear from the Labor Party is a bit of policy. They want to know what the Labor Party is going to do about some of the problems facing this country like tax reform, for instance. They neglected it for 13 years and all of a sudden, because they think they might be able to embarrass Senator Parer, they are raising the issue of trusts and everything else.If we look at the facts, what has happened? It was during the life of the Labor government that the use of trusts escalated. Need I remind them that between 1991-92 and 1995-96 the use of trusts grew from some 300,000 to 398,000—a growth of about 32 per cent. They did nothing about it. What they fail to recognise is that the real reason for the growth in trusts was that they did nothing about the urgent need for tax reform.We have seen the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, Mr Gareth Evans, since they have been in opposition ignore the tax problem. He said repeatedly that there is nothing wrong with the tax system and it does not need changing. I remind opposition senators of what Gareth Evans said on the Sunday pro gram on 17 August last year. He said, `Those who say that the tax system is broke are really being quite a bit absurdly breathless.' He told the National Press Club that tax reform is a second or third order public policy economic issue.Mr Evans has been saying in the past that there is no problem with the tax system. What did he say only a day or so ago? He walked into parliament and when doorstopped he said, `We've got a big tax problem.' What hypocrisy and inconsistency we have seen from the shadow Treasurer and Deputy Leader of the Opposition. A few months ago he was saying. `There is nothing wrong with the tax system. It ain't broke, don't fix it.' Now he is saying that we have a big tax problem and it needs fixing. It is this government that is doing something about fixing the tax problem.RF4COOKSenator Cook—No, it's not!FF4Chapman, Sen GrantSenator CHAPMAN—Yes, it is indeed. You are attempting to obstruct it, Senator Cook. Let us have a look at this hypocrisy. We have seen their hypocrisy on the issue of tax; let's see their hypocrisy about the declaration of interests. Need I remind the Senate that section 5 of the senators' interest orders states:(a) at the beginning of his or her speech. . . and(b) as soon as practicable after a division . . . if the senator proposes to vote in that divisionInter alia, senators must make a declaration of their interests. The fact is that there are some 14 Labor Party senators who have not declared relevant interests when required to do so under that provision.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—Is Cookie one of those; is he okay?FF4Chapman, Sen GrantSenator CHAPMAN—No, I think Senator Cook might be okay.EP5FERGUSONSenator Ferguson—No, he's got the yacht.FF4Chapman, Sen GrantSenator CHAPMAN—That's right—the yacht, but there is a number. Senator Bishop, sitting over there, under his register of interests he shows that he has shares in BHP. Yet, on 29 May last year, Senator Faulkner proposed a disallowance of the Customs (Prohib ited Exports) Regulations Amendment which removed the export controls on four resource commodities, including coal and liquefied natural gas. But Senator Bishop did not declare his interest in BHP after the division was called, as required by the order.What about Senator Crowley? As we know, she has a whole range of shares. Senator Crowley is a very wealthy woman. Among the shares which she owns are Qantas shares. This was added to the register on 29 August 1995. Qantas is a major lessee at airports throughout Australia. Its continued access to those major airports and the level of landing fees are key business issues for Qantas. But Senator Crowley completely failed to declare her Qantas shares when she voted in the second reading division for the Airports Act 1996, which establishes the framework for leasing FAC airports—a second example.Senator Denman owns shares in CSR, a sugar milling and mining company. The Customs Tariff Amendment Act (No. 2) 1997 removed the tariff on imported sugar, but Senator Denman did not declare her interest in CSR at that time when she voted on the division. (Time expired)15:17:001414Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—This government can run, but it cannot hide. Every editorial writer in Australia has shrieked in their editorial columns that Senator Parer should resign or the Prime Minister should sack him. That is what they have said. It is a matter of notorious public controversy. Question time is one of the few occasions in the parliament when the opposition has an opportunity to grill the government about its conduct of public administration and its conduct of its private affairs. This is the time in which the government is accountable. What we have had from the government is the old trick—dodge and evade; never answer the question. A direct question gets evasion and dodging, but today they got worse. They were trying to run away even further. They put up the stone wall and refused to answer questions relevant to the public debate and, I contend, absolutely relevant to the conduct of the affairs of this minister in this portfolio.We are led in this nation by a weak, insipid, indecisive Prime Minister. If the Prime Minister had the guts and the courage of his convictions, he would have dismissed this minister ages ago. That is what he would have done. But look at his behaviour. Today in the House of Representatives he was asked a question by my colleague Simon Crean. Let me read that question to the Senate:Does the Prime Minister recall his argument of Tuesday in relation to the QCMM (ESP) sale of its Pan Australian shares to Lacetal Pty Ltd?And this is a quote from the Prime Minister. He said:. . . the purchaser of the shares had no relationship at all to the minister or to the Parer family.Let us get very clear what the Prime Minister said:. . . the purchaser of the shares had no relationship at all to the minister or to the Parer family.The question goes on:Is the Prime Minister aware that, at the time of the Lacetal purchase, Mr Harold Shand was a director, the same Harold Shand who is secretary of the Parer family trust and Director of Queensland Coal, Kiskin and AQRM, and the same Harold Shand who is a long-time friend, legal adviser and golfing partner of Senator Warwick Parer?It concluded:Prime Minister, how could you claim the purchaser of Pan Australian shares `had no relationship at all to the minister or to the family trust'? Hasn't Senator Parer caused you to mislead this parliament?There is a clear proposition, pointing the Prime Minister to the words he uttered, setting the facts on the record, and asking the Prime Minister whether he unwittingly or wittingly misled the House on this occasion?Madam Deputy President, that is an open and shut case. What did the Prime Minister do? What did this weak, insipid Prime Minister, this indecisive Prime Minister do when confronted with that very clear example of a breach? He sought to mislead the debate. He tabled a letter. The letter is to the Prime Minister. It is signed by the same Mr Harold Shand, I am advised, although the signature is indecipherable. The letter says:Dear Prime Minister,I understand the question has arisen as to whether Senator Parer or any company associated with him or his family has now or ever had an interest in Lacetal Pty Ltd. The answer is no.The question, answered here in this letter, is: has Senator Parer had an interest in Lacetal?The Prime Minister was asked: is it true that Mr Shand, who is a director of the minister's trust, is in fact associated with the purchaser? Well, of course, he is. This letter does not answer that question. This letter draws a red herring across the path. This letter answers a question that was never put. This letter is used to confuse and mislead. Here is a clear case of where the Prime Minister has misled the parliament of Australia. In response to the straight evidence on that point—indisputable evidence—what does he do? Does he answer it? No, he does not. He seeks to muddy the waters, to mislead the parliament further, to draw a red herring across the path. In fact, you have to come to one conclusion: the Prime Minister himself has now dishonoured his own code of parliamentary practice. It was a dead letter yesterday when he refused to enforce it; it is an even deader letter today. If this code means anything over the carcasses of Senator Gibson, Senator Short and Mr Prosser, if it means anything at all, then the Prime Minister should now resign as well. He is in breach of his own code of parliamentary standards. (Time expired)15:22:001415Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—The questions directed to Senator Parer that we are considering during this debate on a motion to take note of answers had as one of their themes today why Senator Parer had assets in a trust. There seems to be this attack on the concept that Australians, law abiding citizens, should hold assets in trusts. In fact, the Labor Party have sought to paint the establishment of family trusts and other trust structures as something that they regard as immoral.The Prime Minister (Mr Howard) and the Treasurer (Mr Costello), as recently as yesterday, drew to the attention of honourable members in the other place that the use of trusts was not only legislated for during the previous 13 years of the Australian Labor Party government, under Mr Keating as Treasurer and then as Prime Minister, and also with Kim Beazley, the now Leader of the Opposition, as the finance minister, but also during that period there was one of the greatest growths in the use of the trust structure in Australian financial history—in fact, I suspect the greatest growth of the use of the trust structure.There is something that the people of Australia should know when the Australian Labor Party try to paint the use of trusts as something immoral or unethical. I think Senator Carr talked about people in western Sydney being able to use trusts or being able to use these superannuation vehicles, and whether they would be able to access the same sort of vehicles as these for their own benefit. The reality is that a lot of small businesses, a lot of battlers, do use family trusts and trust structures to ensure that they provide for their future and for the needs of their families.AW5CARRSenator Carr—Buy a share for one cent. Make it into $1,000 in a day; that's real good stuff.H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—Senator Carr does not like a few things in life. He did not like Premier John Cain and he knifed him off. He does not like small businesses and he wants to knife them off. He does not like Australians who choose to invest in Australian companies, such as the Commonwealth—AW5CARRSenator Carr—It's a scam; it's just a scam.H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—Senator Carr says that people who invest in great Australian companies like the Commonwealth Bank are investing in a scam. He reflects on his colleague Senator Crowley, who has invested in things like Qantas. People who invested in Qantas or the Commonwealth Bank and, recently, may I remind him, Telstra, have made significant capital gains and significant investment benefits, as has Australia, out of investing in these entities. People who put money in trusts were abiding by the tax laws of Australia that were presided over by the Keating government, by Kim Beazley as finance minister, over the past 13 years. So they abided by laws that Labor presided over. These are law abiding citizens doing the right thing by their nation and abiding by the laws of the nation.Those opposite seek to attack small business. It is small businesses which are the biggest users of these trust structures in Australia. You saw only recently, Madam Deputy President, that the opposition were not prepared to allow rollover relief for capital gains for small businesses. They wanted to ensure that the savings of small businesses and the benefits that small businesses would hand on to their families from building up a business could not be rolled over. They opposed those measures.They claim that this government has done nothing about tax avoidance, yet for 13 years they did absolutely nothing about trusts. As the Prime Minister said yesterday, they keep saying, `We would have fixed up all these trust problems; all these loss transfers.' They had 13 years to do it and it took the Liberal Party and the coalition government to come into power and enact the trust loss legislation.These people were failures as far as tax reform goes. The process of tax reform basically came to a grinding halt under Labor when Paul Keating did not get his way at the tax summit about two years after coming into government. Their idea of tax reform is to introduce a capital gains tax, a fringe benefits tax and a whole range of new taxes, even a gold tax. That is their idea. They have to have their idea of tax reform because they have to spend so much money. They have already announced spending plans for a further $6 billion, so we ask the Labor Party what new taxes they will introduce when they are re-elected to power. (Time expired)15:27:001416Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAYUI4VICALP00—Today we had the unedifying spectacle of a minister taking his bat and ball and going home. We saw Senator Parer simply fail to answer questions, no doubt on advice, because after all, his performance here during the last six question times has been that of a bewildered and befuddled individual, taxing his memory, as he says, trying to remember his past, trying to order it in such a way that he will not reveal anything that could do him damage. All we have seen is a trail of misleading statements in the Senate that has left everyone totally confused, so that when we actually directed questions to him to try to clarify these areas, all we got today was, `I'm not going to answer any questions.' It is like the captain of a cricket side, in the fourth innings, 400 runs behind, declaring, and off he has gone back to his home state. As Senator Cook said, `You can run, but you can't hide.'These questions were in order. Going to the credibility of a minister has always been a question that could be raised in this chamber. I can remember back in 1990 or 1991 former Senator Baume, now the Consul-General in New York, asking me a question on immigration when I was defence minister and not even representing the immigration minister in this chamber.On the basis of Senator Parer's attitude today, I could have refused to answer the question. I did not. I thought I might as well answer it, get rid of it and settle the matter there and then. But going to the credibility of a minister, both in his past performance and the links into the present, is totally in order.I say this to Minister Parer: if he is not willing to answer questions here, if he is not willing to stand the heat in the kitchen here, then he should pack up and go. He should have gone, anyway, to save his Prime Minister (Mr Howard) embarrassment. He should have gone so that the code could live on. He should have gone because his very presence here dishonours the decision made by Senator Short and Senator Gibson to resign. He is, in fact, telling them that even though he is in exactly the same circumstances, his career, his persona, his income, are more important than their honour. That is exactly what he has done.This is not the first time that Senator Parer has not answered questions. He started on Thursday last week when he called a press conference in Brisbane to explain himself. What happened at that press conference? First, all radio and print journalists were excluded. We know the reason for that: they might have asked hard or difficult questions, so his media adviser only invited representatives of the electronic media. When a photographer turned up, he was thrown out. Then the media adviser turned to the electronic media reporters and said, `If you show footage of him being thrown out, you're barred in future.' This pathetic performance by Senator Parer today began exactly a week ago in Brisbane when he would not face the music.Senator Parer said here the other day that he would take on anyone. Remember that statement? `You're fighting on my ground,' he said. He was not fighting on his ground today; he jibbed it, and jibbed badly. This is part of a strategy. Senator Parer's media adviser has been going around the press gallery this morning threatening everyone. I do not mind if Senator Parer issues writs—that is his right—but they have gone the extra step. They threatened that anyone who in future writes on these particular matters better watch out because they are going to sue. He will need very deep pockets to deal with that matter, I suggest.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—I think we have established that he has got deep pockets.UI4Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAY—Yes, Senator. To quote Arthur Daly, `He's been on a very nice little earner, hasn't he?' It has been a regular little earner when you consider how much money has flowed in from activities that he engaged in, not activities related to his experience in his previous career but activities related to when he was a full-time senator.The other part of the government strategy is to say to the opposition, `Hey, where's your policy?' Is this the same party which, between 1993 and 1996, would not produce one policy until the election period? They closed down all discussion so there could be no scrutiny of their future policies and kept saying, `We'll announce them in the election period.' Even then, they only announced about half of their policies because they had to censor other people so it could not be applied to scrutiny. Do not let them come into this chamber with their double standards demanding that we produce all our policy when they refused to do so. (Time expired)15:32:001417Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALDYW4QLDLP10—That was another nice attempt by Senator Ray to rewrite history. The Labor Party is pretty good at that, and Senator Ray is one of the experts. Those who have been here for the last two and a bit weeks know that Senator Parer has been subjected to the most consistent and rigorous questioning that we have seen for a long time.On each occasion, Senator Parer has very clearly, concisely and forthrightly answered those questions. He has done it in detail. He has tabled documents. There really is nothing further that he can say, but the Labor Party senators are so bereft of any new and different ideas that they keep asking the same questions day after day, after day, after day. They are too stupid to understand the answers that Senator Parer has given.Today, when Labor Party senators yet again asked exactly the same questions that they had asked yesterday, Senator Parer rightly said, `I don't want to waste the time of the Senate. I don't want to stop the Senate from dealing with the real issues of tax, health and Aboriginal affairs, so I will simply say, "Read yesterday's Hansard if you want an answer to today's question because you asked the same question yesterday and I would only give you the same answer today".' Those answers have been clear and forthright. They have now gone on for what was it—10, 12 or 15 days? Senator Parer really has nothing further to answer.Senator Faulkner tells us that they are going to keep going. This is typical of the Labor Party. It is not interested in the real issues, the ones that most Australians are interested in—things like health and the huge increase in money that the Howard government has made available to states for the health of Australian citizens. The Labor Party is not interested in the matters that Senator Herron was talking about—the matters of Aboriginal health and the way that Senator Herron is determined to ensure that the money made available for Aborigines in Australia is directed to their education, health and housing. The Labor Party is not interested in the welfare of Aborigines. It wants to continue asking the same old questions it has been asking—with noth ing new, nothing interesting and no new facts coming forward.I note that it is the same old Labor Party team day after day. Obviously, no-one on the other side is interested apart from Senator Faulkner, Senator Ray and Senator Cook. Senator Cook, I think it was, used the argument that because the editorial writers are saying something then that should happen. If that were the criterion by which this parliament operated, Senator Bolkus would have resigned from the parliament some weeks ago—that is, when all the editorial writers were saying that you cannot have the alternative Attorney-General leaking confidential court documents so that a criminal, a person who has broken Australian law, can escape Australian law. Yet those confidential documents were released by the supposed alternative first law officer of the country.If we were going to do what the editorial writers are saying, we would have seen the last of Senator Bolkus a week or so ago. If we were going to do what the editorial writers said, we would have had a GST by now, but that does not seem to be on the Labor Party's mind either. (Time expired)Question resolved in the affirmative.Documents14181418141810000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—In accordance with the provisions of the Audit Act 1901, I present the following report of the Auditor-General:Report No. 38 of 1997-98—Performance audit—sale of Brisbane, Melbourne and Perth airports.Committees14181418141810000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—The President has received a letter from the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate seeking a variation to the membership of a committeeMotion (by Senator Ellison)—by leave—agreed to:That Senator Forshaw replace Senator Mackay on the Economics References Committee for the committee's inquiry into the replacement of the High Flux Australian Reactor at Lucas Heights.Miscellaneous1418Message received from the House of Representatives agreeing to the amendments made by the Senate to the following bill:Taxation Laws Amendment (Trust Loss and Other Deductions) Bill 1997 .Miscellaneous1418Message from His Excellency the Governor-General was reported, informing the Senate that he had assented to the following laws:Civil Aviation Legislation Amendment Bill 1998Flags Amendment Bill 1998Miscellaneous141815:39:001418Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—I move:That the Senate condemns the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) for his total lack of leadership and the total failure of his Government's health policies, as evidenced by:(a) the rejection by all States and the Northern Territory of the inadequate funding proposals for a new Medicare agreement;(b) the reduction in funding for public hospitals of $800 million;(c) the failure of the private health insurance incentive scheme to increase levels of private health insurance;(d) the increased cost of necessary pharmaceuticals due to the Therapeutic Group Premium changes;(e) the abolition of the Commonwealth Dental Health Program;(f) reduced funding for the Public Health Program; and(g) the reduction in funding for medical research.We just heard, prior to this debate coming on, remarks by Senator Ian Macdonald in respect of taking note of answers. During his diatribe, his vitriol, he claimed that the opposition was not directing its attention to the real issues that affect ordinary Australians today. I want to take up that challenge because that is totally untrue, as are his other remarks that the supposed unimportance of questions of ministerial propriety are not issues that affect and interest ordinary Australians today—they certainly are.As we on this side of the chamber acknowledge, issues such as health, industrial relations, education and taxation are all matters that Australians are vitally concerned about. They are also matters that we have been debating in this chamber and in this parliament this week. Indeed, today in question time Senator Herron, the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Family Services in this chamber, was asked questions in regard to the failure of this government's health policies. He was asked particular questions in relation to the abject failure of the private health insurance incentive scheme; a $1.7 billion scheme implemented by this government, supposedly to increase the levels of private health insurance in this country. But, in fact, we have seen a reduction in funding in the last two years to its lowest level ever.Senator Herron was asked a question in regard to the stalemate between the federal government and the state health ministers and premiers with respect to renegotiating the Medicare agreements. This is a most important issue. It is a matter that has achieved a great deal of public and editorial comment in this country over the last few weeks. It puts the lie to Senator Ian Macdonald's allegation that the opposition is not concerned. We are deeply concerned and we have been making our concerns known in this parliament through, as I said, questions to the minister at question time—questions which he absolutely failed to answer. When you ask this minister a question about private health insurance or about renegotiating public hospital funding, he talks about immunisation—a most important issue—but he cannot answer the question he is asked. He has to go off and talk about a totally separate issue.Also, only yesterday we had a matter of urgency debate in this parliament with respect to health funding issues. Today we put on the notice paper, and we are going to debate, this very important issue: the failure of this government's health policies. I turn to the notice of motion I have moved, which states:That the Senate condemns the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) for his total lack of leadership and the total failure of his Government's health policies, as evidenced by:(a) the rejection by all States and the Northern Territory of the inadequate funding proposals for a new Medicare agreement;(b) the reduction in funding for public hospitals of $800 million;(c) the failure of the private health insurance incentive scheme to increase levels of private health insurance;(d) the increased cost of necessary pharmaceuticals due to the Therapeutic Group Premium changes;(e) the abolition of the Commonwealth Dental Health Program;(f) reduced funding for the Public Health Program; and(g) the reduction in funding for medical research.Here we have at least seven indications as to where this government and this Prime Minister, because of his lack of leadership, have failed the Australian people.Let us go back to what was said by the minister for health and the Prime Minister at the time of the last election. They made solemn promises to the people of Australia that they would maintain Medicare. But what have we seen? We have seen an impasse reached in negotiations between the Commonwealth and the states on the most critically important aspect of Medicare, that is, the funding to be paid by the Commonwealth to the states to maintain the Medicare system, to maintain the public hospital system.The situation is that negotiations have now been going on for 12 months or so. The health ministers in every single state, the six states of this country—five of which, I remind senators, have governments which are not governments of the Labor Party persuasion, but governments of the coalition parties—together with the New South Wales Labor government and the Northern Territory government, a Country-Liberal Party coalition government, all said to this government, `Your offer is totally inadequate.' They said to this government, `We do not believe your figures when you claim that you are increasing in real terms the amount for the health budgets for the public hospital system.'That is the position we have reached. This is the greatest crisis in the health system in living memory. Here is a situation where not only did the negotiations between the ministers for health, state and federal, reach a total impasse but also the matter had to be referred to the Premiers Conference, which took place last Friday. What happened at the Premiers Conference last Friday? All the state premiers and the leader of the Northern Territory government walked out of that conference. They walked out as a unanimous show of protest and demonstration of the absolute contempt in which they hold this government with respect to health policies.Premier Jeff Kennett, no friend of the Labor Party, Premier Court in Western Australia, Premier Olsen in South Australia, Premier Rundle in Tasmania and Premier Borbidge in Queensland—all coalition supporting premiers—took the last possible stance at the Premiers Conference when they walked out. They went on strike, as it were, against this government over health policies. If that does not send a message to this government, nothing will.What was the Prime Minister's response? He accused the premiers of adopting kindergarten tactics. The premiers were saying to the government that its offer of an increase in funding for public hospitals over the next five years is simply inadequate. Furthermore, as we have pointed out time and time again in debates this week and previously, the offer that is on the table for the states—about $2.9 billion—is mostly the money which was taken out of the health budget by this government over the last two years. As we have pointed out, in its last two budgets, this government took $800 million out of funding for public hospitals. They are putting some money back in and claiming it is an increase.This government abolished the Commonwealth dental health program, a program that involved expenditure of $400 million to ensure that the aged and the needy—Commonwealth health card holders—could have access to dental health care when re quired. That dental health program did wonders in terms of reducing the waiting lists for people who needed dental health care and were unable to afford private dental services. This government abolished that scheme. We now have evidence before a Senate committee that waiting lists have grown back out to two years in some cases. It is the aged and the frail particularly who are suffering because of that.Through their actions and through their refusal to buckle, to kowtow to the threats made by the Prime Minister, the premiers have been saying to this government that it simply is not good enough. They require an extra $1.1 billion in increased funding per year to maintain the public hospital system in this country, a system that has a reputation of being one of the best public health systems in the world. But it is at risk now because of the attitude of this government. It is an attitude which is typified by this government on the one hand boasting the claim that they will return the budget to surplus this year but at the same time starving the states of the money they need to maintain a viable public hospital system.We have a situation in the states where waiting lists are growing, but they are growing because of the increasing demand on the public hospital system. That has to be funded. Ultimately, it has to be funded by Commonwealth revenue because, clearly, the states are not in the position of being able to raise the finances to meet that demand.You will hear Senator Herron get up shortly and talk about private health insurance. Let us have a look at private health insurance. When the Labor government came to office in 1983, there was no Medicare. Notwithstanding promises made by previous Liberal governments, they abolished Medibank, as it was known at the time. Remember also that the current Prime Minister, when he was Leader of the Opposition back in the late 1980s, said that he would set out to dismantle Medicare. That was a promise he made. He promised he would abolish bulk-billing.When he was honest enough to tell the people that is what he wanted to do, the people said, `No way, John. We're not going to cop that. Medicare is too important to us for you to abolish it or dismantle it.' So when it came to the last election, what did John Howard say? He said, `I will retain Medicare because it is something that the people of this country want and understand is important. It is something that delivers them universal access to health care.' That is what he said. But when we came to government, as I said, back in 1983, there was no Medicare and 30 per cent or more of the Australian population had no health coverage, none at all—no private health insurance and no public health cover through Medicare.So when you hear Senator Herron talk about declines in the level of private health insurance, understand all the facts. You should understand that, under their regime, 30 per cent of people in this country had no cover. Today, 100 per cent of people in this country have cover, firstly, through Medicare and, secondly, through private health insurance—around 31 per cent of people have private health insurance.It is clear that that level has been falling. Why has that level been falling over the years? As I have admitted this on a number of occasions, I have had private health insurance all my life and I have not dropped out. However, people do drop out. People drop out of private health insurance because they cannot afford to pay it in many cases because they get charged up to $2,000 a year, or around about that figure, for family cover. If a member of that family goes into hospital, notwithstanding Medicare and notwithstanding their private health insurance, in many cases they have to find significant amounts of money to cover the total costs of the medical bills.Premier Kennett himself acknowledged that last week. I have the quote here but I will paraphrase. He pointed out that for many people it just was not economically or financially worth while if at the end of the day you still had to fork out $1,000 of your own money for an operation even after you had paid your health insurance of $2,000 a year and even after Medicare had provided its part of the schedule fee. He said that people were fed up with the gap. So we have had declining levels of private health insurance.This government came into office two years ago and it said, `We've got the answers to that. We're going to fix it.' Minister Wooldridge said he would implement a scheme whereby Australians would get back a tax rebate of $450 per annum if they took out private health insurance, and if they did not take out private health insurance they would pay an increased levy on their Medicare levy if they had an income higher than $70,000 per year, I think it was. This scheme would cost $1.7 billion over three years, which was around about the amount that the government took out of the public health system from the hospitals—the $800 million plus, the $400 million out of dental and money out of other programs such as public health programs and others that I know my colleague Senator Crowley will talk about.They implemented this scheme and Minister Wooldridge said—and I asked Senator Herron this question today and he could not answer it; he talked about immunisation—that by the end of this financial year, only about three months away, coverage would increase to 34 per cent. That is what you said.VW4HERRONSenator Herron—I didn't say that.656Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW—But the result of the decision is, Senator Herron, that today it is at 31.6 per cent, which is lower than what it was when you came to office. So when you talk about trends you were the people who said that you had the answer to get private health coverage to go up, but in fact it is going down. It has reached its lowest level ever. All of this will cost $1.7 billion that you have ripped out of the system.People are still dropping out because, at the same time, what has been happening? Any value that could have been there out of this rebate of $450 a year is being eaten up by increased premiums in excess of 20 per cent in the last two years. The health funds have put their premiums up. It has become automatic now. They are now going to increase their premiums on the same day every year. This is a little deal they did with the government, so that the government did not get embarrassed when every few months another fund would increase their premium. The government got the funds to agree that they will all put their premiums up on the same day. I wonder what the competition commission would think about that. People are being offered $450 as a rebate but in order to get the $450 they have to spend $2,000 or more. There is a whole range of other issues, and I am sure other speakers on the opposition side will go to them.I will just close on a couple of other points. This government said that it would maintain Medicare. What have they done? They have closed 44 Medicare offices in the country. They have closed all of the Medibank Private offices. Here is a government that says that they encourage private health insurance but they have closed down the offices of the government's own private health insurance fund, Medibank Private. They have severed the connection with Medicare offices. They have ultimately reduced the number from around 240 to 70 offices around the country.In closing those 44 Medicare offices, it is very interesting how they worked out which ones should be closed. This demonstrates the ideological bias of this government. In the state of New South Wales, my home state, they closed 14 Medicare offices in the Sydney metropolitan area. Of all the seats in the Sydney metropolitan area exactly half are held by the Labor Party and half by the Liberal Party. So you would think maybe on a rough average half the offices would be in Labor electorates and half in Liberal electorates. But, no—out of the 14 offices that have been closed in Sydney, 10 of them are in Labor electorates and only four in Liberal electorates.As Madam Deputy President West would be aware, as someone living in a rural location in New South Wales, in addition three offices were closed in regional New South Wales each of them in Labor electorates in Newcastle and Wollongong. That is the ideological bias of a government which is committed to destroying Medicare. (Time expired)15:59:001422Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—I will follow on from where Senator Forshaw left off. He talked about private health insurance. You will recall that during question time I said that private health insurance premiums had increased over 100 per cent and Senator Forshaw called out to me and said, `Tell the truth. Tell the truth.'I am pleased to tell him the exact figures. Between 1984 and 1996, Labor averaged 12 per cent a year—144 per cent. That is 144 per cent, Senator Forshaw. That is the truth. That is 12 per cent per annum for the 12 years between 1984 and March 1996, when we came to office. In one catastrophic two-year period between 1986 and 1988, premiums increased by 40 per cent. It is the height of hypocrisy for the Labor Party to now start crying about the cost of private health insurance. I am pleased that Senator Forshaw has it. It shows that he has more intelligence than most of his other colleagues to be covered by private health insurance. He has the opportunity for selection of his doctor and the selection of his hospital bed. But, Senator Forshaw, it was 144 per cent under Labor, not 100 per cent. I apologise for that inaccuracy. In one two-year period it was a 40 per cent increase when the Labor Party was in power. We recognise that we have to take into account the fact that there is an ageing population, as I mentioned, and that the cost of technology is increasing. That would occur whether the Labor Party was in power or whether the coalition was in power. It is a fact of life that technology is improving dramatically and that it is more costly. But that has a converse. The converse is that the bed stay has gone down. People come into hospital, as you know, for day surgery now. Forty per cent of surgery is day surgery. They are only in for a day. Bed stays have gone down by a third in the last five or six years. It is all very well for the states to come along and complain and reject what they call the inadequate funding proposals of the new Medicare agreement. One thing I learnt about health care in the 40 years or so that I have been involved in it is that it is continually changing. I always remember one of my teachers when I was a medical student saying to our class, `Get used to the sound of jackhammers in your ears, because for the rest of your professional lives you'll be hearing them as hospitals change because of increasing demand and increasing changes in technology,' and that has occurred over the last 40 years of my professional life. So there is nothing new. Change is constant. The delay in the production of statistics, Senator Forshaw, is about three years at least. If you look at the statistics at any one time you will see that, by the time the statistics are available, they have been bypassed by the dynamics of what is occurring and changing in the health care system. All that we can address is what is occurring. What we can see and what we can be factual about is what is occurring at present in the statistical figures. I turn now to the health care agreements. If you look at what has occurred between 1993-94 compared to 1992-93, you will see that state spending in New South Wales went down by $50 million, by $53 million in the Northern Territory, by $92 million in Queensland, by $9 million in South Australia, by $32 million in Tasmania, by a whopping $205 million in Victoria, and by $75 million in West Australia. The only one that increased its spending in 1993-94 compared to 1992-93 was the ACT where $17 million extra was spent. In the previous year, again the ACT increased its spending.When you compare the figures overall for state own spending on the health care systems in that period—and the 1993-94 figures are the latest figures available as a proportion of 1992-93—the ACT had a 13.5 per cent increase while all the other states decreased their health care spending. Senator Forshaw did not refer to that. Senator Crowley did refer to the fact that, when she was in government, the states decreased their spending. As I mentioned in question time this afternoon, I will have great pleasure over the next few days getting from Hansard Senator Crowley's speeches when she mentioned the Medicare agreement over the last five years. I know my colleagues do not want me to do it, but I will look forward to that. If you compare those figures in that period, New South Wales decreased their spending on health care by 4.9 per cent, the Northern Territory by 43.9 per cent, Queensland by 14.9 per cent, South Australia by 3.3 per cent, Tasmania by 24.9 per cent, Victoria by 22.7 per cent, and West Australia by 16 per cent. That is an average overall decrease of 12.9 per cent. For the states to come along and now say that they need more money when they have decreased the proportion of spending in their own health care system but have instead come to the taxpayers and said, `Give us more money,' is the height of hypocrisy.It is an even worse height of hypocrisy from the Labor Party opposite because they were the ones that deliberately set out to destroy the private health care system of this country. It was a deliberate move, resisted, I am pleased to say, by the then health minister, Graham Richardson, who tried within his own caucus to tell them what was occurring, but because of ideological and philosophical reasons they would not accept it. Then we had that free-fall in the health care system over private health care insurance rates.I reject completely the states arguments at the moment. As I said previously, the same arguments were used in a contrary fashion by the Labor Party at the time when they were in power. As well as the growth—that is something we should all be pleased about—and ageing of the population, there is the increase in cost in providing health care services. We recognise that. That is going to occur regardless of whichever government is in power. What has happened is that we have slowed the fall in private health insurance because of the actions we have taken. In fact, for one month only, regretfully, there was an increase of 0.1 per cent in the September quarter because of the actions we took. The participation rate is still higher than it would have been had the government not introduced those incentives. I am quite confident in predicting that, because of the effect in my own state, it will plateau. It seems that certainly in Queensland, which has preceded the other states in the decline in private health insurance, it will plateau in the region of 29 per cent or 30 per cent. It has done so for the last 12 or 13 years. There is an irreducible minimum of people who are prepared to take out private health insurance so that they can have their choice of doctor, their choice of hospital, immediate admission and not have the waiting lists that occur in the public system. That will stay. I believe that it looks as though it is reaching that stage because, overall in Australia, private health cover is now 32 per cent, down to 31.6 per cent in the latest quarter.The remedial action that was taken in relation to private health insurance of the higher income earners, as I mentioned in question time, will not be available to us until probably September-October. There is no reliable prediction at the moment as to what that plateau will be, but plateau it will.There are increases in underlying demand. All of us are aware that a few years back the most common surgical procedure done in this country was a coronary bypass procedure. But now we have gone beyond hip replacements, knee replacements, elbow replacements, finger joint replacements for rheumatoid arthritis, insertion of cartilage to rheumatoid arthritic joints. Instead of joint replacements we are now putting in cartilage which belongs to patients themselves, so there is no rejection of cartilage in joints. Instead of just the correction of joints, pain is also relieved by micro-surgery and the insertion of cartilage.656FORSHAWSenator Forshaw—Is this a debate or a consultation?VW4Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRON—This is going to cost more. The point is, Senator Forshaw—all of this is going to cost more—and even you, Senator Forshaw, when you get an arthritic joint as you get older would be prepared to do it.656FORSHAWSenator Forshaw—That is why you ought to give the states more money.VW4Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRON—Unfortunately, younger people are dropping out of private health insurance and you have got the double effect then of not only increasing demand, but replacement of younger people with older people in the private health insurance system, and it is no wonder that private health insurance premiums increase. There has to be flexibility in the system. Overall, there will be better results for patients because they will be receiving the right treatment at the right place.In addition, the Commonwealth is also offering funding of $500 million for projects to improve the health care system, particularly in integrating care across all sectors. We are continuing funding of around $500 million for mental health care reform and palliative care service delivery, and funding of almost $700 million to reward quality service providers. The Commonwealth is also offering $120 million to address waiting list issues to states as they sign the agreement. We are also moving to full cost purchasing of services for entitled veterans provided in public hospitals. In other words, they can choose the hospital and the provider and, on the basis of current service provisions, that will add another $150 million to state revenue.We understand the pressures that are occurring on the state governments, and we are taking action to help them remedy those. At the same time, we recognise that they have to put in their fair share of money. It is all very well to cost- shift. As you know and I know, Madam Deputy President, cost-shifting was a difficult factor since you were in government. By that I mean that the community affairs committee, for example, received evidence that public hospitals issued prescriptions on a Medicare basis, and x-rays were ordered from public hospitals which were done through the private system and then claimed against the private system. Those are just a couple of examples.It is interesting that the ACT has already signed the agreement. It is interesting, in retrospect, when you look at spending in the ACT. Over that period of time that I mentioned previously, they had increased their own spending by 13.5 per cent—so it is no wonder that they were returned with a majority in the last ACT election and the Labor Party went down to 27 per cent.The government will not agree to the requests of the states in relation to the current Medicare agreements because, in effect, they want the Commonwealth to increase its contribution to hospital funding by around 10 per cent. Under the previous Labor government, that is what they did. They decreased their funding, as I mentioned, in that period of time. None of the Commonwealth's addi tional money in that period—over the three years—found its way into health. State funding took three years to return to 1992-93 levels. If the Commonwealth increased funding by the $1.1 billion sought by the states for year one, and if the states maintained their own source spending—and given their past history, that is a pretty heroic assumption—resources available to hospitals will increase by at least 10 per cent in 1998-99. That would be enough to pay for over 300,000 more admissions. There are not 300,000 more admissions required in this country at the moment, so it is fatuous for them to ask for that amount of funding.I have dealt with the public hospitals funding, the private health insurance rates, and the failure of the private health insurance incentive scheme, as alleged by Senator Forshaw, to increase levels of private health insurance. My confident prediction is, of course, that it will plateau. I am happy to table graphs in relation to the growth in own source recurrent hospitals expenditure, between the Commonwealth and states—indexed to 1992-93 dollars—which support the arguments that I have already put. Those graphs clearly show the states' record compared with the Commonwealth's over the last five years of the present Medicare agreement. They are based on Commonwealth Grants Commission and state budget data as well as the projected increase in base funding over the next five years under the Commonwealth's proposals. Those graphs compare the 12.9 per cent cut in state-owned spending in 1993-94 with a 12.6 per cent front-ended increase in Commonwealth spending. They show that state-owned spending did not return to the levels of 1991-92 until 1995-96 and that, under the Commonwealth proposal, there will be a significant, sustained rise in base funding every year over the five years of the agreement. I completely reject the proposals put in Senator Forshaw's motion in that regard.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Minister, are you tabling those documents?VW4Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRON—I am happy to if they want me to. They may not want to see them; it will refute their argument.ZF4CROWLEYSenator Crowley—I think the usual procedure, Senator, is that if you are tabling it, you do not need to but, if you are asking to incorporate it, we do need to see it.VW4Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRON—No, I did not. I said I am happy to table them if that is requested.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—To assist Hansard , I am trying to find out if you are going to table them or not.VW4Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRON—If the Labor Party would like them tabled, I will table them.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—They are tabled? Good.VW4Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRON—Because it completely destroys their argument, I will table them.656FORSHAWSenator Forshaw—If you can't figure out whether to table or not, how can you figure out the funding?VW4Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRON—I am happy to table them, Senator Forshaw. I thought you might like to see them. The other matters will be covered by successive speakers. The motion then refers to:. . . the increased cost of necessary pharmaceuticals due to the Therapeutic Group Premium changes;The indexation of pharmaceutical benefits charges and the reduction of numbers of therapeutics that were available under the pharmaceutical benefits scheme were brought in by the Labor government because of a cost-saving measure. All that we have done with the therapeutic group premium changes is to make comparable drugs available which have the same therapeutic effect, but those that are on the PBS rather than those that are on the private health system; so that the patient will not be affected by the availability of groups that have a similar therapeutic effect but will cost the taxpayer less.If that had been allowed to continue, as the Labor Party well knows, the exponential rise in the cost of the PBS to the taxpayer would continue. There has to be some modification made because of the increasing cost of the PBS to taxpayers, again related to the ageing population and to the dramatic increase in the number of people in these older age groups—as I mentioned, from 350,000 to 750,000 in the over-75s—in the next eight years.There is an increased cost, there is no question about that, but there has to be a stage reached where it is impossible to continue an open-ended scheme that is going to cost the taxpayer more and more without increasing taxation. As you know, that change was launched recently. There have been other changes, of course,The Commonwealth announced the national prescribing service in the 1997 budget last May. Funding of $22 million over four years will be provided for this unique and exciting approach to encourage the quality use of medicines, and fundings will be contingent on savings to the pharmaceutical benefits scheme of $24.4 million over the funded period through encouraging quality and more cost-effective prescribing. It will aim to improve health outcomes in Australia through appropriate and cost-effective prescribing, by providing national leadership to facilitate and promote quality prescribing in partnership with all stakeholders. That initiative has widespread support from all stakeholders.The national prescribing service will primarily receive its funding from the Commonwealth Department of Health and Family Services. However, as a company limited by guarantee, operating at arm's length from government, opportunities will exist for other sources of funding to be incorporated. Profits will be used to advance the interests and objectives in the company and cannot be distributed to members for their own benefit.In summary, we recognise the cost increases that are occurring for the state governments. There is no question of that; we do not resile from that. These things are occurring and would occur whichever government were in power. They are an inevitable result of the ageing of the population and the increasing use and dramatic nature of the technology that is available. Yet, what do we hear from the Labor Party? What is their solution to this inevitable increase? We have not heard a word, except to increase taxation. But that will not solve the problem of the ageing population, and it will result in more people dropping out of private health insurance. We need to get back to the era when at least 40 per cent, and preferably 50 per cent, of people are covered by private health insurance.It is a fact of life that the throughput of the private hospitals is much less than the public hospitals. There is nothing wrong with that. It is because the teaching component in the public hospital system and the various related research activities mean that the cost of running public hospitals is higher than the cost of running private hospitals. Interestingly enough, those opposite might allege that it is because of the gross profits that are made in private hospitals. The largest private hospitals are not for profit and are church owned in this country. So that allegation is not correct either.16:19:001426Crowley, Sen RosemarySenator CROWLEYZF4SAALP00—I am very appreciative of my colleague Senator Forshaw moving this motion which states:The Senate condemns the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) for his total lack of leadership and the total failure of his Government's health policies, as evidenced by:(a) the rejection by all States and the Northern Territory of the inadequate funding proposals for a new Medicare agreement—I will hopefully come back to the other points listed in the motion during my contribution. First of all, I want to reinforce and restate the quite horrible pictures that we all saw of all the state and territory premiers walking out in an unprecedented experience at a Premiers Conference, because they realised that the proposals by the Commonwealth government were going to be quite insufficient to deal with the challenges of adequate health funding in this country—unprecedented. I believe Senator Herron is going to leave this debate, which is a great pity; you should stay and have your ideas reformed, Senator.656FORSHAWSenator Forshaw—He is coming to join us.ZF4Crowley, Sen RosemarySenator CROWLEY—I am not sure we should welcome that, not with his views. The health issue is becoming so important to the state and territory governments, and so clearly at a deadlock, that it became an item for a Premiers Conference. That is pretty unusual. From time to time, premiers will take up an argument on behalf of the states about some matters—for example, guns and gun law changes—which are not necessarily specific to premiers' responsibilities, but usually health business is worked out between the Commonwealth and state and territory health ministers. Here we have seen the pushing and shoving going on for so long and to so little effect that it became an item at the Premiers Conference.The premiers realised in very short time that they would get no comfort at all from Mr Howard and Mr Costello. They were not prepared to talk to the states about any more reasonable way of tackling the problem of health costs. So we all saw that very unseemly picture of the premiers leaving: `No point in staying.' `There's no further conversation.' `Take the money or leave it.`Take the money or leave it' might be an appropriate line if you are debating things down a dark alley and it might be reasonable in some sorts of business, but it is hardly the line you would expect from a Prime Minister of this country when talking to the premiers of the states. That is essentially what he said—`Take the money or leave'—and they left. Indeed, it is quite amazing to me that even though we have a conservative Prime Minister and only one Labor premier—all the other state and territory governments are conservative or from the same party as Mr Howard—that does not make for any easier negotiation.I believe what is important in all of this debate are some hard facts. The idea is being proposed that there be a full audit of the cost of health. While I would not go so far as to support it, it would seem to suggest that what we do need is some hard data. Senator Herron tabled a document that suggests that it is the states which underfunded health, not the Commonwealth. While Senator Herron was suggesting that he would go back and find my speech when we were in government that might embarrass me, I think he will be more embarrassed by his own contribution back then because what Senator Herron did in opposition was constantly blame the federal Labor government for failure to adequate fund the states.As I argued again and again and as Senator Herron's little document proves, the Commonwealth contribution to the states over the period of the previous Medicare agreement under the Labor government did have an increase in dollars and it was the states which fiercely cut the dollars back. The more we argued that, the more Senator Herron argued that that was not the case. It takes Senator Herron only about five years to catch up with what are the hard facts. He has now got it right for what was the situation back then. Perhaps if he comes back in the year 2003, he will have it right for this year, but do not hold your breath.What we have got by the coalition government is a whole series of obfuscated facts and figures. The fact is that the states—no doubt about it—have fearfully cut back the funding for hospitals within their own areas of responsibility, within the states. There is no doubt about that. They cut that money under the previous health agreement, but under this government and over the last few years the cuts by our state colleagues have been very fierce. In particular, the state that springs most to mind is Victoria.It is very rare for the doctors of any part of the medical profession to want to strike. Orthopaedic surgeons were minded to do something like that when Minister Blewett was the Minister for Health in the Commonwealth. But in Victoria under Premier Kennett the doctors in the public hospitals were on the verge of striking because they realise what Mr Kennett's government was doing to those public hospitals in particular. As I say, it takes a whole lot to persuade doctors to strike, but they were driven to the very edge of doing that in Victoria.First of all we need to accept in this argument that the states are responsible for significant cutbacks in their contribution to hospital funding, but that does not absolve the Commonwealth government for being honest about their contribution as they are part of this new negotiated Commonwealth-state agreement in health. It is no good to say the states cut the funding, therefore, we are going to give them only this, it is real and they should be grateful because, as the Labor opposition can point out, the federal government are merely proposing to put back under their Commonwealth contribution to the Medicare agreements a large amount of the money that they have systematically cut out.It is one thing to blame the states—and they are guilty and they are trying to make a good case for their argument—but their situation must not obscure the facts that we have to deal with in terms of the Commonwealth contribution. The argument needs to be put again and again. It is this Howard government that cut $800 million from the hospital system. It is this Howard government that has cut over $400 million from the Commonwealth dental health program. It is this government that has cut funding from within the health service and now it big notes itself by saying that it is giving the states real increases by doing no more than putting back the money that it has so mean-spiritedly taken out over the last couple of years. It has had only two budgets, but it has damn near wrecked the health system in this country.If you really want to know one measure of the mean mindedness of Mr Howard, consider the Commonwealth dental health program. The people who were eligible for assistance with dental care were older people through the public hospital system and that money was just pulled—lock, stock and barrel. It is just called, `Too bad. If you need your dental care, see what you can negotiate on your own behalf within your state areas. The Commonwealth has withdrawn its funding.' What is meaner than taking away dental support and dental care for elderly Australians? When you add that to the whack they were given in terms of proposed changes in nursing homes, you would have to say that this Howard government has no empathy at all for that section of the community, the older people in this country.Senator Herron's contribution to this debate is nothing if not confused. On the one hand he says they are not responsible for the fall in private health insurance. No, somehow or another, having spent two years in government they are responsible for nothing when it comes to bad things. He then goes on to blame the Labor government: somehow or other it is all our responsibility for being in government for 13 years and wrecking the system. He certainly does not like the fact so well put by Senator Forshaw that, when we came into office in 1983, over two million Australians had no health insurance and what they got under Medicare—what everybody got under Medicare, what every family in this country got under Medicare—was protection from any of those health bills. That is what Medicare gave people.As the people of Australia got used to Medicare, they embraced it. They really appreciate what it does because it says to them, `If you are sick, if you need an operation or if you have to see your general practitioner, you have to worry about being unwell but you do not have to worry about how you can pay for it. You are protected against the big health bills that have so crippled people in the past.'In the lead up to the 1983 election many people in Australia were sicker than they needed to be because they could not afford to go to appropriate health care. The Labor government fixed that with the introduction of Medicare. People have said again and again that they want Medicare protected. They do not want—and they are telling us very clearly—to pay ever increasing and huge dollars for private health insurance when the one thing private health insurance gives you is access to a health bill.If people think that this is me being a Labor Party person and going on, then I shall refer them to Access Economics. They came along and spoke to an AMA dinner in this Parliament House last week. I think it must have been very sobering for my Liberal-National party colleagues who were along to hear Access Economics—which is known to be from the more conservative side of the political spectrum—making absolutely clear that private health insurance is a bad packet. It is a very poor economic outcome. Why would anyone want to buy it?Take two citizens: one pays taxes; one pays the Medicare levy and that is all. They have decided no private health insurance. Compare that to the next citizen who has to pay taxes, who has to pay the Medicare levy, who buys private health insurance, and then has to pay hospital bills on top of it. It is, in simple terms, a very bad package. People in the community—the coalition government fails to realise they are not dolts—are walking away from that in droves. The price of private health insurance is going through the roof, pushed there by the insane rebate offered by the coalition government. Why wouldn't people take the money? It was money for jam for the private health insurance industry and they took it.What this means, of course, is that people buying private health insurance, who are trying to maintain it or come into it, have to pay a significant increase in their premium. It has gone through the roof: over $2,000 a year for a standard family with a couple of children. That is very big money for people who are doing it very tightly. That is a lot of dollars that people have to find. They say: `$40 or so a week versus no cost at all and the protection of our public hospital system. Why shouldn't we settle for that?' In droves they are doing that. Let us not forget the $1.6 billion handed out in rebate over three years to encourage people into private health insurance, only to see the rebate lost in almost the first rise of the cost of private health insurance and also further reduced by the number of people leaving private health insurance.The government should have realised that the best way to help the public health system in this country, the best way to help the health system of all citizens, is to extend and promote our Medicare system and our great public hospitals. If you are really crook, where do you go? You go to our public hospitals. I like to think that the best example of this is Mr Kerry Packer. When he had a heart attack playing polo he was taken straight to Westmead hospital and it was the public hospital system that restored Mr Packer's good health. He moved on to a private hospital after that, but that was where his life was saved. If you talk about people who are in intensive care, they are in the public hospital system. If you have an accident or an emergency, I still do not know of any public hospital in this country that has ever turned away a patient.The government is trying to big note itself in small packages. If you sign up on the agreement then you will get extra money to try and run down waiting lists. I heard Senator Knowles say in this place the last time we talked about health that in 13 years of Labor government nothing was ever done to run down waiting lists. I do not mind a bit of political over the top-edness but I do object strenuously to blatant misrepresentation of the facts. On a number of occasions the Labor government did put money into the public hospitals. On one occasion it put in $40 million, to be matched by the state governments and, of course, with that extra money the waiting lists dropped.But I think we need to talk about waiting lists because I have a very interesting response here from the government which runs contrary to what Minister Wooldridge and Senator Herron say. I asked in a question on notice:How many people were waiting for surgery in South Australian public hospitals on 1 November: (a) 1997; (b) 1996; (c) 1995; and (d) 1994.And the answer was:The Commonwealth does not hold this data.So I would be interested to know how it is that my Commonwealth colleagues are forever reciting almost any figure that comes to mind about the size of waiting lists. They make it up. But their own department says to me, `We cannot give you those figures, we do not hold that data.' So I think your first challenge is, Minister Wooldridge, where do you get your figures from? I have noticed over the last few weeks that the waiting list figures are now 50,000, 70,000 and 100,000. It just depends on which conversation you are listening to. The answer from the Commonwealth department goes on:However, it should be noted that waiting lists are a poor indicator of hospital and health system performance which do not necessarily provide an accurate indications of problems relating to access to elective surgery.Many hospital admissions, including elective admissions, occur without the patient ever being on a waiting list.Some period of waiting may be appropriate, depending on the clinical urgency of the case: . waiting lists provide a mechanism for scheduling admissions so that the most urgent cases are treated first; and. the clinical urgency of cases on the waiting lists is therefore more critical than the number of cases.Because of these factors, it is accepted by both Commonwealth and State/Territory health authorities that it is more appropriate to focus on admitting people to hospital within clinically appropriate times than on the number of people waiting at any point in time.So a million people on a waiting list may only have to wait a week. That is significantly different from 10 people having to wait two years. We do not ever hear that explanation. We are back to big figures and a scare campaign from the government itself. Who do they think people in the community are going to judge when they find things wrong with the health system? Sometimes I think this coalition government does not really know it is in office. The response continues:For elective surgery, the incentive is not based on the number of people on waiting lists but on the length of time people wait on the list before admission to hospital.It is important, if that is what the Commonwealth department is saying, that the ministers might want to be `in sync' with their own department. We know that is the case and it would be very useful to this health debate if we actually had a discussion about waiting times, and what procedures have long waiting times, rather than scare campaigns about the size of the waiting lists. In fact, the people who have a long waiting time are the people waiting for orthopaedic operations; ear, nose and throat operations; and eye operations. That has been the case since the 1950s, that those three types of patients have to wait on waiting lists for a long time. In almost every other area, urgent and elective surgery is dealt with in very acceptable and short times.In the few minutes remaining, I want to talk about the public health point in Senator Forshaw's motion:(f) reduced funding for the Public Health Program—We have been able to pursue this through the estimates. I have asked questions about this, as have my colleagues. I was interested to note that a little while ago the proposal has come from the government to roll together the public health issues, particularly women's health, family planning, breast cancer and so on, into one broadband of Commonwealth funding in negotiation with the states.When this was proposed the first time round I was told that there would be a 10 per cent cut in this funding. This was called an efficiency dividend. My question was: why is there a 10 per cent efficiency dividend for this part of public health, particularly women's health programs, and a three per cent dividend over the rest of the department? It is interesting that the answer contained, and I should think everyone would agree, a fair amount of bluster. It was a nice way of saying, `We are straight cutting the funding.'I have sought further information about family planning. The answer I received confirmed what I have been saying. Interestingly, family planning organisations in the states have been, by and large, actually able to negotiate with the Commonwealth that they not be included in the public health outcome funding agreements. They will continue to get their funding as a separate amount. As a result, the contribution of the Commonwealth meant that there was only a reduction of 3.3 per cent in 1996-97 but a five per cent reduction in 1997-98. The figures show that in every family planning service across Australia there has been a real drop in funding. When you put that with Senator Herron's gobbledegook contribution, how can you deal with decreased funding at a time of increased demand on services?One of the things we need to know about family planning services is that they are providing a lot of assistance for men as well as women. They are providing advice and assistance not just in family planning and pregnancy care but in the management of sexually transmitted diseases and AIDS. While you have an increasing need for that kind of service and a decrease in Commonwealth funding, which is expressly and explicitly spelt out in this document from the department, there is a grave concern. It is the same for other areas of public health through public health funding.16:39:001431Payne, Sen MariseSenator PAYNEM56NSWLP10—I welcome the opportunity to address the motion moved by Senator Forshaw for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that it gives me the opportunity to address some of the issues in my own state of New South Wales which will prove just how reprehensible the opposition's allegations are in this area. Senator Forshaw's motion states that the rejection by the states and Northern Territory of the Commonwealth's Medicare agreement is evidence of the failure of this government's health policies.It seems to me that yet again it is important to reinforce the point to those opposite and to those listening that the states are doing nothing new in this round of health care agreements. They are playing politics at the expense of their own communities and basically making patients in their own states wait in pain. The rejection by the states and Northern Territory of the agreement is, as I think Senator Herron said earlier today, standard operational procedure when an agreement like this comes up for renewal. They are posturing performances that only hurt the patients in the states of the health ministers and premiers.The Commonwealth's offer to the states and the territories is a generous one. It is an offer that contains $2.9 billion in new funding over five years, over and above the forward estimates, and would increase Commonwealth spending from $26 billion under the 1993 to 1998 Medicare agreement to $30.17 billion under the 1998 to 2003 Australian health care agreements.Let us have a look at the extra $2.9 billion and the commitment in that regard. It involves an extra $1.5 billion in base funding over the next five years; an extra $750 million for veterans in public hospitals; and for initiatives in efficiency and effectiveness in hospitals an extra $500 million, particularly in the area of information technology. As the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Hill, this week took the Senate through this in answer to a question from me, another $120 million will be spent on waiting lists in public hospitals. That is $2.9 billion of new money. It is a 6.9 per cent real increase in the first year of funding and over the five years of the agree ment will amount to a 15.4 per cent real increase.The premiers cannot see fit to think about their constituents, their electors and the patients in their own states. Some 1,300 people on waiting lists for elective surgery will not be admitted for treatment this week due to the state and Northern Territory governments' rejection of the Commonwealth's $2.9 billion increase in funding at the Premiers Conference last week.The critical and urgent treatment waiting lists incentive which provides $4 million a week for 30 weeks did begin this week, with the ACT government able to draw $550,000 to treat 200 people. That incentive money is available to the states and territories once they have signed an in principle agreement over health funding. So an extra 1,500 people around Australia could have been helped this week and every week for the next 30 weeks. As the Chief Minister of the ACT, Kate Carnell, appears to be the only state or territory leader and the only health minister prepared to put patients first, the number getting assistance is only the 200 in the ACT. One asks oneself how the premiers and health ministers can treat sick people in their states this way.Some state ministers are attempting to claim that they can only benefit from the CUT waiting list incentive if they signed the health care agreement lock, stock and barrel. That is simply not true. It is just one of the distortions, one of the misrepresentations that some of the ministers are peddling. All that a state has to do in order to access this waiting list incentive pool is indicate that they are willing to sign in principle. They lose nothing by signing an in principle agreement, but gain immediate access to extra money to treat people who are suffering on their waiting lists.The premiers' performance has just led to hurting patients in their own states. As Senator Hill said yesterday one hopes that their tactics were not calculated to let that happen but certainly the Commonwealth will not. The Prime Minister (Mr Howard) responded speedily in this regard and said that the key parts of the Commonwealth offer would be implemented even if the state premiers could not see their way clear to come to some agreement. Notwithstanding their posturing, notwithstanding their walkout and notwithstanding the reasons for which they said they did it, the Commonwealth, the Prime Minister and the Minister for Health and Family Services (Dr Wooldridge) will not let patients suffer as a result of that particular approach.The Minister for Health and Family Services has made repeated and clear statements on the issue. The message is very clear. It is that the states' demands for an extra $5.5 billion should be dismissed. The states themselves cut their own spending in the early years of the last agreement and to date not one of the states or the Northern Territory has given a formal guarantee that they will at least maintain their present spending over the next five years.So what is their political response to that? While they demand a 40 per cent increase in Commonwealth spending, they are yet to guarantee that they will not reduce their own spending. The actions of the states and the Northern Territory are not a reflection on the Commonwealth government's health policies, as we are aware. It has been stressed over and over again by a number of people, particularly Senator Herron in preceding me today, that the states demand is a play at politics and it is financially irresponsible.It is important to record what some of the states in particular are doing. It is of great interest to me to look at my own state of New South Wales and what can only be described as the waiting list fiasco there. At the end of last month, more than 50,000 people were waiting for elective surgery, giving the Labor government in New South Wales the particular honour of being the government responsible for the highest ever waiting list in New South Wales. It can be described as nothing less than a waiting list catastrophe. Of the 50,778 people on the list, 4,602 of them had been waiting for more than 12 months, and the average waiting time has gone from 27 days to a month and a half.But let us think about what happened when the Labor Premier of New South Wales, Mr Carr, and his Minister for Health, Andrew Refshauge, came to office in March 1995. What they did, and it was an interesting tactic, was stake their jobs on the need to drive down waiting lists to around 20,000. Three years down the track, in March 1998, what do we have in front of us? We have a record of in excess of 50,000 people on waiting lists. So the question has to be asked of the Premier of New South Wales, Mr Carr, and the health minister, Dr Refshauge: what happened? How is it that you can storm out of premiers conferences posturing about increased funding when you cannot even keep your own commitments to your own constituents? They have no-one else to blame but themselves because it is in fact the case that Commonwealth grants to New South Wales health increased in the last financial year. Dr Refshauge blames every one and every thing and every aspect of politics that he possibly can; he is unable to take responsibility himself.Let us look at the situation in some of the hospitals in New South Wales in particular and make a comparison between what the previous New South Wales coalition government achieved and the Carr Labor government's ability to manage elective surgery waiting times. I am obviously particularly interested in what is going on in western Sydney, an area of New South Wales which is particularly important to me. In Bankstown and Lidcombe the number of people waiting more than 12 months in March 1995 was 11. In January 1998, the number waiting more than 12 months was 214 people—an increase of 1,845 per cent. In Concord Hospital there was an increase of 266 per cent over the same period. In Liverpool Hospital the number rose from 78 in March 1995 to 271 in January 1998—an increase of 247 per cent. In the new childrens Westmead Hospital, which is firmly located in the area in which I work in western Sydney, the increase was from 11 in March 1995 to 50 in January 1998—an increase of 355 per cent; and in Westmead Hospital there was a 120 per cent increase from 160 in March 1995 to 352 in January 1998. The average of that particular process—from 2,264 to 4,602—is a total increase of 103 per cent. If Dr Refshauge and Mr Carr cannot read the writing on the wall from that, I am sure the people in New South Wales will bring it to their attention in March of next year.There is in excess of a dozen reasons why the behaviour of Dr Andrew Refshauge and the New South Wales government in relation to the new Medicare agreements has resulted in the New South Wales health system being far more to blame for this, than any allegations they can level against the Commonwealth. I have already addressed the question of the number of people waiting for elective surgery in New South Wales public hospitals, but let me remind you again: a promise of 20,000, now at 50,778.More people are waiting longer for surgery. By January 1998, 4,602 had been waiting for more than a year. In March 1995, that number was 2,265. The average waiting time is out to one and a half months—that is six weeks; in March 1995 it was 27 days. But apparently none of this is the fault of Dr Refshauge or Mr Carr. It is someone else's fault and they, of course, conveniently blame the Commonwealth. Perhaps they could explain this in some detail to the 118 emergency patients, on average, who in January were left lying for at least eight hours on a trolley in a corridor waiting for a hospital bed after being seen by a doctor. Perhaps they could explain to the people using hospitals in our state, including those who want to park in car parks, their lack of knowledge of an across-the-board increase of 12.5 per cent in hospital user charges—blaming the policy on their Director-General and then backing away from it.The errors in the health restructure in New South Wales, again, were blamed on the Commonwealth. In June 1996 there were threats to close established hospitals, including St Vincents in Darlinghurst, and to axe 800 jobs—without cabinet backing and with no industry consultation. So I do not know how the states can say, as they have in this context, that it is all the fault of the Commonwealth. Senator Forshaw in his motion made allegations in relation to a reduction in funding for public hospitals and inadequate funding proposals for the new Medicare agreement. The facts are that those responsible in the states, and particularly in my state of New South Wales, cannot walk away from the state of their health systems.In many cases in New South Wales they are unable to pay their bills. The health minister came out and admitted at one stage that $10 million was owed to creditors over 45 days. It was later revealed that it was actually $40 million. How much does the minister know about what is really happening in his own health system? These issues cannot be avoided by the states. They need to face up to them and not simply blame the Commonwealth for everything that happens.We have been told at length this afternoon about alleged failures of the private health insurance incentive scheme. I think Minister Wooldridge made it clear last month that Labor's attempts to denounce the scheme are irresponsible and largely based on untruths. Despite the claims of those opposite and the figures that are continually being bandied about, it is the facts that are important. When the Labor government came to power in 1983 and looked at private health insurance levels, it is hardly surprising to know that they fell from 70 per cent to 35 per cent by the time they left government.This government has had the best results in the last two quarters over 10 years and, as the minister states, this is a very important aspect of the entire issue. The level of participation of Australians in private health insurance is the third highest in the Western world. As a direct result of the government's scheme, 300,000 people now have private health cover who would not have it if we had not acted. The reality is that private health cover for most families is now $450 cheaper than it would be otherwise.Points on this issue have certainly been acknowledged by Senator Herron, and made before that by Senator Forshaw and Senator Crowley, but I also indicate that the Commonwealth has made a very clear commitment that if private health insurance numbers fall—and no-one has a crystal ball—there is $83 million available in that regard for the states. That is being blatantly and clearly ignored by those responsible in the states and is another part of their efforts to muddy the waters on this issue.Senator Forshaw's motion refers to the alleged increased costs of pharmaceuticals in relation to the therapeutic group premium charges. I am surprised that Senator Forshaw and those opposite are having such a difficult time understanding what is a very sensible and necessary program. The introduction of the TGP, following last year's budget, has been canvassed in this chamber on many occasions. The motion claims that the TGP has increased the cost of necessary pharmaceuticals, but it is important again—and unusually, for many of those opposite—to look at the facts.The facts are that the pharmaceuticals included in the TGP are drugs which all have a similar therapeutic effect. The facts are that when the products were first listed on the pharmaceutical benefits scheme they were all promoted by their sponsors as having similar safety and efficacy as other drugs in the group. So what the TGP does is to provide a benchmark- price drug in each group. This benchmark drug has continued to be subsidised at the current level—$3.20 for concessional consumers and $20 for general consumers. So in each of the categories under the TGP, there is at least one drug that will cost the patient no more than at present.The now more expensive drugs were originally listed on the PBS because they were of similar safety and efficacy. The patient can choose a more expensive drug but will need to pay the difference. Alternatively, in the vast majority of cases, they can choose to take the benchmark drug and continue to pay the same amount. It is not as if there are not opportunities for exemptions or to consult with one's physician on these issues, as the opposition would have us believe in many cases.The facts are that this government has not implemented a program that has increased the cost of necessary drugs. We have maintained the cost to consumers of necessary drugs at a subsidised price for affordability. The facts are that this measure was taken so as to ensure the continued viability of the PBS. Surely, even the interest of the opposition in the health system of Australia must extend to how it is funded. We have taken measures to ensure that we can continue to provide the highest quality pharmaceuticals to all Australians at a subsidised price.I draw to the attention of those opposite in relation to this funding issue that, even with this measure, the PBS is expected to grow by a further $200 million in this financial year. It would be irresponsible and negligent not to address these issues. I, for one, as a member of the government, am very pleased that the government has taken these issues on board and made some effort to address them.Senator Forshaw's motion referred to funding for medical research. It is one of the most extraordinary parts of the motion—an allegation that the government has cut funding to medical research. This year alone, the government has provided more than $163 million to strengthen medical research in this country. It is the highest annual amount ever committed under the National Health and Medical Research Council program.In my state of New South Wales, the Commonwealth provided for $37.5 million for researchers, institutions and universities committed to research projects ranging from laboratory investigations through to studies of clinical treatments and public health strategies. This government acknowledges Australia's remarkable capacity for medical research. It acknowledges Australia's remarkable history in international achievements in medical research and it acknowledges Australia's remarkable future in this area as well.We have shown a commitment to research in the areas of hepatitis C, cancer research projects, HIV-AIDS projects, diabetes, indigenous health, drug and alcohol research, and in youth suicide prevention, to name a mere few. Our commitment on medical research is unmatched. It is an extraordinary allegation from those opposite to suggest that the government would walk away from what is an enormous opportunity for this nation.I am also intrigued by Senator Forshaw's allegations in relation to the Commonwealth dental health program. Those opposite know exactly what the plans for the CDHP were. They know exactly why the promises were made in 1993 and they know exactly what the intention was after the next election. It was never intended to run beyond the four-year agreement laid out at its introduction. I have had the opportunity to attend as many of the public hearings on this issue as Senator Forshaw has. It is quite clear to me that all the posturing in the world from those opposite will not walk away from the political promises which led to the CDHP in that regard.It seems to me that in relation to the allegations made by those opposite regarding the Commonwealth's commitments in the health area, the states and the Northern Territory have a great deal to answer for. But those who have the most to answer for are those opposite. (Time expired)16:59:001435Murphy, Sen ShayneSenator MURPHYFX5TASALP00—I support Senator Forshaw's motion. I support it on the basis of the very great concern that exits in my state. However, as I address the motion I think we will come to realise that we face a double whammy in Tasmania. Firstly, I would like to consider how we reached the current position.The current five-year Medicare arrangements between the Commonwealth and each state and territory government will expire on 30 June this year. It is essential that the funding arrangement is reviewed and a new arrangement reached on health funding. Public confidence in the health system is at an all-time low and all state and territory leaders are preparing to mount a campaign against the Commonwealth government—the Howard government—over the funding crisis.However, the Prime Minister and his minister—so aptly named by the Bulletin as `Medicare's Dr No'—appear to have no regard for the pleas coming from the state and territory leaders and their respective medical professions. The record of negotiations leading up to the 21 March Premiers Conference walkout clearly shows that, all along, this government has been unwilling to negotiate. It has simply drawn a line in the sand and told the states and territories, `That's all you'll get. Talk to us by all means—we're all ears—but we're giving you nothing more than our original offer.'On 19 December 1997, following earlier meetings in May and August, the Common wealth made an offer which would supposedly increase funding by $1.7 billion over five years. The states rejected the offer. On 15 January 1998 the Minister for Health and Family Services offered an incentive payment of $100 million to help the states and territories reduce elective surgery waiting lists, if agreement was reached on the Australian health care agreements by 16 March 1998. The ACT is the only territory government to accept that offer in principle.On 10 March the Commonwealth increased its original base funding offer to the states and territories by a further $1.1 billion to $2.9 billion over the five years of the agreement. The offer was rejected by the states and the Northern Territory. On 13 March Mr Howard accused the state and territory governments of reducing their hospital funding in the early years of the current Medicare agreement. On 21 March the premiers walked out of their conference with the Prime Minister and his minister.We have to ask why they walked out: I suppose, in their words, `All Mr Howard's and Minister Wooldridge's offer is doing is putting back the money that they have taken away and slashed from health funding in their first two budgets.' The Prime Minister claims he is offering an extra $2.9 billion over five years, but when we look at the detail we see that previous budgets have simply taken that money out. The Prime Minister's first budget slashed $800 million from the hospital system and it also scrapped—as has been said before—the Commonwealth dental program, saving a further $400 million and leaving many thousands of Australians without dental services.ZS6QUIRKESenator Quirke—With decaying teeth.FX5Murphy, Sen ShayneSenator MURPHY—Who has been expected to pick up these cuts, Senator Quirke? We have been reminded on many occasions of the great conservative win at the last federal election, and of course it has been the conservative state governments, with the exception of one. They must all be wondering to themselves, `Well, who needs an enemy when you've got a friend like Prime Minister Howard.' Is it any wonder that they are keeping up the pressure on the federal govern ment. Not only state governments but also doctors throughout the medical system in Australia that are doing so. I will read a couple of quotes by one person who would have some idea about the circumstances being confronted by Australia's hospital system and that is Dr John Yu, the former head of Westmead's new children's hospital in Sydney. He said:I'm not sure how well briefed the Prime Minister is. I'm certainly disappointed that Dr Wooldridge does not have a better understanding of what is happening.He also said:Public hospitals deserve a better deal. There is really a crisis in the public hospital system. We are faced with the denial of treatment for things many of us would believe were the right of any Australian.In my state the Liberal health minister—and I say `Liberal health minister'—responded to a statement put out by seven Liberal members of the federal government. It was signed by Mr Chris Miles, Mr Warwick Smith, Senator Newman, Senator Eric Abetz, Senator Watson, Senator Brian Gibson and Senator Calvert and said, and I find this very interesting:The present financial deal covering health and General Revenue Assistance for Tasmania represents a 2.7 per cent increase in funding. This is at a time when inflation is negligible and Tasmania is experiencing population stagnation.That is an interesting proposition for them to be putting. They must be real pleased about that! The statement continued:The Commonwealth's offer to Tasmania is fair, reasonable and will contribute to improving Tasmania's health system—As I said before, in Tasmania we are getting a bit of a double whammy. But what does the state minister say about that? I quote:State health minister Peter McKay dubbed the seven federal Liberal parrots, repeating the Commonwealth's argument, and warned that they would be picked off by the voters. Mr McKay said, `The fact sheet distributed by the federal Mps with their press statement confirms state fears that Medicare funding to the state in last week's Commonwealth offer was actually cut by $27.5 million. I found an interesting cartoon in the Examiner of seven galahs sitting along a branch. That would make interesting reading.WH4McGAURANSenator McGauran—Table it.FX5Murphy, Sen ShayneSenator MURPHY—That is very good advice from our National Party senator in the chamber. I seek leave to table the document.Leave granted.FX5Murphy, Sen ShayneSenator MURPHY—Doctors right across Australia are also saying that the hospital system is in crisis because federal and state governments have not put in the additional money that our public hospital system needs. I referred to the double whammy that has occurred in Tasmania because a state Liberal government has taken money out of the public hospital system and that is a real problem. We have a reduction at the Commonwealth level and at the state level, despite Mr McKay's best efforts to hide it and avoid argument in the state parliament, there has been a reduction as well.That does not excuse the fact that the Commonwealth government has plucked out a huge amount of money from Commonwealth revenue to the states. As has been said by many others, the $1.7 billion that the government provided as an incentive to get people back into private health insurance was plucked off the states in the first place. It ought to be of further pain to the federal Liberals that, on 10 March this year, when a delegation from Tasmania came to Canberra, Senator Newman and the Minister for Family Services, the member for Bass—one of Tasmania's major hospitals is located in the electorate of Bass—failed even to turn up. I find it interesting that they were not prepared to meet the delegation and listen to the arguments that needed to be put on behalf of the state about the crisis that our state system is in.Let us look at the circumstances before the last election. In opposition, this government promised Australians they would subsidise private health. They endeavoured to do that, but they did it on the basis that there would be a reduction in the number of people leaving private health insurance. In fact, the then opposition said there would be an in crease in the number of people who would take out private health insurance cover.I would like to refer to some figures, in particular, the figures since this government has been in control of the treasury bench. The latest drop of 0.4 per cent means that 66,000 people quit private health insurance in the last quarter of 1997; that is 700 people for every single day. On page 145 of the budget papers for 1996-97, Dr Wooldridge, in regard to the intended impact of the budget measures on the private health insurance incentive, said:It is intended that the measure will stabilise the private health insurance participation rate. The funding estimates are based upon the assumption that the coverage of private health insurance will increase from 32 per cent of the population (expected at 1 July 1997) to 34 per cent in 1997-98.What we find is that, rather than that, we are down to less than 32 per cent. This is, as I said, amidst all the promises that the government made and the packages they put out saying:The Howard Government's Private Health Insurance Incentive was announced before the 1996 Election, re-announced in the 1996-97 Budget (August 1996) and took effect from 1/7/97.The package has two components:1. rebates for low income earners who take out (or maintain) private insurance; and2. a penalty Medicare Levy for high income earners who do not.When we look at the measures taken and the claims made by the government during that time with regard to the portfolio statement I have just read out, there has been no increase at all. Dr Wooldridge, in his press statement at the time, said:We are expecting about 70,000 high-earning single people and 65,000 couples and families to join health funds as a result of this measure.It just has not happened; it has not happened because the rebate did not serve as an incentive to people on high or low incomes to either join or maintain. The reason it did not happen was that health insurance premiums have gone up. This is another thing that Dr Wooldridge spoke about in his press release. He said:The Government is also acting to ensure the value of incentives is not eaten up by rises in premiums. It did not seem to work very well. The increases proposed on 8 March 1997 when National Mutual Health Insurance announced premium rises of up to 15.4 per cent are the sorts of things that the government really has to take a look at. If the government had taken the $1.7 billion and put it into the public health system, into public hospitals, as Michael Lee pointed out some time ago, they could have paid for an extra 3,000 beds and the treatment of more than 100,000 extra patients per year. It is fundamentally a failing of the government to understand the health system.What is more important and what must be of serious concern to the Australian public is this: it all seems to point to the government undermining Medicare. Prior to the last election, when Mr Howard was under pressure, he said, `We love Medicare. We'll keep Medicare.' It appears that the government is trying to get rid of Medicare by stealth. It must cause serious concern to the Australian public that the government is forcing this issue now by way of cutting back on the states' funding and not offering any real funds to assist the public hospital system in this country. It must cause serious concern that, by stealth, the government will get rid of the Medicare system. It must cause serious concern that the government will go back to the circumstances that existed prior to 1983 and to the system that the government speak so highly of in which so many Australians had no health insurance cover.If that is what the government wants, then let the people judge the government on it at the next election. I am sure the people will judge the government harshly. As the government's own conservative premiers say, and as the state health minister in my state says, `Let the people judge the Liberal members and senators'—I note Senator Newman is sitting across the chamber now—`who are supposed to represent them in this parliament.' Now that Senator Newman is in the chamber, I will refer to a motion moved by Senator Newman some time ago which was very critical of the government of the day. On 11 May 1994, Senator Newman gave notice of this motion:On the next day of sitting I shall move:That the Senate—(a) notes: (i) the cutback in funding in the 1994-95 Budget for the reduction of public hospital waiting lists and the Government's failure to spend funds on maintaining hospital infrastructure; and(b) condemns the Government for the abrogation of its responsibilities to improve access to quality hospital care for all Australians.Remember that, Senator Newman?BE4NEWMANSenator Newman—Yes, I do. You had allowed it to run down. We inherited your mess.FX5Murphy, Sen ShayneSenator MURPHY—I am sure you remember that. It is funny how Senator Newman has changed her position today. She has signed onto the statement that says the deal is very fair for Tasmania.BE4NEWMANSenator Newman—It is much fairer than the deal you gave them.FX5Murphy, Sen ShayneSenator MURPHY—As I said, Senator Newman ought to read what the state minister said about their statement. He has dubbed them a bunch of parrots, and he says that the statement, along with the graph that was put out, confirmed their fears that the Commonwealth actually cut Tasmania's funding by $27½ million. So it is very interesting that you, Senator Abetz and Senator Gibson have changed your positions. I will read a quote from Senator Abetz's first speech in this place. He said:Funding to Tasmania ought to be on the basis that Tasmania is entitled to all the rights and entitlements of a fully-fledged state.I thought it actually was a fully fledged state, but he goes on to say:Funding simply on a per head basis denies us, as a state—we made it to state in the second sentence—from enjoying all the infrastructure requirements we need to effectively run our state in such areas as . . . health—Very interesting, Senator Abetz. It seems you have a different view when you get to government. Of course, Senator Gibson, on 13 October 1994, stated:The agreements between the states and the federal government have not yet been made, and there is a suspicion that the federal government is pushing off responsibilities to the states and giving them a certain amount of money, but expecting them to do far more than that money will ever achieve.As I said, Tasmanians ought to have some suspicions about the current position of the Tasmanian Liberal members and senators, and I think they will make very severe judgments on them. Senator Gibson said those things at the time, and it is very interesting, as I said, to see those opposite sign up to this document. After they have ripped the guts out of funding to the states, all they are going to do is give them back what they took away. It is the old rob Peter to pay Paul. But, of course, there are many issues that are yet to be resolved.One of the greatest reflections on the government is this: it is not so much what the government ultimately offers; it is the capacity of the government to actually sit down and negotiate an arrangement that provides the Australian people with a hospital system and a health system that is fair and equitable. That is where I think the real breakdown is going to come. Right now, the government is offering no solutions. I do not think it has the capacity to sit down and negotiate those arrangements, and Australians are going to suffer as a result. That will be a very sad day.If we do not do something in the very near future, we are going to see a very sad state develop, and the people in Tasmania and the people in the rest of Australia will suffer very severely as a result of that. Our state was promised much by this government. As yet, none of that has come to fruition. This health debacle is just another example of how we are being treated contrary to what the government promised us at the last election.17:19:001438McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURANWH4VICNP10—The best we can say about Senator Murphy's address to the chamber is that, as a health spokesman, he makes a very good unionist. Senator Murphy mounted his case by quoting North Shore doctors as his source and, indeed, his friends, and he failed to address the motion that Senator Forshaw has before the Senate at the moment. In fact, the government rejects the motion before the Senate, and I am more than pleased to take Senator Murphy through the motion, from (a) through to (g). Point (a) reads:. . . the rejection by all States and the Northern Territory of the inadequate funding proposals for a new Medicare agreement;The premiers walking out was nothing more than a stunt. It was a failure. Only yesterday the government assured this Senate during debate on an urgency motion moved by the Democrats that there would be no loss of public health services through this stunt.In many respects, this general business motion today is out of date. It is too late. The Democrats' urgency motion, which the government supported, puts paid to point (a) of Senator Forshaw's general business motion today. Regardless of the stunt—and it now seems obvious that each Premier had his own particular political agenda, none of which related to health care at all—the fact is that the funding, as previous speakers have said, is an increase on past funding agreements.In the last five years, the Commonwealth has in fact spent $27.3 billion on Commonwealth-state health care agreements, and the forward estimates show that the funding will rise to $30.3 billion over the next five years. So the government is committed, through its estimates, to increasing public expenditure by an additional $3 billion to a level of $30.3 billion. On top of that $30.3 billion, it has offered the states an extra $1.5 billion in base funding over the next five years.All of this is going to be paid even though the state premiers refused to accept the federal government's offer. In addition, the Commonwealth is also prepared to pay another $120 million to reduce waiting lists in public hospitals. Therefore, what we are offering above the forward estimates is some $2.9 billion extra. That is a 6.9 per cent increase in the first year of funding, moving to a total over the three years of 15.4 per cent. When you consider the inflation rate, which is basically zero, that is a very generous offer indeed. We reject point (a) of Senator Forshaw's motion.The truth is that the states came to that meeting with an ambit claim. I cannot believe that they were serious. They had a completely different agenda. It was an ambit claim, and in the corridors of the parliament it was accepted to be an ambit claim. The states and the Northern Territory were holding out for an additional $1.1 billion increase in base funding in the first year and an additional $1.1 billion in each subsequent year. That amounted to a $5.5 billion increase over five years. That was over and above our already increased offer of $2.9 billion. That is an ambit claim in anyone's language or on anyone's analysis. The states' demand would have lifted Commonwealth spending from $26 billion in the 1998 Medicare agreement to $35.67 billion over the next five years. That would have been a 37.2 per cent increase, an unsustainable proposition rejected by the Commonwealth. That may have caused the walkout, but there is no way we can come back to the table and negotiate an agreement under those ridiculous terms that the states put forward.Moving on to point (b) of Senator Forshaw's motion, it relates to the reduction in funding for public hospitals of some $800 million. The first point to make here is that I do not accept the $800 million figure that Senator Forshaw has put to the Senate. This was a question asked of and answered by the Prime Minister in question time on Monday and it was also asked today in the Senate. The point is that we do not accept the $800 million figure given that the government has returned very large sums by way of specific programs and initiatives.The first example of targeted funding was the immunisation program. It was necessary to fund that directly and it was targeted out of Commonwealth funds as it was an area that the states had completely abandoned, and the Commonwealth simply had to take it up. They abandoned it to the detriment of Australian children's health. The second example of target funding, which reduces that $800 million put forward in this motion, was the $4.8 million to tackle eye health in the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, including the antibiotic to treat trachoma in remote areas. This was, again, an initiative necessary for the Commonwealth to take up and to target the funding in that area. So we reject that figure of $800 million.It was necessary to fund directly and the reality of it was that in the 1996 budget the government was assigned the task by the Australian people straight after the election to reduce the debt legacy that we had been left, the $10.3 billion budget deficit and, equally as difficult, the $100 million government debt. The financial system was under strain and, as the new government, we had to get about the task and tackle the financial problems before us. The reductions in the health portfolio were aimed not at the health services but in producing much needed efficiencies in the hospital and ancillary health services in the area of administration. Since then, we have seen many of the hospital boards merging and becoming more efficient. It cannot be denied that there was a need for efficiencies in the administration of hospitals and other ancillary services.I am even informed of late that before the Premiers Conference the Victorian government sent out to all the hospitals the need for an efficiency gain of some one per cent. They see that there was definitely fat there after the 1996 election. There is still room for some efficiencies in the administrative area, not at the cost of services. We reject point (b) of Senator Forshaw's general business motion. Point (c) reads:the failure of the private health insurance incentive scheme to increase levels of private health insurance;The question of the state of private health insurance is very fertile ground for this coalition to debate given the previous record of the Labor government. Madam Acting Deputy President Knowles, as you would know very well, between the years of 1983 and 1996, 13 years of Labor government, private health insurance went into free fall and fell from a very high 70 per cent to somewhere around 35 per cent and premiums rose 12 per cent in that time. The consequences are obvious. As people fled the private health system, the burden increased in the area of public health. The gap between what was raised from the Medicare levy and what was needed to fund our health services grew ever wider. This fact was recognised in 1993 by what potentially seemed like a very courageous minister, the then minister for health, Senator Richardson. He set about trying to do something about the collapsing situation of Medicare and the fleeing of the private health insurance system. As the then minister said:The trouble is, you see, when people on higher incomes drop out of private health insurance, they do elbow the old pensioner out of the queue because if you're on a hundred grand a year you know how to work the systems.When he went to cabinet with his plan, the then Prime Minister stood on him. He said that he was going to need a lot of courage. Of course, he did not have the support in cabinet. No changes were made and private health insurance continued to go into free-fall.It took this government to have the courage to make those changes. In contrast, we acted and introduced in our very first year of government a situation that is stabilising the free-fall in private health insurance membership. We accept that a great deal more can be done. We will act over time to make sure that we can improve the system. We have introduced the private health insurance rebate scheme to the value of $450 and set it at a cut-off rate of earnings.Further, we have introduced an extra Medicare levy of one per cent for high income earners who do not take out private health insurance. Those opposite have opposed both initiatives by this government but yet failed to act at all during their 13 years of government. We take it from Senator Forshaw's motion and previous speakers that our initiatives are not working. I refer them to the statement by the AHA which said that the system would have fallen even further without the government's initiatives. To that extent, we have stabilised the fall in health insurance. We look for a better trend in the future.Point (d) of Senator Forshaw's motion relates to the increased cost of necessary pharmaceuticals due to the therapeutic group premium changes. It has to be remembered that, in relation to this government's initiative, this government's fundamental structural reform is that the PBS is the most generous system of its type in the world and it is important that we maintain it. There is no other equivalent system in the world as generous as the PBS.This policy initiative is about the wise use of medicines and the wise use of health dollars striking a balance. Independent, well-qualified medical and scientific experts have advised on the appropriate groups of medicines within the initiative. No patient needs to pay one cent more for their medicine because, within each group, other medicines with similar clinical effects are available at a base price. Exceptions are available where there is a clinical need. Point (e) of Senator Forshaw's motion relates to the abolition of the Commonwealth dental health program. In her address, Senator Crowley asked: what could be meaner than abolishing the Commonwealth's assistance to the dental health program? Let me remind Senator Crowley and members of the chamber that it was the 1993 budget by the previous government that announced that the eye test for families and elderly people would be removed. On top of that, they were going to be slugged $49.50 for the first consultation with an optometrist and $25 for a follow-up consultation. What could be meaner than that?The Commonwealth dental health program was only ever meant to be a support for what was initially a state program. It was there to assist the states in alleviating a backlog of service demands and to set the states up for the longer term. As usual, the Commonwealth was left holding the baby on this matter. The provision of dental services is a matter for the states. It is a state responsibility. It is up to the states to determine how it will deliver its own dental services to lower income earners. In the short time I have I would like to touch on one area that interests me, and that is the area of rural health. I would like to single this area out because this is an area where the government has brought in major reforms by taking bold initiatives. I want to compliment the Minister for Health and Family Services (Dr Wooldridge), because there has probably been no other minister who has had the courage to make the strides he has in improving health in rural areas. His legacy will be not only the fundamental policy changes he has made in the area of rural health but also the cultural changes in getting rural doctors into remote areas. The cultural changes could take up to a decade, if not longer, given the training time that doctors need, but he has definitely laid down the groundwork for the future to improve the state of rural health in getting doctors out into rural areas.Some of the initiatives of late from the minister have been: firstly, the federal government will establish 100 extra places in medical schools for overseas trained doctors to complete their education to Australian standards on condition that they sign a contract to work in rural and remote areas. This was followed up just recently by a publication `A step by step guide to help rural communities to attract and retain a doctor within their area'—so information is going out to the rural areas.Another initiative of this minister has been to look to new technologies, such as telemedicine and the Internet, to help improve the poor health status of many people living in rural and remote areas. There has been an enormous take-up of the very successful John Flynn scholarship scheme. Each scholarship is worth some $2,500 annually and will assist selected students to undertake rural electives during a vacation period. Also, to address the problem we have in the area of rural health, the government will provide $27 million over four years for six departments of rural health in universities across Australia, which will provide training and support for rural doctors and other health workers. Also, $20 million will be allocated to rural hospitals and medical schools to fund projects to provide opportunities for medical students and graduates to train in their particular rural area. That just about puts paid to every point. (Time expired)17:39:001441Gibbs, Sen BrendaSenator GIBBS6L6QLDALP00—I rise to support Senator Forshaw's motion with the knowledge that to most Australians there is no more important issue than health care. In this respect, Australians expect their federal government to provide the essential requirements for their basic health care needs. Unfortunately, as last week's debacle of a Premiers Conference showed, this coalition government has pushed Australia's health system to the brink of collapse and, in the process, has put in jeopardy the health of all Australians. As a result of the Prime Minister's arrogance and stubbornness, every conservative state Premier and the conservative leader of the Northern Territory walked away from a mean-spirited man who is ideologically opposed to funding a universally free health system.Let us start by making a very clear contrast between the coalition and the Labor Party. The federal coalition under this Prime Minister detests everything for which Medicare stands. It rejects Medicare's universal access to public hospitals based on medical need rather than income. It rejects that Medicare provides for free or low-cost visits to GPs, and it rejects the subsidised medicines that Medicare provides through the pharmaceutical benefits scheme. The evidence of this rejection is plain for all to see. It is this government which is determined to destroy bulk-billing by cancelling the annual increase in doctors' fees, and therefore making it less attractive for GPs to offer bulk-billing. It is this government which has made a mockery of the pharmaceutical benefits scheme by introducing the manifestly unfair and medically dangerous therapeutic group premiums. Now it is this government which has put universal access to public hospitals at risk by refusing to take the responsibility to adequately fund Australia's hospitals.The Howard government's attack on every major component of Medicare is irrefutable proof that the conservatives despise Australia's universal health system, which has been developed by three separate Labor governments over the past few decades. The leadership of the Prime Minister once again is under the microscope on this issue. His paltry offer to the states would mean that Queensland hospitals would have to operate with about $60 million less in the upcoming financial year than they had last year. This is a state which already has a $7.1 million budget overrun, and has 12,170 people al ready waiting longer than medically advisable for surgery.It is a state where the health minister, Mr Horan, refuses to release monthly audit performances for the obvious reason that he fears letting the public know the true position of the Queensland health system. Yet the Prime Minister is telling Queenslanders that their access to public hospitals will be even further restricted, and that those people on waiting lists will have to wait even longer periods. Just as bad is that the Howard government is saying to Queensland and other states, `Close your wards, rationalise services, delay the introduction of new medical technology and forget about non-vital capital works.' These may not be the words and the rhetoric coming out of the Prime Minister's mouth, but his actions and his inadequate offer to the states are directly giving this message.This government despises public institutions. We have recently witnessed the transfer of funds from public schools to the private education system. Similarly, the Howard government's motivation in health has been to transfer funds from the public sector to prop up private schemes. Over the past two budgets the coalition has ripped $800 million out of the Australian public hospital system. Added to that cuts to the Commonwealth dental health program total $400 million and half a billion dollars has been slashed from the pharmaceutical benefits scheme.A total of $1.7 billion has been removed from the public health system over the past two years. It is no coincidence that this figure is virtually identical to the amount taxpayers have paid out for private health insurance subsidies. In essence, that is $1.7 billion removed from the public system on a failed private initiative. When the Howard government came to office 33.8 per cent of the population had private health insurance. Now it is down to 31.6 per cent, with 66,000 Australians in the December quarter electing to opt out of health insurance, despite the government's rebate initiative.When the chief executive of the Australian Health Insurance Association, Russell Schneider, was asked on the Daybreak program on 27 August 1996 whether the government's initiative would halt the drift away from private health insurance, he answered:Oh, I `ve got no doubt about that. I mean, obviously, the combination of measures must increase its attractiveness. The Government rebate system will be giving low-income earners something like a 20-25 per cent reduction in the price, and for high-income earners, there's about 200,000 to 270,000 of those who will be taking it out. So it must increase the numbers.Obviously, Mr Schneider did not factor in the eagerness of his own member organisations to raise their premiums and soak up any advantages the rebate scheme may have given to policy holders. But rather than admit their mistake and scrap their private health initiative, the government continues to waste taxpayers money on a scheme which continues to erode. Regrettably this is at the expense of Australia's public health system at a time when it can least sustain such an attack. Yet it will continue because this government despises public health institutions. It wants to continue to wind down universal health care in this country and eventually to force all but the poorest Australians into the private system.Another prime example of the coalition government's philosophical ambivalence to public health, is evidenced in the grotesque changes to the pharmaceutical benefits scheme. Not content with making pensioners and low-income earners fork out an additional 50c per prescription by raising the fee from $2.70 to $3.20, this government introduced in the last budget the therapeutic group premiums. From 1 February this year, 38 medicines previously listed on the pharmaceutical benefit scheme are no longer eligible for subsidy. People who have been unable to afford the extra amount for drugs that many have been taking for a number of years are now being forced to seek a cheaper alternative with the potential for serious side effects.The Howard government's own literature has admitted that these changes are due to price-conscious reasons and as such it is not unreasonable to expect that this enthusiasm for controlling costs will ultimately be at the expense of people's lives. Let there be no doubt that as well as a cost saving measure, the therapeutic group premiums is also about starving the Medicare system of funds. It is about developing a two-tier system between the haves and the have-nots: that is, those who can afford high quality pharmaceuticals and those who will have to make do with cheaper substitutes.This change has directly affected nearly one million Australians and their families. These people will know that Labor strenuously opposed these changes. The community now knows that only Labor can guarantee a secure, universal health system. The Prime Minister misled voters prior to the last election by promising that Medicare would remain unchanged. It is quite clear that this was obviously a non-core promise and that the Prime Minister's real agenda was closer to those quotes on health that we all know him for: `Medicare has been an unmitigated disaster' and `We'—the coalition—`will end bulk-billing'. It would be hard not to argue that this is still a real philosophy of the federal coalition.Take the issue of bulk-billing, which I mentioned earlier. In January 1997, 81 per cent of GP services were bulk-billed. One year later, in January 1998, this figure had fallen to 79.6 per cent. In regional areas of Queensland—Rockhampton, for example—it is now almost impossible to find a general practitioner who is prepared to bulk-bill.The AMA's recommended fee for a GP consultation is now $37. However, the Medicare rebate is only $21. So people in regional Queensland who have little choice but to go to a non-bulk-billing doctor are out of pocket up to $16 per visit. Some of this is due in part to a lack of competition between GPs in regional areas. However, this should be even more of a reason for the federal government to provide incentives for these doctors to bulk-bill.When all these factors are added to the abolition of the Commonwealth dental health program and the reductions of funding experienced by both the public health program and medical research bodies, the lack of commitment of the Howard government to health care is exposed. But the failure of the Prime Minister and his government to negotiate a reasonable new agreement with the states is not just confined to Medicare agreements.The coalition government has also placed in jeopardy the health of thousands of Australians with disabilities, by failing to negotiate a new Commonwealth-state disability agreement. After three absurdly low offers from the Commonwealth to the states, it is the Howard government which has backed off from a multilateral agreement and is now pursuing bilateral agreements with individual states. If this were to occur, it would be hard to see how the lack of uniformity between the states is going to assist people with disabilities.One of the worst features of a bilateral agreement is that it throws the whole multilateral framework out the window and, in the process, puts in jeopardy a decade of uniformity practised by various levels of government in this area. For example, under this potential system, it would be quite possible for a person with a disability who receives funding support in one state, not to receive the same level of support if he or she were to decide to relocate to another state which has a different agreement with the Commonwealth. This is similar to the approach the Commonwealth will now start adopting with the states in relation to Medicare agreements.The sad aspect of this process is the loss of uniformity across Australia. We start to get back to the situation where there are haves and have-nots. This is the old Liberal tactic of rule by division. Unfortunately, when it comes to health care and disability agreements, it just becomes playing politics with people's lives. It has now become apparent to the Australian community that there is a very stark contrast between the Howard government and the Labor Party on health related issues.On the one hand we have a mean-spirited government which is squeezing states to force more people onto waiting lists and is cutting back medical services, a government which, because of its ideological hatred of public institutions, is content to run down the universality of a health system considered one of the most progressive in the international community. BE4NEWMANSenator Newman—That is rubbish.6L6Gibbs, Sen BrendaSenator GIBBS—You know very well, Minister, it is true. On the other side we have a Labor Party which has instigated every successful health initiative in Australia over the last three decades, a party which is committed to the Medicare system and what it stands for—universal access to public hospitals based on medical need rather than income, free or low cost visits to GPs, and access to pharmaceuticals through the PBS. The choice could not be clearer.17:54:001444Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT5F4TASLP10—There is no doubt that funding for health is a problem, has been a problem and will always be a problem. The major problem seems to be to strike a balance between the public and private funding of health insurance. I know in my own state I and my colleagues have been criticised today in the media by my cousin, the minister for health down there. I know Peter as well as I know anybody. We know how it works in the states; when you cannot justify something you are doing, then you bash the feds. I think this is just another case of that.Peter McKay has accused me and my colleagues of using manipulated and selective figures. We took the unprecedented decision as a group of senators and members from Tasmania to put the facts on the table because we believed that there were too many figures flying around and the public were getting the wrong impression. The fact of the matter is, as far as federal funding for health goes in Tasmania, there was an offer of a $22 million increase for Tasmania, 2.7 per cent, when we have virtually zero inflation and a population that is at the best stagnant but it may even be reducing.The state government down there has to come clean and tell the people the absolute truth. When the last agreement was made and the Commonwealth was offering an increase in health funding, the states cut their contribution to health by $32 million in year one and another $11 million in year two. So the states reduced health funding by $43 million while the federal government was increasing its contribution. I will put that in better figures. In Tasmania between 1990 and 1996—the Labor Party was in power for most of that time—health funding from the Commonwealth increased by 27 per cent and hospital funding from the Commonwealth increased by 23 per cent. At the same time the state governments of Tasmania, whomever they were, reduced health funding by 23 per cent and reduced hospital funding by 32 per cent. If you put that in dollar terms, in 1992-93 the Tasmanian government cut its contribution to hospital services by $136 million and in 1993-94 by $103 million. This has been going on right across the country, except in the ACT.When you look at the comparisons of spending between the states and the Commonwealth, they are quite staggering. For instance, the Victorian state government in 1993-94 reduced its spending on health by $205 million when compared with the previous year, 1992-93. In the following year, 1993-94, in comparison with that 1991-92 figure it reduced its spending by $396 million—that is, a 22.7 per cent decrease.AW5CARRSenator Carr—That's your mate Jeff Kennett.5F4Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT—Okay, but don't blame the Commonwealth. Fair is fair; health is a shared burden. It is something that we are all responsible for and something that we have to share, but do not come in here today putting down notices of motion condemning the Prime Minister for his lack of leadership and lack of health policies when here we are increasing contributions and at the same time most of the states, except for the ACT, have been reducing away merrily. The Northern Territory in 1992-93 and 1993-94 reduced its spending by 43 per cent. At the same time the ACT has increased its contributions by 13.5 per cent. South Australia was minus 3.3 per cent and Queensland was minus 14.9 per cent. It is there for everybody to see.Senator Gibbs was on about private health insurance. The average increase in private health insurance is, I think, about 8.1 per cent. I know that is higher than the CPI, but I think we have to understand that there have been a lot of changes in health and that a lot more older people are being treated than before.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Knowles)—Order! The time for the debate has expired.Miscellaneous144518:00:001445Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I move:That—(1) On Tuesday 31 March— (a) The hours of meeting shall be 2.00 p.m.- 6.30 p.m., 7.30 p.m.—10.30 p.m. (b) The routine of business from 7.30 p.m. till 9.50 p.m. shall be government business only. (c) The question for the adjournment of the Senate shall be proposed at 9.50 p.m.(2) On Thursday 2 April— (a) The hours of meeting shall be 9.30 a.m.—10.30 p.m. (b) The routine of business from 7.30 p.m. till 9.50 p.m. shall be government business only. (c) The question for the adjournment of the Senate shall be proposed at 9.50 p.m.(3) On Friday 3 April— (a) The hours of meeting shall be 9.30 a.m.—4.25 p.m. (b) The routine of business shall be government business only. (c) The question for the adjournment of the Senate shall be proposed at 3.45 p.m.I would like to place on the record the terms of discussions held between party leaders and whips this afternoon, particularly in relation to the Tuesday evening when honourable senators will know there is a state dinner being hosted by the Prime Minister of Australia for the President of Argentina. The proposal that has been discussed is to allow debate, potentially on the second reading of the Native Title Amendment Bill to take place then, and for there to be an agreement between the parties that there be no divisions or quorums called, so that honourable senators who want to attend the state dinner will be able to do so and to enjoy their supper with out interruption. I commend this motion to the Senate.18:03:001446Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—The opposition is supporting this measure as agreed this afternoon. It has to be seen in the context of the extraordinary and unprecedented number of hours that the opposition has agreed to in terms of additional sitting times in this parliament. So, when we hear the talk by this government of an obstructionist Senate, these motions and many others like them ought to be seen in that context. The government has no right to claim that this Senate is an obstructionist one. It has no right to claim that there has not been an unprecedented level of cooperation from the opposition in terms of the government's legislative program.These additional hours are necessary because the government is, in fact, way behind in its legislative program as a result of its own actions and, in particular, actions taken to censure a frontbench member of the opposition. The public understands that this commitment to these extra hours reflects the opposition's cooperative approach to ensure there is adequate time to consider government legislation and to ensure there is proper consideration of matters before this chamber. It ought not be put by the government in a public sense that this is an obstructionist Senate because quite clearly the facts speak for themselves.Question resolved in the affirmative.Notices144614461446Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY3L6VICALP00—by leave—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the time for the report of the Economics Legislation Committee on the provisions of the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 7) 1997 be extended to 13 May 1998.Documents144610000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Hogg)—We are now supposed to be dealing with government documents, but as the time allotted has almost elapsed, I will accept a global motion that consideration of all the documents be adjourned.Motion (by Senator Carr) agreed to:That consideration of general business not be further proceeded with today.Committees14461446144618:06:001446Watson, Sen JohnSenator WATSONVJ4TASLP10—I present the report of the Senate Select Committee on Superannuation entitled Choice of Superannuation Funds together with submissions received by the committee and a transcript of proceedings.Ordered that the report be printed.VJ4Watson, Sen JohnSenator WATSON—by leave—I move:That the Senate take note of the report.I table the 28th report of the Senate Select Committee on Superannuation entitled Choice of Fund . The government's initiative to introduce choice of fund is considered by many people to be the most significant change to Australia's superannuation system since the introduction of the compulsory superannuation guarantee system. The government first announced its choice of fund policy prior to its election in 1996. Indeed, the coalition has long supported greater freedom of choice for superannuation contributors.Subject to the passage of the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 7) 1997, of which this is part, from 1 July 1998 employers will be required to offer new employees a choice about where their compulsory superannuation guarantee payments are paid. From 1 July 2000, continuing employees who were employed prior to 1 July 1998 must also be offered a choice of fund.The committee encountered considerable support for the broad concept of the choice of fund. Witnesses told the committee that a major advantage of the choice proposal was that it would increase awareness of investment alternatives and understanding of the need to plan retirement savings. It was also considered that implementing choice would require individuals to have greater knowledge of retirement savings options and increase their motivation to understand its importance. With choice and control, individuals are more likely to feel a sense of ownership and take an active interest in savings for their retirement.However, it is fair to say that many groups considered the government's timetable for introducing choice of fund to be very tight. Many witnesses questioned whether there is sufficient time remaining to put all the necessary arrangements in place. It was clear that there was deep division between the specialist providers of financial products who are anxious that choice proceed in accordance with the government's announced timetable and others who advocate a delay or propose that choice be optional for a limited period and that choice be limited to investment within a fund.The committee found that there is general acceptance for the view that for the choice of fund proposal to succeed employees must be in a position to exercise informed choice. I should note that the government is also on record as having stated that it is important that people make an informed choice.Informed choice requires that employees understand the consequences of the decisions they make and choose funds that best suit their personal circumstances and their requirements.Informed choice requires two essential conditions to be satisfied. They are adequate education about the choice of fund and disclosure by funds of all relevant information such as returns, risks, fees, charges that should influence the employee's decision.In order to make good decisions employees may need education about choice of fund, its benefits and its dangers. Most witnesses called for education programs to ensure consumers make an informed choice. Many cast doubt on whether such an education campaign is achievable in the relatively short time before the legislation is scheduled to come into force. However, the government has assured the committee that the necessary education measures are being developed and will be in place.Employees will also need access to useful, comprehensive information about the fund alternatives so that they may make valid comparisons. The information about fund alternatives that funds and employers will provide to employees who are offered choice will be in the form of key feature statements. The form of the key feature statements has yet to be finalised. The government will shortly be releasing regulations that will determine their final form.Key feature statements should incorporate clear warnings about the consequences of choosing a fund, such as the adequacy and coverage of the insurance and the possibility that insurance cover, where formally provided, may lapse. The statements should also incorporate a clear explanation about the relative risks associated with each option.It is also likely that, despite the best efforts of education campaigns by the government and others, a large number of people will not exercise their right to make a choice of fund. During the inquiry the committee received evidence that many people will not be able to understand the concepts or the information put before them. It is also true that the understanding of superannuation in the general community still remains low.People who do not feel able to make a choice or are unwilling to do so will have their contributions directed into a default fund. This default fund must provide adequate protection for those people who cannot or are unwilling to exercise choice. Several witnesses made recommendations to the committee about the desirable features of default funds. While the committee makes no recommendation in this regard, the default fund is a matter that responsible employers should consider carefully.In closing, I think that the choice of fund proposal offers a number of opportunities and benefits. Employees will have the opportunity to exercise their democratic right to determine where their employer contributions go. They will be able to shift their future contribution away from under performing funds. However, it is important to emphasise that choice of fund does not mean that people feel obliged to change their funds. It is important the information provided to employees, who are offered choice, does not create an atmosphere that encourages change just for change sake. Many people would be better off by staying with their current fund. We must, at all costs, avoid the mistakes made in the United Kingdom and Chile where choice of fund has led to many poor choices being made.I would like to take this opportunity of thanking the staff of the committee, particularly the secretary, Mr Peter Hallahan, who has had to work extraordinary hours to meet the very tight deadline in getting this report to hand. I think it is a commendable report. Under the circumstances, it comprehensively covers the issues involved. I commend the report to the Senate.18:14:001448Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY3L6VICALP00—I join with Senator Watson in congratulating the staff of the committee, particularly Peter Hallahan, who had a great deal thrust on him when he was not quite ready for it. He has done a great job to get it all ready and tabled by today. I also acknowledge Senator Watson's comments about how comprehensive the report is in dealing with the evidence put before us.The Labor senators on the committee have put in a minority report. We support the principle of choice but we do not believe that the government's preferred model of choice is appropriate or that it meets a number of principles, in that it does not ensure that employees make the choice. This is really about employer choice. The government's model takes the power to choose where their superannuation funds go from the hands of employees and gives it to employers.There was a lot of debate, during the hearings about the purported economic benefits of superannuation choice. There was broad agreement among committee members and in the evidence that everybody favours investment choice. I do not think there was a great deal of argument: a lot of funds are already moving in that direction and we have seen evidence of the benefits of investment choice. The Labor senators are recommending that we introduce investment choice reasonably quickly, as a first step and as part of an education process, so that the people who own the money in the funds understand why they should pay more attention to their reports. Certainly, in my time as a superannua tion officer, the greatest trouble I encountered was getting members to actually read the information that the funds supplied. That will be critical to a successful implementation of choice.It would be fair—and kind—to say that there was a naive view about the benefits of the competitive process which would be unleashed by this legislation. When they appeared before the committee, I asked Commonwealth Bank officials if they could guarantee the price of their retirement savings vehicle—the RSA—would be the lower than it was today. Surely, I asked an official, if we have all these winds of competition, the cost to the consumer of an RSA would be reduced. He was not able to give me that assurance. In fact, he was quite embarrassed about the fact that he could not give me that assurance.So I say to those who came before the committee and advocated choice—on the basis that the benefits will accrue to the customer—that the challenge is there to prove that it can happen. Many witnesses came before us and demonstrated why fees would go up and why returns would go down in the new world of competition. We heard evidence that funds would have to significantly increase—possibly double or even triple—their existing marketing budgets to compete in a choice environment. Funds told us their administration fee would almost certainly double to cope with these increases. Legal costs would be substantially higher under this new regime. To many people who currently get a very low-price product, the cost structures were going to be substantially increased.The situation at the moment with returns is that superannuation is an allowable matter before the IRC. Therefore, the minimum award requirements, in general—in most industry funds, certainly—are that payments be made monthly by the employers. This government is seeking to take that out as an allowable matter. It wants to fall back on the minimum current requirements of the SGC legislation, which is one payment a year.The difference between getting paid monthly and getting paid yearly was calculated, on behalf of the committee, by the Institute of Actuaries. Their supplementary submission showed that, as a result, the return over a lifetime would be three to four per cent less. That one simple change, of taking away the minimum requirement of a monthly payment, had a compounding effect: not getting your money into your account monthly meant not getting the interest on interest earned. Just the one payment a year would see a three to four per cent less return, on retirement—just from one stroke of a pen. The results will be: costs up, returns down—that is the brave new world of competition of choice.The most significant arguments the committee faced were over education; and whether or not the consumers—the workers, whose money it was—would be able to understand the information they would be supplied with. Under this legislation, when you go for a job now—after 1 July if you are a new employee—you will be faced with four key feature statements of up to six pages per set. Although I have spent four or five years in the industry, I know that I would never be able to wade through four sets of six pages—trying to understand and compare apples with apples. Other people who testified before the committee said that they too, after 17 years in the industry, were not able to make meaningful comparisons between the key feature statements from the super funds.The government acknowledged the evidence before the committee that education would be a problem. We asked the government what test it was going to do before introducing choice, to measure the success of an education campaign. We said:You are going to spend dollars and cents—taxpayers' money—to educate people about choice of fund. Acknowledging there is a problem—are you going to test the market to see if you have been successful?To this day, the government still will not give a commitment to actually test whether or not people have understand and benefited from the education campaign. What is the point in saying, `We need to educate'; if you do not then test to see if you have been successful?There is one point of concern beyond that. Twice now, I have sought information from the Taxation Office about the amount of money that the previous Labor government spent—in 1992 and 1994—on its national advertising campaigns to publicise the benefits of superannuation. These are just statistics which should be readily available inside the Taxation Office.A month later, I still have not received that information. I am told it has been given to Senator Kemp's office for Senator Kemp to decide whether to release, which I am very surprised about. You have to ask yourself why they will not show how much the previous Labor government spent on what, at that stage, was the biggest single change in superannuation policy in the country's history. This is as big, if not bigger. Why don't they want to tell us how much was spent on that last education campaign?You can only conclude one thing: because the amount of money they are going to spend on this campaign is substantially less. They are not serious about an education campaign. If they were serious about an education campaign, you would be able to look at what happened in previous years and judge it against what they are proposing now. They will not give any indication of what they are proposing now. They will not give any indication of what was done before. That is very disappointing. I hope that information, perhaps with the help of some other senators in the chamber at the moment, is able to be more forthcoming than it currently is, because that is of real concern. Finally, in the last couple of minutes remaining to me, I want to respond to a comment—EP5FERGUSONSenator Ferguson—A pretty quick couple of minutes!3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—A very fast couple of minutes! Senator Watson referred to the default fund. This is critical. Labor senators believe there should be minimum default standards, minimum insurance cover and minimum investment choice. That means that if you are 17 or 18 years old and you do not understand the process or just decide it is all too hard and you get lumped into an RSA at 17, you are not going to be substantially worse off. (Time expired)18:24:001449Ferguson, Sen AlanSenator FERGUSONEP5SALP10—I rise to speak on this report of the Senate Select Committee on Superannua tion and to support the comments made by Senator Watson. In particular, I note that this relates to one of the most important pieces of legislation that will come before the Senate. It is a very important report. Choice of funds has been at the forefront of the coalition's policy for a number of years.I listened carefully to Senator Conroy. His comments reflect the very narrow view which he has of industry, as seen through the industry fund. I do not know whether his comments related to the industry fund he belonged to and represented, but they represented a very narrow view of superannuation throughout Australia. There are many other people besides those in industry funds who are requesting and requiring choice of fund, and have been doing so for a long time.I say to Senator Conroy that I know from my experience in the industry, which probably goes back a little further than his, although I know that his was extensive, that I came across a number of people in my time in the superannuation industry who were self-employed, particularly those in rural areas who, in order to supplement their income because times were so tough, would do some casual work for a couple of months of the year. They found that, although they had their own superannuation fund, contributions made on their behalf during the time of this casual employment had to be put in another fund, and in those days, by the end of the year, it had completely disappeared because of the cost of fees and charges. So there are many other people around Australia who are waiting for choice of funds to become available to them so that they can maximise the amounts they are putting away for their retirement income. It may be that they have casual employment with three or four different employers and this choice of fund may enable them to make sure that all the contributions towards their retirement go into one fund.I was amazed to hear Senator Conroy talk about education because, to the best of my memory, award superannuation came in in 1989. I think it had to be in place by 1989; I know it started earlier than that but I think it was about September 1989 before it became compulsory and then in 1992 or 1993 the SGC started.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—Are you committed to a national TV program?EP5Ferguson, Sen AlanSenator FERGUSON—If education was so important and if people are so ill informed in 1998, where on earth was the education that should have been put in place by the previous Labor government? Where was the education over a period of almost 10 years from the time when award super first came into being? The education process that was put in place by the previous government was practically non-existent.One of the reasons why education did not matter was that many of those who were running industry funds did not believe that education was necessary because a person did not have an opportunity to make an informed choice. There was no need to be educated because the employee had no say at all, anyway, so why educate them?3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—And keep it a secret. There is choice but it is a secret.EP5Ferguson, Sen AlanSenator FERGUSON—We have to try to correct the wrongs of the previous government, which failed to educate employers and employees in regard to superannuation. We are now going to offer them choice. You will find that once people have some ownership of and control over their own destiny, they will be much keener to become educated.Senator Bishop interjecting—EP5Ferguson, Sen AlanSenator FERGUSON—Mr Acting Deputy President, I listened carefully to Senator Conroy's contribution without interjecting, although I disagreed with much of what he said, so I would appreciate the same courtesy. As far as the principle of choice is concerned, we believe it is up to the individual to be entitled to exercise that choice if he so desires.There need to be some safeguards, and that is why this government chose not to introduce unlimited choice, because there was pressure from some areas to have unlimited choice. That would have been very difficult to manage and that is why there is choice in the policy put forward by the coalition—enough choice so that people will be able to choose for themselves what is best for their future.Senator Conroy also made a statement which I found quite fascinating. He said that in the new world of competition, fees will go up and returns will go down. That shows how much experience Senator Conroy has had with the real world. He calls it the new world. I would say: look at the real world. I spent some time working in this industry at a time when fees and charges were exorbitantly high. It was partly because of competition and the work of industry funds that forced those charges and fees to come down. I think it was the best thing to happen to superannuation for a long time.The world of superannuation is a very competitive business and people are getting good returns. People have fee structures which are more in tune with what should be happening with superannuation. In the long run competition will ensure that fees do not go up; fees will remain low. That will have some long-term effect on returns, so that returns will improve.When talking about unlimited choice, we must remember that there will be unlimited choice provided the employer offers it. It is one of the options that employers can offer. A small employer with two or three employees may choose to give those employees unlimited choice, which will be in their best interests if they are casual employees and have other funds they can channel all their retirement savings into. If the employer is prepared to offer unlimited choice, that is the best way for them to go.This report is very important because it has enabled us to gather information from all those people who have concerns. I am concerned about the opposition's tactics in trying to stall the legislation with respect to choice. We all know that the start-up date in the legislation is 1 July. Those involved in the superannuation industry need some certainty. The opposition's stalling of this piece of legislation is increasing the uncertainty in the community of both employers and employees.The tactic of delaying the legislation for as long as possible in order to make it more difficult for those people involved in the industry is one that the opposition should be ashamed of. Let the debate take place in the chamber. Let the chamber decide whether or not this legislation will pass—I do not know whether or not it will be passed—because then at least there will be some certainty for those involved in the industry, both employers and employees, so they will know on 1 July what their obligations and options will be.It is incumbent on the opposition to push this legislation forward as soon as possible. Let the chamber make a decision. If the opposition waits until the budget session in May and this legislation is passed by the chamber without amendment, it is basically saying to all those people in the community involved in the preparation of providing superannuation as employers, or choosing options as employees, `We are going to limit the time completely so that you have less than two months to put all the arrangements in place and to make sure that any education process that needs to be put in place can be put in place.'I urge the opposition to take a good look at itself in terms of the legislation which will be coming before the chamber and deal with it as soon as possible so that it knows what the outcome of the vote in this chamber will be. The opposition will be judged by the community on any stalling tactics that it uses. It is something the opposition will have to wear if it decides to delay the bill unnecessarily.The report is quite a lengthy one. I think it is fair to say that the views of both sides expressed to the committee have been reported in great detail. Lots of people felt that the start-up date would be difficult and that a good education process needed to take place. This has been well presented and I commend the report to the Senate.18:34:001451Hogg, Sen JohnSenator HOGG7L6QLDALP00—Mr Acting Deputy President, I thank you for your indulgence in taking the chair so that I can speak in this debate. I did have the opportunity, in the absence of Senator Nick Sherry, to be a member of the Senate Select Committee on Superannuation and to partake in its hearings. I can assure Senator Ferguson and the government that by no means are these stalling tactics, in spite of how one may interpret them from the other side. A welter of evidence was given to the committee that, regardless of the outcome, there should be a delay in the implementation of the issue of choice of fund. Senator Conroy has already outlined our position in terms of choice of fund. What we do not agree with is the model.A number of important issues came before the committee in the taking of evidence. The most alarming, as far as I was concerned, was in the area of education. As Senator Watson who chaired the committee would know, I repeatedly asked of those appearing before the committee the problem in relation to literacy and numeracy. We were given evidence, which to my knowledge has not been refuted, that in the vicinity of 48 per cent of Australians, according to an ABS survey—so it was a reliable survey, one would hope—are at the bottom level in literacy and numeracy skills. They rest in level 1 and level 2 on a scale of one to five and it could be best said that they have difficulty in reading and doing basic computations which many of us take for granted.EP5FERGUSONSenator Ferguson—So we cannot introduce it until we have educated all of them?7L6Hogg, Sen JohnSenator HOGG—I am not saying that at all, Senator. What I am saying is that we have a difficulty if, as we heard in evidence—virtually universally—people must be in a position to make an informed choice. It was interesting to hear Senator Watson this evening use the words `informed choice' because I think that, across parties, everyone will agree that if a proper choice is to be made by those accessing superannuation, the proper choice must be on an informed basis.It is on that basis that I am concerned primarily about the issue of education and the fact that 48 per cent have lower literacy and numeracy skills. What is even more concerning, however, is that in the vicinity of 2 million to 2½ million people are at level 1 or were at level 1 in that survey. To me, this means that the process of education, the process of making these people able to interpret—10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Watson)—Order! the time for debate on this issue has expired. We will now proceed to committee reports and government responses.14521452Debate resumed from 12 March, on motion by Senator Bishop:That the Senate take note of the report.18:40:001452Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—I would like to speak to the report of the Community Affairs References Committee on housing assistance. I have previously addressed some issues relating to this report. It is a very comprehensive report and, once again, I draw the attention of senators and the public to it. I also draw the attention of the government to the report as they consider their no doubt prompt response.There is one issue that I would like to further pursue in relation to the report. It is a matter that impacts fairly significantly on people who rent their homes—private tenants. Private tenants make up a quite large proportion of the population. Around one in four people live in houses that they rent through the private housing market. An issue that seems to be growing—if the information provided by a number of community housing groups is to be believed—is the operation around the country of a number of tenancy databases.This issue was raised with me by a number of housing groups in northern Queensland when I was up there recently. One organisation, the Tenants Union of Queensland, has conducted a fair bit of research into this issue. I would like to inform the Senate that I have had a long association with the Tenants Union because of my involvement in the management committee and other aspects of it. I know from personal experience that it is a very professional and credible organisation and that it knows what it is talking about with issues affecting tenants and the housing sector in general.The union has had a lot of complaints from tenants in relation to the operation of tenancy databases and the existence of what basically can accurately be called `tenant black lists'. One organisation, whose name comes up a lot, is called `The Tenancy Information Centre Australia' or TICA for short. It appears to operate around the country, and certainly a lot of agents throughout Queensland use this database. The particular examples reported to me by housing groups were in relation to databases in Cairns and Townsville.Under these totally privately run systems, real estate agents are able to access the database which has been compiled. The database contains the details of a large number of private tenants. Tenants are often put on this database, without their knowledge, by real estate agents, property agents or managers who have had problems them. Obviously, these problems sometimes are quite genuine, so there is some case to be made that people who are involved in the business of managing properties should legitimately be made aware of people who have a bad record for damaging properties or those sorts of things.A number of cases have come to light where incorrect information on people has been put on these black lists; information that is incorrect, highly pejorative or out of context. The information simply said that someone had not paid their rent, or something like that, without giving any indication that it was because of failure on the part of the property owner to fulfil their obligation to repair property and to make it livable, et cetera. In a situation where a tenant is simply acting to try to enforce their own legal rights—such as they exist under tenancy legislation in Queensland—they can, unbeknown to them, find themselves on one of these databases which are available to real estate agents throughout the country. Next time they try to rent a house, a unit, a flat or whatever, they find their application for tenancy being refused because the agent was able to access a database containing incorrect information on the prospective tenants. People can be refused property without knowing the reason. That is obviously a completely unacceptable situation.Reports have come from the Tenants Union office in Cairns. Cairns is an area that has a higher than usual proportion of private tenants and a very mobile population. This issue comes up even more strongly in these sorts of communities. The Cairns office reported a lot of examples of people being denied accommodation due to their inclusion on tenant black lists.It is really the unregulated nature of the system that leaves it open to potential abuse. It is not so much its existence in itself but the fact that there are no controls on it. This was addressed to some extent in this report from the community affairs committee, and it highlights the need not only for adequate tenancy legislation to protect the rights of tenants and of property owners around the country but also for adequate enforcement and adequate regulation of it. It is something that I hope the government considers when it looks at that aspect of the report.It also touches on the broader issue of privacy principles in the private sector and around the country. As has been mentioned previously, it was a commitment of the coalition prior to coming into government that they would extend privacy legislation to the private sector. They have backed away from that commitment, an alternative the Democrats are most disappointed with. One of the alternative approaches which is now being pursued is through the Privacy Commissioner under the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission.Senators probably recall receiving some national principles for their handling of personal information which the Office of the Privacy Commissioner released around the end of February, about three or four weeks ago, which is aimed at setting a privacy benchmark for the handling of personal information. I urge senators to have a look at that document as well because it does correlate with this issue that was touched on in the Senate report into housing issues.I will quickly touch on a few of the principles that are contained in this suggested benchmark. They are very fundamental principles that are suggested for adoption. If information is collected about a person that is provided by someone else, an agency should, wherever possible, make sure that the person knows that this has occurred. Agencies should ensure that information they hold about a person is accurate when they collect it or when they use it. Wherever possible, they should let people see the information held about them and correct it if it is wrong.That is a crucial factor. It is one thing to have this information but, if people are not even aware that their information is being put onto these databases and is being used by property managers and real estate agents and they are not able to get it corrected when they find it exists and believe it has inaccurate details on it, it is obviously a very fundamental breach of a person's basic privacy rights as well as an unfair hindrance to their being able to access accommodation.The Tenants Union reported on people who have unsuccessfully tried to clear their name with this private company and who were getting fairly short shrift when they tried to do so. That is something the Democrats believe is totally unacceptable. Just exercising your normal rights as a tenant should not result in your potentially being put on some sort of black list that can continue for an undetermined length of time.Examples were quoted of tenants being given a bad tenant status for agreeing to forfeit part or all of their bond to fix or clean vacated premises, which is a not unusual practice. Reportedly, by their own account, database agencies such as TICA make little or no attempt to check the accuracy of information they place on the database. They just take the word of the agent or the property manager who has provided it to them. Again, that is something the Democrats believe is unacceptable. I do hope that the government, both at the federal level and at the state level, works to address this issue.The Queensland state government currently is examining privacy legislation through one of its state parliamentary committees. It is something I know was raised before that committee, and I hope that action is taken there. I would also urge the Real Estate Institute of Australia and Real Estate Institute of Queensland, which are certainly aware of this concern, to act to address it. As the Privacy Commissioner said in releasing the suggested national privacy principles for the handling of personal information, these principles are issued as recommended princi ples—a recommended national approach—for fair information handling, and the aim is to devise a benchmark which is workable and flexible in the business context without compromising basic principles and core privacy standards.Whilst these are out for comment and consideration, the Privacy Commissioner does urge people to move quickly on them. They are on the table, and the commissioner strongly encourages Australian businesses to take up the challenge and adopt them. I hope that the real estate industry takes on board those principles and the consideration in relation to this tenancy black list and does do something about trying to implement them. I hope the government, in consideration of this report, takes on board that issue as well.Question resolved in the affirmative.1454Debate adjourned on the following orders of the day during consideration of committee reports and government responses.Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade—Joint Standing Committee—Report—Defence Sub-Committee: Visit to Sydney Harbour foreshores defence propertiesLegal and Constitutional References Committee—Report—Sexuality discriminationPublications—Joint Standing Committee—Report—Future of the parliamentary papers seriesPublic Accounts—Joint Statutory Committee—Report 355—Aboriginal Councils and Torres Strait Island Councils: Review of financial accountability requirementsPublic Accounts—Joint Statutory Committee—Report 354—Annual report 1996-97Finance and Public Administration References Committee—Report—Contracting out of government services—First report: Information technologyQuestion resolved in the affirmative on the following orders of the day without further debate during consideration of committee reports and government responses.Public Accounts and Audit—Joint Statutory Committee—Report 357—The Jindalee Operational Radar Network ProjectPublic Accounts and Audit—Joint Statutory Committee—356th report—An advisory report on the Tax Law Improvement Bill (No. 2) 1997 Regulations and Ordinances—Standing Committee—Statement—Scrutiny of national uniform legislative schemesSuperannuation—Select Committee—Report entitled: Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Scheme & the Judges' Pension Scheme—Government responseRural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee—Report entitled: Importation of cooked chicken meat into Australia—Government responseAdjournment145510000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Hogg)—Order! As consideration of committee reports and government responses has now concluded, I propose the question:That the Senate do now adjourn.145518:52:001455O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—There has never been any doubt that the government's waterfront strategy is nothing more than a political campaign. It was built on detailed and expensive public opinion polling and a carefully constructed political public relations campaign. It is a campaign being implemented through a newsletter put out by Mr Reith's ministerial office that deals in trivia and hearsay. It is a campaign built on personal attacks on individuals in the union movement.It is a campaign built on misinformation. It is a campaign designed to destroy the Maritime Union of Australia and to erode the authority of the ACTU. It is a campaign about sacking people. It is not a campaign built around good public policy. It indeed is not a campaign built on fact, and it is not a campaign built on ongoing reform on the waterfront, because that can only be achieved if all parties are working together in pursuit of a common goal, as was the case in the WIRA reform program.In the past couple of days we have seen what I described as the Reith plan begin to unravel because there is not solid policy foundation and it does not enjoy the support of stevedores or the workers. The level of support from users is now dissipating, if it ever was there at all. I just remind the Senate of that plan which was spelt out in a minute from the most senior waterfront reform officer in Mr Reith's department. That minute advised:What would be needed for the MUA's influence on the waterfront to be significantly weakened would be for a range of effected service users and providers to take decisive action to protect or advance their interests.It continued:Stevedores would need to activate well prepared strategies to dismiss their workforce, and replace them with another, quickly, in a way that limited the prospect of, for example, the Commission ordering the reinstatement of the current workforce.Let me go to part 1 of the plan—that is, to get the users to attack the Maritime Union of Australia. On ABC radio yesterday the Executive President of the Australian Peak Shippers Association, Mr Frank Beaufort, laid the blame for the current problems on the docks at the feet of Patricks management, not the Maritime Union. It is important to note that this body represents about 80 per cent of shippers in this country—shippers in areas such as dairy, horticulture, cotton, timber, meat, wool and rice. Mr Beaufort said that there will continue to be problems on the docks as long as Patricks remains in the stevedoring business. He said that the turmoil in the docks was being driven by Patricks. And of course Patricks is being driven by Mr Reith.I noted that today in order to illustrate widespread support for the Reith plan the minister read out a handful of letters from anonymous authors. He did not, however, get up and read from a handful of letters from major users of the ports attacking the MUA and supporting the government, because he could not. That support is not there. While a number of employer organisations came out in support of the government, in reality they would have been given little choice. So it would appear that phase one of Mr Reith's plan is now under some pressure.One possible reason for this that I have touched on in an earlier debate but it bears repeating is that many users are putting the costs of a full-scale industrial war against the benefits that might flow from the campaign to smash the MUA. While there may be some isolated examples where stevedores charge users $200 to move a container for large contract users in Melbourne, for example, the actual cost is about $70. Whilst isolated examples of charging $200 a container no doubt exist, that is not the norm.The main exporters putting product across the wharves are facing much lower charges—charges which, on information that I have, are as low as $70 per container. That is 30 per cent below the cost Mr Reith said could be achieved if the union was forced from the docks. So there is no saving in his campaign. The savings are already there by his figures. That $70 represents two per cent of the total transport costs or only 0.2 of one per cent of the value of a typical container in the case of one of the big users of the Melbourne waterfront, according to information that has been given to me.What of the second part of Mr Reith's plan of getting a stevedore to sack its entire work force and replace that work force before the Industrial Relations Commission could reinstate the sacked workers—that is, beat the system, in fact, to act outside the terms of Mr Reith's own legislation? It appears to me that Patricks were prepared to act as Mr Reith's lieutenant in this exercise of union bashing, not for any reason of reform or efficiency but because the company was in trouble. In that case it felt, no doubt, that it had to choose.In a story in today's Australian the Sea Land stevedoring company was quoted as saying that Patricks attempt to blame the union for its low productivity on the waterfront was a smokescreen for its own poor management. The General Manager of Sea Land, Mr Andrew Andrews, said that the company had included the union in its plans right from the start and would continue to use union labour when it commenced its operations in Brisbane in July. He was quoted as saying that the company had not found the MUA to be a barrier to reform. He went on to say:We're very bullish on the attitude of the union in that they're very receptive to change. I just don't understand the people who are finding it—that is, the union—a road block to changing things.I quote also from the Chief Executive of P&O, which is the other major stevedoring company on Australia's waterfront. The Chief Executive, Richard Hein, is reported by AAP as saying:We are not about tearing up our agreements and setting out to destroy the MUA.Clearly, it is not the employers who are out to smash the unions but it is this government—Mr Reith in particular and, no doubt, Mr Howard. Patricks chose to carry out the Reith plan and it appears that it is now paying an increasingly high price.In my view, the faltering performance of Patricks has led to Mr Reith inviting the National Farmers Federation to take up the mantle. It appears that the NFF is struggling as well. On this morning's AM Mr McGauchie said that he had still not signed up any business and he was forced to organise a teleconference last night to shore up his support in the bush. The attitude of the National Farmers Federation to the interests of its own membership was best illustrated by the following question and answer. Mr McGauchie was asked:If you are not using fighting funds in this exercise why not open up the fighting fund books for the past three years?He replied:. . . one of its—that is, the fighting funds—great strengths is its mystery.I take that to mean that the use of that money must remain a mystery not only to the public but also to farmers who actually donated the money. I also want to refer to the March issue of the P&O newsletter. There is an article in that publication on crane rates for a vessel called the Kasuga. That is a vessel which, I understand, was the subject of stevedoring activity in Singapore and in two Australian ports all under the control of P&O, so they know what the crane rates were. That article said that in Singapore there were 1,298 moves at a crane rate of 28.8 TEUs per hour using four cranes. In Adelaide, the same vessel saw one crane achieve 338 movements at a rate of 28.6 TEUs per hour. In Fremantle, one crane achieved 608 moves at a rate of 26.8 TEUs per hour. In other words, there was no great difference.In my view, this illustrates partly the fact that this has been a political exercise from day one as far as the Howard government is concerned. The stevedores and increasingly the users of the ports are indicating that the political games are not substitutes for good public policy and sustainable economic reform. I would say that this exercise by the minister will fail. Unfortunately, a lot of people are going to suffer while it is being played out.145719:01:001457Abetz, Sen EricSenator ABETZN26TASLP10—On Sunday, 15 March the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) announced the further sale of Telstra shares to reduce Labor's debt legacy and to give all Australians, especially Telstra employees, a further opportunity to invest in this great Australian company. Labor's reaction from its policy vacuum was to be negative without offering an alternative. Labor's negativity would be understandable but for its duplicity and unconscionable scaremongering. Labor's duplicity is best highlighted by this exchange:So it doesn't matter whether Telecom is publicly or private owned?Answer:Not of its essence, no.Who gave that answer? None other than Labor's last Prime Minister, Mr Keating. Labor will tell you that Mr Keating has been left behind. They have entered a new era. I suppose we need to accept that. But then Labor need to leave the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Beazley, behind as well, because he is on record supporting the sale of public assets. His quotes relating to the sale of the Commonwealth Bank, Qantas and CSL are legend. In relation to Telstra, Mr Beazley said, `You could sell Telecom if you set your mind to it.' A bit embarrassing for Labor, I would suggest.Labor does have a policy on the sale of assets. Its policy is that, in opposition and in the lead-up to an election campaign, you reject the sale of public assets. Once in government, you sell in complete breach of the undertakings given. No wonder the lady in red, Labor's new recruit, said about Labor:I think Labor in opposition won't sell Telstra, but I'm more worried about Labor in government.The difference is that the Liberals are honest and up-front. Labor is—how will I put it?—economical with the truth. The truth is that Telstra will be sold no matter who wins the next election. The difference is that the Liberals are honest. The other difference is that we will use the proceeds to pay off Labor's legacy of debt. Labor will squander the proceeds of the sale as they did with the Commonwealth Bank, with Qantas and with CSL. In paying off Labor's debt, we free up the money supply and, as a result, we can live in a low interest rate environment which benefits all of us. Labor's unconscionable scaremongering has already started. In weighing up the credibility of Labor's campaign, I invite my fellow Australians to cast their minds back to the 1996 election campaign. In my home state of Tasmania the people in the electorate of Lyons were submitted to a very deceitful campaign. Labor circulated a mock Telstra account using Telstra's logo and ACN without permission. On the account, Labor asserted that, after the one-third sale of Telstra, metered calls, STD calls, mobile network and 0011 international fees would all increase after the sale. Well, the sale has occurred. Have the prices increased as Labor so dishonestly asserted? The answer is no. Has Labor apologised? The answer is no. But is Labor asserting all these untruths again? Unfortunately, the answer is yes. There is no sense of remorse, just blind adherence to the Labor motto `Do whatever it takes.' The most outrageous assertion on that Telstra account peddled by the Labor Party was the claim that a network charge would come into being. Actual figures were nominated for key areas in the electorate by the Labor candidate. For example, one of the best places in Tasmania, an area I often visit and enjoy visiting, is the west coast. West coast residents were told the horrendous untruth that this fictitious network charge would cost them $1,250 each. In Ouse they were told it would be $950. In Deloraine and Oatlands they were told it would be $680. In St Marys they were told it would be $910—all untrue, proven to be untrue.Indeed, connection fees have not increased in the past two years. Despite being exposed as charlatans, Labor, without any sense of shame or remorse, are yet again embarking on a dishonest scare campaign. The Labor member for Lyons (Mr Adams) must be aware of the disdain his electorate now holds him in for this dishonest campaign in 1996. The recent poll in Tasmania reflected his very shaky position.Can I turn now to debunk some of the assertions that have been made of late. In offering services to all Australia, we need to keep this in mind: the law says that all Australians must have access to a standard telephone service and access to pay phones within a legally specified time regardless of where in Australia they live or work. This law will continue to apply and be enforced regardless of who owns Telstra.Consumer protection laws will remain strong. Thanks to the government, all phone companies are required by law to offer a historic customer service guarantee. If your phone company offers an inadequate service in line installation or repair, you receive financial compensation. This law will be maintained and, if necessary, strengthened. In relation to untimed local calls, the law says that phone companies cannot force a residential phone user to pay for timed local calls. The law says that phone companies cannot force businesses to pay for timed local calls. These laws will stay.Australians in regional and remote areas will continue to receive special help with their phone services in recognition of the special problems caused by distance. The government will keep the price cap regime, which means the real cost of Telstra's average price across a basket of services must fall every year.There has also been some talk about who will own Telstra. Telstra will remain an Australian company. The government will ensure by law that Telstra will remain majority Australian owned, with no more than 35 per cent foreign ownership. No single foreign interest will be allowed by law to own more than five per cent of Telstra. The chairman and the majority of the board will by law have to be Australian. Telstra's headquarters will by law remain in Australia.It is unfortunate that we need to continue to remind those opposite that these points I have just made are part of the announcement and part of the policy package that we are offering the Australian people at the next election. Everywhere that I have gone, I have seen Labor making these assertions which are completely untrue as to foreign ownership, timed local calls and the like. So I seek to clear up the record and make absolutely clear what the government's proposal is. Experience has shown that, in Tasmania, especially in the electorate of Lyons, three days before the last election, Labor put round a fictitious Telstra account full of misinformation, which caused a lot of concern to the people in that electorate, and because of that campaign I believe the Labor candidate was able to squeak back into his seat. I am not so sure that that will occur next time round.In short, the Liberal proposal on Telstra is honest and open for analysis, unlike Labor's history of sleight of hand when it comes to the sale of public assets. Our proposal will protect consumers and guarantees the universal service obligations. Our proposal will significantly reduce Labor's legacy of debt. Our proposal will give all Australians, and especially Telstra employees, an opportunity to buy part of Australia's largest company.Labor's campaign of misinformation from 1996 will undoubtedly be resurrected; indeed it has been already. But it will not be able to take the shine off the fact that this proposal is good news for all Australians—consumers, employees, taxpayers and shareholders alike. I commend the Telstra proposal to my fellow Australians.145819:11:001458Denman, Sen KaySenator DENMANFY5TASALP00—I rise to pay tribute to the late Justice Bill Zeeman, who died of a brain tumour in Hobart earlier this month at the age of 54. Bill Zeeman died while still serving Tasmania as a Supreme Court judge. In the true meaning of serving, he continued to apply his intellect right up until his death. I believe that on the day he died he was still working on some legal papers. He was a man who had a work ethic second to none. I remember hearing stories that, as a partner in the firm Zeeman, Kable and Page in Launceston, other junior practitioners filing past his office at week's end for the constitutional Friday drink at their local watering hole, would see the silhouette of Bill illuminated from inside working on a file. They would continue to see that same silhouette on their sometimes staggering return home in the early hours of Saturday morning. Some of them believed that nobody could work with such discipline and proffered the explanation that the image they saw was in fact a cardboard silhouette. That was never the case, for here was a man who had unquestioned commitment and self-discipline. As Justice Pierre Slicer said of Bill in an obituary in the Mercury newspaper:His sense of purpose, intellectual rigour and embrace of responsibility, evidence a value system to which most of us can only aspire.As a partner in the firm Zeeman, Kable and Page in Launceston, some said he was the countervailing force to the larger than life character of the late John Kable. John was the nephew of an equally larger than life character, Reginald Wright, both of whom were from the conservative side of politics, although I must say it is difficult to judge which pigeonhole you slotted John Kable into.Bill Zeeman was involved in Labor politics. He was seen as the person in that firm who raised the red flag and so counterbalanced an individual as persuasive and demonstrative as John Kable. Bill Zeeman did this very effectively. It was an unusual practice, it was an unusual union of solicitors, but it was one which I understand worked very well.Bill's life may have been very different if he had been successful in his tilt at entering the Tasmanian parliament. In the early 1970s he lost preselection to enter the Legislative Council by only one vote. If he had been successful, I am sure he would have left his mark politically. Later, in 1984, he also had an opportunity to enter the lower house in Tasmania. On a count back, he would have taken his place in the House of Assembly as Labor member for Bass, but he declined, no doubt largely because the focus of his life had changed and he had a young family.He was born in the Netherlands and his subsequent career as a lawyer, magistrate, administrator, university chancellor, and supreme court judge encapsulates just how Australia, as a nation of immigrants, through the diversity of its people is that much stronger. Bill certainly gave a lot back to this country, and in particular to Tasmania, in his short life.I have spoken with a number of legal practitioners who advised that the judgments that he delivered could always be relied upon to be first class. One practitioner went as far as to say that his judgments were of a quality that placed him as one of the finest legal thinkers in Australia. He had a fine legal mind. I shudder to think what it would have been like to appear before him. His legal mind was also recognised overseas and he was in some circles better recognised outside Tasmania than within it. Justice Slicer said it all when he stated:To many Australians who did not know him, his death has no import. But his capacity to look at death, reflect on it and continue his life's work does. His life tells us that there is a reward in devoting one's skills to the good of the community. His life tells us that the values of integrity, commitment and self-discipline are central to a healthy society.Bill Zeeman is survived by his wife Anne, sons Mark, Phillip and Justin, and to them I extend my sincere sympathy.145919:17:001459McKiernan, Sen JamesSenator McKIERNAN1I4WAALP00—I would like to pay tribute to the memory of a very dear friend and member of my political party who was also a stalwart supporter of the West Perth Football Club in Western Australia, Rosa Townsend. Rosa passed away a couple of weeks ago but her memory will live within the party, within the Labor movement and within that particular football club for many years to come. A woman who was tiny in stature but as aggressive as a terrier dog could be, she pursued issues on behalf of working people in her earlier career as a trade union official at a time when it was not popular for women to be involved or active, or at the forefront of trade union activity.She had a great sense of justice for those who needed representation in the industrial arena and she did that very capably and very competently, not all the time with the wholehearted support of her colleagues in the individual union or in the trade union movement in general. She was one of Australia's real battlers and real representatives. She maintained that aggression into the political arena. She ensured that people like me, when we became public representatives, did our job adequately and faithfully and honoured the ideals we stood for when we entered public office. She was universally liked within the Labor movement in Western Australia, even by those whom she aggressively pursued to make sure that they in turn were doing their job.Unfortunately, her funeral occurred at a time when the Senate was sitting and neither I nor my wife, nor indeed any of our other Senate colleagues from Western Australia were able to be at the funeral. We did make sure that we were represented at that very sad occasion. As I said in opening, her memory will live forever because we do treasure what she did.I also want to make a brief comment about the pending retirement of another individual whom I hold in the highest regard. I refer to Barry Young, who is the electoral officer for the Electoral Commission in Western Australia. Barry is moving to what some consider to be premature retirement after many years—actually, I think it is all of his working life—working with the Australian Electoral Commission. He has faithfully undertaken his duties as an electoral commissioner and is, indeed, universally liked for the very professional job that he did while he held that position. I am sure all colleagues from Western Australia join me in wishing he and his wife a most enjoyable retirement. They have had very tragic circumstances in recent times where their only daughter was tragically taken from them. I am sure that those events precipitated his decision to move out of the Perth metropolitan area and grow trees. We do wish Barry and his spouse all the very best for the future.19:21:001460Senate adjourned at 7.21 p.m.Documents14601460The following documents were tabled by the Clerk:Antarctic Marine Living Resources Conservation Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 40.Banks (Shareholdings) Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 Nos 49 and 50.Child Support Determination CSD 98/1.Consular Fees Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 43.Customs Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 52.Family Law Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 39.Health Insurance Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 44.International Organisations (Privileges and Immunities) Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 41.Ombudsman Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 47.Passports Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 42.Patents Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 45.Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection Act, Horticultural Levy Act and Horticultural Export Charge Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 46.Public Service Act— Locally Engaged Staff Determinations 1998/9-1998/11. Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 48.Remuneration Tribunal Act—Determinations Nos 1-7 of 1998.1460The 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:Artbank.Australia Council.Australian Broadcasting Authority Australian Broadcasting Corporation.Australian Communications AuthorityAustralian Film Commission.Australian Film, Television and Radio School.Australian National Maritime Museum.Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre (AUSTRAC).National Archives of Australia.National Film and Sound Archive.National Gallery of Australia.National Library of Australia.National Museum of Australia.National Science and Technology Centre.Special Broadcasting Service Corporation.Answers to Questions on Notice1462The following answers to questions were circulated:1462(Question No. 1052)10521462Lees, Sen MegSenator Lees8U4SAAD00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Family Services, upon notice, on 23 December 1997:(1) With reference to the `Revised Process for Medicare Benefits Schedule Listing and Review' contained, in Budget Paper No. 2 for the 1997-98 financial year, relating to evidence of efficacy being a prerequisite for Medicare: (a) what percentage of current medical interventions have solid scientific evidence to support them; (b) is the Minister aware of the editorial comment of the British Medical Journal, Issue 303, that `only about 15 per cent of medical interventions are supported by solid medical evidence'; (c) would this opinion cast serious doubt about the estimate of $3.1 million savings by the year 2001; and (d) as there is no dramatic increase in Government research finding to validate the other 85 per cent of medicine, does that mean that evidence-based cost effectiveness is not really going to apply to Medicare.(2) With reference to the Budget Paper's promotion of `Evidence-based Medicine' as a way to ensure `the most cost effective and medically appropriate outcomes', in particular, one of the Government's `cost effective clinical practice guidelines' projects: (a) is the statement made by the Minister in Parliament on 11 February 1997, that `one thing the Government has done is to contribute money to the RACP to develop guidelines into the most cost effective treatments', a statement in relation to Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS); and (b) how does the Minister intend to develop further guidelines.(3) Given the terms of the Government contract with the Royal Australian College of Physicians (RACP) specified that these guidelines were to be completed by 31 December 1996: (a) are these guidelines for CFS now available: if not, when will they be made available; and (b) is the Minister aware that the co-chairman of the RACP working party, Dr Loblay, has written publicly that `we do not regard the conditions of grant as binding us', `conditions of grant are not relevant to our deliberations', `As far as I'm concerned they are simply an administrative necessity which enables the bureaucracy to justify the expenditure to their political masters'; and `we did not believe that questions of cost would enter into our deliberations, and indeed they have not'.(4) (a) Does a member of the Department sit on the working group; if so, was he or she aware of the decision in September 1996 not to do cost studies; and (b) when was the Minister made aware of that decision.(5) Given the Budget Paper's promotion of `Evidence-based Medicine' as a way to ensure `the most cost effective and medically appropriate outcomes', and given that the RACP working party does not intend to look at cost effectiveness, are they looking at medical outcomes.(6) Did the Minister advise Parliament on 11 February 1997 that CFS research, including health outcomes research, has not been funded.(7) Is it a fact that, despite a special ministerial committee, the CFS Review Committee, making recommendations on funding general practice research, CFS health outcome surveys in general practice have still not been carried out.(8) Is the Minister aware that the previous minister instructed the department to implement CFS Review Committee recommendations but that these have not been carried out.(9) Is it a fact that CFS consumer groups' requests for funding to carry out health outcome surveys have also recently been denied, the reason given being that the Minister has every confidence in the integrity and process being followed by the working group.(10) Is it a fact that the RACP working group, despite the emphasis on outcomes in the National Health and Medical Research Council (NBIRC) guidelines and despite the provisions for such outcome surveys under the NHMRC process, does not intend to carry out health outcome surveys.(11) Has there been any breach of the terms of the contract relating to the CFS Review Committee.(12) Is the `adoption of Best Practice by the profession' under the Better Practice Payments scheme, a requirement to adhere to clinical practice guidelines of the nature of those currently being produced in CFS, which lack research on appropriate outcomes and lack cost-effectiveness studies.(13) Can it be confirmed that it is not the Government's intention to reduce Medicare availability of treatments without first carrying out appropriate health outcomes research, as well as cost-effectiveness studies. (14) Can it be confirmed that the RACP-CFS clinical practice guidelines will not be used to reduce Medicare availability of diagnosis or treatments in CFS until appropriate cost-effectiveness studies are carried out.(15) Will the department be instructed to ensure that the RACP process complies fully with the NHMRC guidelines for production of clinical practice guidelines current at the time of formation of the working group.(16) Will the Government provide research funding for CFS health outcome surveys.(17) Is the Minister aware that the RACP working group has not contacted all Australian researchers with scientific emerging treatments and therefore valuable contributions on diagnosis and treatment will not be included in the guidelines.(18) Is it lawful for practitioners to itemise to Medicare services delivering emerging treatments in new areas of medicine such as CFS.(19) Will the Minister: (a) guarantee Medicare funding of any identified CFS emerging treatments until they can be documented and evaluated for cost effectiveness; (b) implement the CFS Review Committee recommendations to provide funds to general practitioners to document emerging treatments; (c) instruct the department to investigate the use and/or the threat of prosecutions to general practitioners itemising services delivering emerging treatments in CFS; and (d) acknowledge the `Catch-22' situation that the department has placed on doctors prepared to scientifically document emerging treatments in CFS(20) Given that the RACP contract without outcome surveys, without identification of emerging treatments, without cost effectiveness studies only serves to continue this situation: what steps will be taken to correct this matter.1463Herron, Sen JohnSenator HerronVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—The Minister for Health and Family Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's questions(1) (a) The percentage of current medical interventions which have solid scientific evidence to support them is not known because of the complex issues surrounding evidence, and its diffusion and adoption into medical practice. However, all medical services listed on the Medicare Benefits Schedule (MBS) have been assessed according to the best standards of evidence available at the time of their listing on the MBS, and/or reflect longstanding medical practice(b) Yes.(c) The revised process for Medicare Benefits Schedule listing and Review is focused on the assessment of new medical technologies and procedures, where more evidence is likely to be available. Funds are also available to support the collection of data where existing evidence is insufficient for definitive assessment. Under this initiative, existing MBS items will not be reviewed unless they are direct comparators to medical technologies and procedures being assessed or where new evidence raises doubts about their safety, effectiveness and cost effectiveness. The estimated savings of $3.1 million out of a $6 billion program are extremely modest and the Government is confident that it will be achieved.(d) The Government will be spending $15 million over the next four years to ensure that the best available evidence on new medical technologies and procedures is assessed. As already indicated above, the aim is to assess proposals for new items on the Schedule, not all items currently on the Schedule.(2) (a) Yes.(b) With the CFS Clinical Practice Guidelines now in the final stages of preparation (an Exposure Draft was widely circulated for comment in December 1997), there are no plans to develop further guidelines on CFS in the immediate future.(3) (a) Having sought and received approval for the extension of the contract until 30 June 1998, the RACP working group distributed an Exposure Draft of the CFS Guidelines titled Draft Clinical Practice Guidelines on the evaluation of prolonged fatigue and the diagnosis and management of chronic fatigue syndrome for comment in December 1997. A copy of that Exposure Draft has been sent to the honourable senator. The Exposure Draft is also available on the world wide web site http://www.mja.com.au/public/guides/cfs/cfsl.html The closing date for comments is 16 February 1998 and publication of the final guidelines, as a free standing supplement to the Medical Journal of Australia is scheduled for May 1998.(b) The Minister is not aware of Dr Loblay's comments.(4) (a) No Departmental officer is a member of the RACP working group. However, an officer has been an observer at some meetings. The departmental officer is not aware of the decision referred to. This project involves the development of guidelines on the most clinically relevant and cost effective methods of diagnosing and treating CFS. New cost studies are not required in the project outline, only a survey of existing literature.(b) Since the Department was not aware of any such decision, the Minister was not advised of the matter.(5) As mentioned above, the purpose of the grant was to enable the RACP in consultation with other relevant bodies and consumers, to develop guidelines on the most clinically relevant and cost effec tive methods of diagnosing and treating CFS. The guidelines were to cover definition, diagnosis, management of the condition and research. The process adopted by the RACP working group in developing the guidelines is described in Part 6 of the Exposure Draft and summarised under the heading Guideline Development in that document's Preface.(6) While stating that the NHMRC has not specifically funded research for CFS, the Minister advised that a new subcommittee of the NHMRC, the Strategic Research Development Committee, whose role was to advise on the need for targeted research into different health issues, could properly address this issue. The Minister also mentioned the funding provided to the RACP to develop the guidelines. He expressed the hope that if agreement on this matter could be attained, people suffering from CFS would more easily be accepted by the broader medical profession. There was no explicit mention of health outcomes research in the Minister's response.(7) In its 1994 Report, the CFS Review Committee recommended that a suitably structured survey of the attitudes, knowledge and practices of general practitioners regarding CFS be undertaken to establish a baseline. The Royal Australian College of General Practitioners was contracted to conduct such a survey in March 1995 and produced its report the following year. A copy of the Report has been sent to the honourable senator.(8) No instructions were ever issued to the Department by the former Minister for Human Services and Health with regard to the recommendations of the Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Review Committee's report. However, the Government has taken the report seriously and has given effect to the spirit of its recommendations. The production of evidence based guidelines through a process involving consultation with CFS support groups, relevant medical experts and individuals was judged to be a more appropriate way of providing guidance to doctors in the diagnosis and treatment of CFS than the Consensus Conference recommended by the Committee.(9) The Department is not aware of any requests for funding of health outcome surveys from CFS consumer groups. A number of letters have been sent to the Minister from consumer groups and other individuals expressing concern about the composition of the RACP working group. The Minister's response to the letters included information on the membership of the working group and the statement that he has every confidence in the integrity of that group and the process being followed to produce the CFS guidelines. He also noted that every effort had been made to ensure that consumers and professionals had been able to express their views throughout the process. While one CFS Action Group has sought funding to conduct a "Consumers' Conference", the Department is not aware of any applications which seek specific funding for health outcomes surveys.(10) Yes. Under the conditions of the grant, the RACP working group was not required to carry out health outcome surveys. However, the RACP working group did generally follow the process recommended and endorsed by the NHMRC which is based on the general approach to improving health outcomes as agreed by Australian Health Ministers. The main purpose of the guidelines is to achieve better health outcomes by improving the practice of health professionals and by better informing consumers about treatment options.The NHMRC recognises that clinical guidelines should be based on the identification and synthesis of the best scientific evidence, a goal which the RACP working group is pursuing. The RACP working group used the NHMRC process to conduct an exhaustive review and evaluation of the relevant published scientific studies on prolonged fatigue and CFS. Evidence was systematically evaluated and the findings published and cited in the draft guidelines.(11) The Minister is not aware of any breach of the terms of the contract with the RACP.(12) No. Nor is it the case that the draft clinical guidelines produced by the RACP Working Group lack research on appropriate health outcomes, since it contains an exhaustive review of current world literature on this aspect.(13) To attract a Medicare benefit, the Health Insurance Act 1973 (the Act) requires a professional service to be "clinically relevant". A clinically relevant service is defined in the Act as being a service rendered by a medical practitioner that is generally accepted in the medical profession as being necessary for the appropriate treatment of the patient to whom it is rendered. Provided a treatment meets this definition, Medicare benefits can be paid.(14) The intention has always been that the work will be available as guidelines for treating practitioners. The basis of a valid Medicare claim remains clinical relevance, not rigid adherence to guidelines.(15) No. The Department will not be so instructed. The process the RACP has followed would in any event obviate the need for such an instruction.While the contract with the RACP makes no mention of NHMRC endorsement of the CFS guidelines, the Working Group at its first meeting on 21 September 1996 agreed that such endorsement was desirable. The guidelines were, therefore, developed with this objective in mind (16) The National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) provides funding for health and medical research on the basis of scientific merit and subject to a rigorous peer review process. The NHMRC does not, as a rule, direct researchers to undertake research in any particular field, although it recognises that particular areas of research may need special attention, including strategies to facilitate the development of further research.The Strategic Research Development Committee (SDRC) of the NHMRC will examine data on CFS, according to the following criteria, in order to determine research priorities:. the significance of CFS as a health issue in the Australian context. including impact on sufferers;. the research currently under way in Australia and internationally; gaps in Australia's research effort in this area; and. the capacity for additional research to be undertaken in Australia.It will take several months to undertake this analysis and the results will need to be carefully assessed against other competing priorities. It is expected that this assessment will be completed by April 1998. The issue of health outcome surveys will be considered in this context.(17) I am assured that the RACP Working Group has consulted widely and made good use of Internet access as well. In January 1997, a letter was sent to 46 organisations (including 21 doctors) seeking written submissions. The RACP working group received 80 submissions in total. Of these, 17 were from individuals and bodies representing alternative organisations and 15 responses were from doctors who were either writing as individuals or as representatives of academia or other such organisations. The circulation of the RACP working group draft guidelines asking for comment provides a further opportunity for all Australian researchers with scientific emerging treatments to provide input.(18) The basis of a lawful Medicare claim is set out in the Health Insurance Act 1973. A professional service must be clinically relevant, i.e. a service rendered by a medical practitioner that is generally accepted in the medical profession as being necessary for the appropriate treatment of the patient to whom it is rendered. New procedures must be evaluated for safety, efficacy and cost-effectiveness before being listed on the Medicare Benefits Schedule. For professional attendances, where no listed procedure is performed, the clinical relevance test still applies. The treatment must still be accepted in the medical profession as being necessary for the patient. Some "emerging" treatments may not meet this test.(19) (a) No. All new procedures must be properly evaluated before Medicare Benefits can be paid. However, the new MSAC may recommend that some treatments which are promising, but as yet unproven, be the subject of further research and interim benefits could be paid in these circumstances.(b) No. The RACP working group process took the place of the CFS Review Committee recommendations.(c) No such `threats' have been or are being issued by the Department or the Health Insurance Commission. The test for whether a service attracts a Medicare benefit is whether it is a clinically relevant service as defined in the Health Insurance Act 1973 as being a service rendered by a medical practitioner that is generally accepted in the medical profession as being necessary for the appropriate treatment of the patient to whom it was rendered.(d) Doctors treating CFS patients have faced a difficult task, trying to sort out which of the vast range of new treatments emerging for CFS over the past decade are worthwhile. This is the reason the Department has funded the RACP to develop and publish guidelines based on a scientific assessment of evidence. The draft guidelines developed by the RACP Working Group fully assess health outcomes and new emerging treatments.(20) The distribution of draft clinical guidelines by the RACP working group in December 1997 provides the clearest perspective to date of which treatments and diagnostics are generally agreed to be clinically relevant in respect of CFS. The distribution of the final version will enhance this situation. Anyone who believes that the draft contains inaccuracies, makes incorrect conclusions or omits relevant material should take this opportunity to inform the Working Group accordingly.1465(Question No. 1063)10631465Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MargettsDX5WAG(WA)00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry, Science and Tourism, upon notice, on 2 February 1998:(1) (a) Does the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) have any independently-verifiable information to justify the claim, made in ANSTO's `background information' document, that one third of imported isotope shipments arrive late; and (b) is it a fact, as stated by the former Minister for Industry, Science and Tourism (Mr McGauran), that the above claim relates to High Flux Australian Reactor (HIFAR) maintenance shut-downs; if so, how can this claim be reconciled with the claim of the South African Atomic Energy Corporation—now the supplier of molybdenum-99 (and other radioisotopes) during HIFAR down-time—that only one in two hundred of their overseas shipments arrive late.(2) Can ANSTO provide a detailed breakdown of imported radioisotope shipments during routine HIFAR shutdowns, giving a break-down of which suppliers are used, the quantities and product range.(3) (a) Why does ANSTO's background information document say that technetium-99m cannot be imported because of its 6 hour half-life, without going on to mention that the parent radioisotope, molybdenum-99, is widely transported all around the world; and (b) is ANSTO prepared to remove this comment from the background information document and the ANSTO internet site.(4) (a) Given that ANSTO claims in its submission to the Research Reactor Review that research reactors can be defined as encompassing a range of facilities from subcritical assemblies to prototype power reactors, how can ANSTO justify the comment in its background information document that `No research reactor has ever adversely impacted its community'; and (b) is ANSTO prepared to adjust this to take note that there have been a least three fatal research reactor accidents around the world (namely Yugoslavia 1958, USA 1961, Argentina 1983).(5) Can ANSTO provide up-dated projections of molybdenum-99 production versus LLW and ILW waste co-production at Lucas Heights from 1997 to the year 2025, assuming the use of low enriched uranium targets.(6) (a) Leaving aside the general maintenance and development of nuclear expertise, precisely what activities are carried out using the HIFAR reactor in relation to safeguards issues and other `national interest' issues; (b) what other facilities at ANSTO's Lucas Heights site are used for these purposes; and (c) precisely which facilities are used for which purpose (for example, the tandem accelerator ANTARES for environmental sampling).(7) With reference to ANSTO's background information document which says that, `Costs of spallation sources plus required accelerator range from $US 500 million to $1 billion' and ANSTO's submission to the Senate Select Committee on the Dangers of Radioactive Waste which mentions ISIS (United Kingdom), SINQ (Switzerland) and planned spallation sources (for example, ASTRON/Austria), and goes on to say that `The cost of each of these facilities is around $200 million: How can the above statements be reconciled with each other'.(8) Does ANSTO have data on the costs of existing and planned spallation sources; if so, can this data be provided.(9) (a) Is ANSTO aware of the claims of Yongen et al. (Belgian SCK-CEN, IBA) that a Myrrha/ Adonis spallation system is expected to cost considerably less than a commercial 15 MW reactor, and (b) does ANSTO dispute this claim.(10) With reference to ANSTO's background information document, which says that spallation sources do not match reactors for cold neutrons used in the study of polymers, biological molecules and many other areas: Can this claim be reconciled with the following comments from J W Boldeman (ANSTO Nuclear Physics section):- the proposed European Synchrotron Source would outperform ILL by a very large margin for most applications in condensed matter studies and would outperform ILL marginally in cold neutron based research- for applications involving cold neutrons, the dc spallation source significantly outperforms both a 15 MW reactor and AUSTRON, because neutrons are produced in a spallation source with less heat production and it is possible to couple the cold source more effectively to the neutron production target (Boldeman, J W, 1995, `Accelerator Reactor Hybrid Systems', Proceedings of the 1995 Conference on `Nuclear Science and Engineering in Australia, 1995', Lucas Heights, 30-31 October).(11) With reference to ANSTO's background information document, which says that `A spallation source cannot provide for bulk radioisotope production nor does it enable commercial irradiations': (a) is ANSTO unaware that the Belgian Myrrha/Adonis research and development program envisages the construction of multi-port, multi-purpose facilities used for various purposes including commercial purposes (for example silicon doping) and radioisotope production as well as research : and (b) does ANSTO dispute the claim that multi-purpose spallation sources are feasible.(12) With reference to ANSTO's background information document, which says that `Due to high maintenance requirements, spallation sources only operate for approximately two-thirds of any year': Precisely what is the basis for this claim, apart from the singular example of the UK facility, ISIS.(13) Does ANSTO dispute the claim of the Belgian Myrrha/Adonis team that its design promises easier maintenance, repair and upgrading because of its modular, flexible design.(14) Is ANSTO aware that the Belgian Myrrha/Adonis program is designed, specifically to replace the BR-2 reactor; if so, why does ANSTO continue to peddle the argument that spallation sources and reactors are complementary rather than competing neutron sources.(15) Is the Minister aware of ANSTO's misrepresentation of American nuclear scientist, Dr Lagu nas-Solar, who has written to the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) on this matter.(16) Given that ANSTO continues to misrepresent Dr Lagunas-Solar on its internet site: (a) is the Government prepared to direct ANSTO to remove the offending material from its internet site and send a written apology to Dr Lagunas-Solar; and (b) what faith can the Government have in ANSTO's views on the potential for cyclotrons to replace reactors when ANSTO is evidently unaware of the current status of Dr Lagunus-Solar's research program, nor even whether Dr Lagunas-Solar's research is still in progress, and when ANSTO has misrepresented Dr Lagunas-Solar.(17) (a) Has Dr Lagunas-Solar also been misrepresented by the former Minister representing the Minister for Science and Technology (Senator Ellison); (b) does Senator Ellison also quote selectively from Dr Lagunas-Solars's internet site, thereby misrepresenting him; (c) is it a fact that there has been no apology from Senator Ellison; (d) has Senator Ellison continued to misrepresent Dr Lagunas-Solar's views, claiming in Parliament that Dr Lagunas-Solar's letter to the Prime Minister indicates that a `large' number of cyclotrons would be required to service Australian needs, when Dr Lagunas-Solar's comments indicate no such thing; and (e) will Senator Ellison send a written apology to Dr Lagunas-Solar and refrain from misrepresenting him in future.(18) (a) Was a review conducted in 1997 to determine the feasibility of a cyclotron production of technetium-99m, as claimed by ANSTO; (b) who was on the review committee; (c) can a copy of the committee's report be made available; if not, why not; (d) why was Dr Lagunas-Solar not contacted during the course of this review.(19) (a) Is the Government aware that neither the Chief Scientist, nor the Australian Science and Technology Council (ASTEC), were even consulted before the decision was taken to build a new reactor; (b) how can this be justified; and (c) how can a new reactor be justified in the context of science funding cuts of 10.9% since the Coalition won government and projected cuts of 30% to medical research over the next 2 years.1467Parer, Sen WarwickSenator ParerKI4QLDLPResources and Energy10—The Minister for Industry, Science and Tourism has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) (a) Please refer to the response to HoR Question No 2345.(b) Yes. The South African Atomic Energy Corporation (SAAEC) was only one of the suppliers of molybdenum-99 to ANSTO during the extended shut-down of the HIFAR reactor for maintenance in 1995. I am unaware of the basis of the claim attributed to the SAAEC, but I note that the factors that cause delay, identified in Question No 2345, can affect deliveries from South Africa.(2) The requested data cannot be supplied as commercial-in-confidence issues are involved.(3) (a) ANSTO's comment about technetium-99m is accurate. It rebuts claims that Australia's requirements of technetium-99m can be supplied from direct imports.(b) No.(4) (a) & (b) ANSTO is not aware of any reports of off-site health consequences arising from the operation of a research reactor, including those identified in the question, and its position reflects this.(5) The current rate of generation of intermediate level waste (ILW) from molybdenum-99 production at ANSTO is about 340 litres per year (comprising 90 litres of primary waste and 230 litres of secondary waste with a lower radioactivity). Based on current projections of molybdenum-99 production, the quantities of this waste could increase by about 20% between now and the year 2005. The quantity of waste generated will depend on the process adopted. ANSTO is currently examining ways for improving the efficiency of its molybdenum-99 production operations, including minimisation of wastes. Increases in molybdenum-99 production are expected to have little impact on the quantities of low level radioactive waste generated.(6) (a) The expertise established by the operation of the HIFAR research reactor is used directly to undertake assessments for Australian government policy departments and agencies. These include non-proliferation diversion scenarios of specific countries based on knowledge of their research reactor programs, assessments of the environmental consequences of an overseas reactor incident, environmental monitoring to detect clandestine nuclear activities, measures to enhance nuclear safety culture, and safety assessments of visiting nuclear powered warships to Australia.(b) & (c) The ANTARES Tandem Accelerator is used for investigating the application of signature fission products at minute levels to determine the nature of nuclear activities carried out at nuclear research establishments. However only the operation of the research reactor provides the expertise required to assess the non-proliferation implications of these results. It is through the broad range of multi-disciplinary expertise necessary to underpin ANSTO's activities at the Lucas Heights Science & Technology Centre that the capability is available to undertake strategic national interest assessments.(7) The full cost of the proposed Spallation Neutron Source at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in the US is budgeted at $US1.33 billion. ANSTO's submission to the Senate Select Committee on the Dangers of Radioactive Waste does not include the statement attributed to ANSTO in part (7).(8) Yes. Costs of planned facilities are in excess of $US1 billion for the European Spallation Source (5 MW) and the Spallation Neutron Source (1 MW) in the US. Costs were estimated at about $US300 million for the Austrian AUSTRON facility (240 kW) in 1997. The cost of existing spallation sources is difficult to evaluate due to the fact that they are typically former high-energy physics facilities that have been converted to provide a neutron scattering competence.(9) (a) Yes.(b) ANSTO notes that Myrrha/ADONIS is still at the concept stage. ANSTO has not seen any detailed costing data and, in the absence of such data, is unable to express a view on this matter.(10) A modern spallation source of a comparable cost to the replacement reactor would not have an equivalent capability for cold neutron research. The statement quoted from a paper by an ANSTO officer refers to the billion dollar facilities such as the European Spallation Source which will have a competitive performance for cold neutron research. These billion dollar facilities are specifically designed for neutron scattering research and do not have the broad range of applications of a research reactor. The operating costs of such facilities would also be significantly in excess of those for a 15 MW reactor.(11) (a) No.(b) ANSTO is aware of claims by Myrrha/ADONIS proponents that multipurpose spallation systems are feasible, but notes that, to date, no Myrrha/ADONIS facility has been constructed to prove its feasibility.(12) The statement is based on discussions held by ANSTO with directors of spallation source facilities in the US and UK. Further, the Web page for the IPNS spallation source at the Argonne National Laboratory shows the operating time as 52%.(13) As the ADONIS/Myrrha design is only at the conceptual stage, ANSTO has not seen relevant detailed technical data and, in the absence of such data, is unable to express a view on this matter.(14) Yes. The Myrrha/ADONIS concept has been discussed for several years. Nevertheless, no commitment has been made to the construction of such a facility. The spallation sources currently in operation are major items of scientific research infrastructure. It is widely recognised by the neutron scattering community that such spallation sources are complementary to research reactors.(15) (16) and (17) Dr Lagunas-Solar has not been misrepresented.(18) (a) ANSTO established an informal working group to assess the use of cyclotrons for the production of medical radioisotopes in 1996.(b) The working group consisted of ANSTO officers and representatives from the Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Sydney, the Austin Hospital, Melbourne, and the Department of Industry, Science and Tourism.(c) No. The working group did not produce a formal report.(d) Dr Lagunas-Solar was contacted on behalf of the working group and his views sought. Further, an ANSTO officer attended the International Atomic Energy Agency's Consultants Meeting on Molybdenum-99/Technetium-99m Technologies in April 1997, which Dr Lagunas-Solar also attended and discussed his work. During the meeting, Dr Lagunas-Solar expressed the personal view that cyclotron-produced technetium-99m might have a role in a small country or a regional centre with limited infrastructure (for example, no reactor), and a willingness to purchase an 18-30 MeV cyclotron in order to be self-sufficient in "instant" technetium-99m.(19) (a) & (b) The process that led to the 1997 announcement began in the early 1990s. Following input from the scientific community, the Australian Science Technology and Engineering Council (ASTEC) listed a replacement research reactor as one of its seven priorities for new facilities in its Major National Research Facilities—National Program Report (1992). The current Chief Scientist deals with a small number of issues at the request of the Government. The issue of the replacement reactor was not referred to him.(c) Direct support for science and innovation has risen by 3.5 per cent in the two budgets since this Government was elected. The replacement reactor is being funded on a whole-of-government basis, not at the expense of science and innovation programs.